# If a man requests, but woman won't have abortion, should he be freed of obligation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209 "2003-02-10T21:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![andymurph64](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@andymurph64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andymurph64)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/301 "2003-02-14T15:43:27Z")
Geez Laweezzz people!! All your arguments and counter arguments are meaningless unless you change the laws to force a woman to have an abortion or the complete elimination of government support for children. This is not going happen. The State/taxpayers WILL NOT ALLOW any scheme you come up with that has a probability that the state will have to support the child. People object to taxes and will strongly object to any scheme that allows a biological father to force the taxpayers to pay for his child. This society will not allow the having an official policy of starvation of unwanted children. If the child exists, it will incur costs and, if the state needs to pick up the tab, will pursue the mother and father for this $$$. I have admitted that it is ‘unfair’ that mothers can choose abortion but fathers cannot. However, society will not officially implement a policy of forcing abortions or starving children. So, fathers, you are on the hook. Also, it will keep getting worse and worse on these fathers as time goes on in that the state/taxpayers are becoming more repulsed by footing the bill and more serious about making the resopnsible people pay for their mess. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/302 "2003-02-14T15:55:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\* > In Robertland, there would be a bureau of parents, where you would submit documentation stating that you would be financially and legally liable for your child for 18 years. No documentation, no parenthood. To prevent total strangers from attempting to opt in to your family, approval to be a parent would require a majority of current parents’ approval (if Mom chooses to become parent, then Dad requires her permission to join. Should a trusted neighbor wish to become a co-parent, he or she would require both parents’ approval. Possibly parents could give partial shares of parenthood to extended family, and a majority would be required for legal situations that the parents are supposed to decide. > \*\* Robert, this dream may be closer to the current state of affairs than you think. I’m not talking about legalities here. I’m limiting myself to the moral questions about parental responsibilities. If I may paraphrase you from this quote and other posts you’ve made, I believe you think that no one should be a parent unless he (or she) agrees to be. But once someone agrees to be a parent to a particular child he/she is then obligated to all of the traditional parental duties like food shelter, education, love, etc. The only way out of being a parent after voluntarily agreeing to become one would be by a majority agreement of the other parents. Could you agree to this? I can agree to this. I think you are correct when you say that obligations toward another should only be enforced when you have agreed to them. However, agreement to an obligation can take many forms. It certainly can take the form of a written agreement. But it can also take the form of reasonable consequences. That is if you perform some action which has a resonable chance of inflicting a particular consequence on me then I should be able to expect to enforce some responsibility for that consequence. The analogies that have floated throughout this thread have hinted at this principle, so I won’t add another. The point is that an agreement to accept an obligation can take many forms other than signing a paper. Having said all of that, I would suggest: \*\* Having sex is an act which constitutes an agreement to parent any resulting child with the other person. This part of the agreement is made by both parties. In addition the male agrees to allow the woman control of the child for around 9 months and the woman agrees to reasonable gestation fo the child for that period. This agreement is the default in the absence of any other arrangement the 2 parties might make\*\* This would not preclude abortion or abstinence. It would mean that the woman would have to consult with the male before aborting the pregnancy. But the “resonable gestation” phrase is meant to allow her final say over what is medically resonable during the pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/303 "2003-02-14T16:00:23Z")
**robert** > [@](#): > > My wallet is large and thick, thank you very much. And I don’t think that women should be expected to take care of the kids they produce if they do not choose to. So where’s the accountability? Do you think that parents who lock their kids up in the closet and withhold food and water should go unprosecuted? Do you think it is okay for women to dump their babies into dumpsters? If that is okay in your ideal world, then why have laws in the first place? Everybody should just be able to do what they please, to hell with civilization. ---
**Author:** ![In\_Conceivable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@In\_Conceivable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/In_Conceivable)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/304 "2003-02-14T16:37:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*My wallet is large and thick, thank you very much. And I don’t think that women should be expected to take care of the kids they produce if they do not choose to. > \*\* I am having trouble with this. Is your position that no one should have to support their children if they don’t want to after they are born? Or is your position that men shouldn’t have to support their own children because the women could have aborted it? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/305 "2003-02-14T17:48:12Z")
Face, In, my position is that unless I explicitly state that I desire fatherhood, I should not be forced to be a father. If you agree to become a parent, and abuse/neglect your child, you should be screwed to the fullest extent of the law. But, if you don’t agree, you shouldn’t be given any more oppertunity to abuse/neglect your child then a random person has. > [@](#): > > How is it moral to let your children starve? How is it moral to feed them with stolen money? The voting-out by majority is also a good idea. I like it. Re your alternate idea: > [@](#): > > Having sex is an act which constitutes an agreement to parent any resulting child with the other person. This part of the agreement is made by both parties. In addition the male agrees to allow the woman control of the child for around 9 months and the woman agrees to reasonable gestation fo the child for that period. This agreement is the default in the absence of any other arrangement the 2 parties might make. While I still maintain that in theory you shouldn’t be automatically opted into potential parenthood by sex, I also recognize that your plan is far more workable in practice than mine. I like the prior arrangement clause. I’m assuming that it would provide for a simple “include-me-out” contract that someone who didn’t want to be a parent and was up-front with this desire would get their partners to sign? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/306 "2003-02-14T18:11:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Face, In, my position is that unless I explicitly state that I desire fatherhood, I should not be forced to be a father. If you agree to become a parent, and abuse/neglect your child, you should be screwed to the fullest extent of the law. But, if you don’t agree, you shouldn’t be given any more oppertunity to abuse/neglect your child then a random person has. This is my position as well. An unwilling father is not a father at all. If the technology for morning after pills and abortions didn’t exist then I could see hodling the father responsible for paying for a child. But, as long as the mother has options to not continue the pregnancy, the responsablility of raising the child should fall on her if the father doesn’t want it born. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/307 "2003-02-14T18:50:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\* > The voting-out by majority is also a good idea. I like it. Re your alternate idea: > > While I still maintain that in theory you shouldn’t be automatically opted into potential parenthood by sex, I also recognize that your plan is far more workable in practice than mine. I like the prior arrangement clause. I’m assuming that it would provide for a simple “include-me-out” contract that someone who didn’t want to be a parent and was up-front with this desire would get their partners to sign? \*\* Right. The opt-out would have to come before sex though. Also I am willing to consider that certain precautions would indicate a desire to opt-out before sex and thus constitue a prior arrangement. Exactly how much such a prior agreement limits liability I’m not sure though. Just for curiosity, though, why exactly do you think that sex should not be an agreement? I’m suggesting it only because I think it is clearly an action which can be reasonably expected to cause a certain result. If you have a principle in mind which cancels this sort of responsibility out I’m interested. Mind you, I agree that the woman’s participation certainly limits the man’s responsibility. That is she definately owns part of the obligations. But you and Debaser among others seem to feel that the father has 0 obligations. I’m intrigued by the possibility that you are applying some principle that I have not consdered. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/308 "2003-02-14T19:14:54Z")
by **robert** > [@](#): > > Face, In, my position is that unless I explicitly state that I desire fatherhood, I should not be forced to be a father. If you agree to become a parent, and abuse/neglect your child, you should be screwed to the fullest extent of the law. But, if you don’t agree, you shouldn’t be given any more oppertunity to abuse/neglect your child then a random person has. How do you “agree” to be a parent? You either are or you aren’t. Parents are parents, regardless of their wishes. Seriously, and I mean this respectfully, your argument sounds rather juvenile. Is it moral, in your world, for a woman to abandon her infant on someone’s doorstep because she doesn’t want to be a parent? And is it moral for that person to ignore the cries of the baby because they couldn’t be bothered? At some point, someone has to be mature enough to own up to their actions and the consequences of their actions. If you have sex and assume that things will go your way just because you want them to, then maybe…just maybe…you’re not mature enough to handle sex. by **Debaser** > [@](#): > > An unwilling father is not a father at all. If the technology for morning after pills and abortions didn’t exist then I could see hodling the father responsible for paying for a child. But, as long as the mother has options to not continue the pregnancy, the responsablility of raising the child should fall on her if the father doesn’t want it born. Please read this analogy that I made earlier and comment upon it: > [@](#): > > Let’s say you burned down my house by being negligent with a cigarette. Let’s also say that I wasn’t a total victim, because I was being stupid along with you. But let’s say you were co-participant in the act that led to my house being burned down, as determined by Judge Judy, with means you are partially culpable and accountable. > > Let’s say then that I’m left with two mutually exclusive options: 1) go live with my mother and father or 2) get money from you to get another house. Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that if I took the first option, you wouldn’t owe me any money. Does that mean I have to pick the first option? > > No. I shouldn’t be made to live with my parents just because you don’t want to help pay for the mistake we made. You have no control over deciding what option I pick, but that doesn’t mean you are not to be held accountable if I choose option 2. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/309 "2003-02-14T19:24:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by you with the face \* > How do you “agree” to be a parent? You either are or you aren’t. Parents are parents, regardless of their wishes. No. This is factually incorrect. If a woman _wishes_ not to be a parent, she can have an abortion. How do you not understand this? > [@](#): > > Seriously, and I mean this respectfully, your argument sounds rather juvenile. You don’t understand it. Please read this analogy that I made earlier and comment upon it: [/QUOTE] This analogy is meaningless because having a baby isn’t an accident like burning down a house is. After discovering the pregnancy a woman has plenty of time to decide to abort or keep it. \*_It is this decision, that leads to the birth of the baby._ Your analogy would only make sense if the house was going to take 9 months to burn down, and for the first several months action could be taken to prevent it that would result in a very low risk of damage and have a small amount of cost, which the man would pay for. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/310 "2003-02-14T19:41:40Z")
by **Bebaser** > [@](#): > > No. This is factually incorrect. If a woman wishes not to be a parent, she can have an abortion. How do you not understand this? And a man who wishes not to be a parent can choose to abstain or at least wear a condom. That “wish”, however, is not an action and it takes action (or inaction) to prevent parenthood, not mere desire. How can you not understand this? > [@](#): > > This analogy is meaningless because having a baby isn’t an accident like burning down a house is. After discovering the pregnancy a woman has plenty of time to decide to abort or keep it. \*_It is this decision, that leads to the birth of the baby._ Even if this was the case all the time, I don’t see how it invalidates the analogy. Two adults make a mistake = two adults have to deal with the ramifications of their mistake, even though one of those adults is in a position the other is not in. > [@](#): > > Your analogy would only make sense if the house was going to take 9 months to burn down, and for the first several months action could be taken to prevent it that would result in a very low risk of damage and have a small amount of cost, which the man would pay for. You aren’t very good with analogies, are you? It looks like this one soared way over your head. And I say this respectfully. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/311 "2003-02-14T20:13:07Z")
> [@](#): > > _robertligouri wrote:_ > > How is it moral to feed them with stolen money? **YES!!!** Which is _exactly_ how most taxpayers feel about having their taxes spent to **SUPPORT DEADBEAT PARENTS’ CHILDREN!!!** You have the wrong idea about what “theft” is. My taxes being yanked from _my_ wallet to pay to support the child that _you_ helped create but are too selfish (or whatever) to support is as near to theft as I can imagine. The government insisting that you actually **SUPPORT YOUR OWN OFFSPRING** is _not_ theft. It was _your_ sperm that fertilized that egg, not the taxpayers’. And you knew that going in. To continue to instist that even though you _knew_ beforehand that sex could equal pregnancy, and that birth control is not foolproof, and that the woman is under _no obligation_ to have anything sucked out of her body (that _YOU_ helped put in there)—you knew this all before you had sex and you wanted sex anyway. No sympathy for you and your wallet if you are unlucky enough to actually impregnate her. You knew the risks going in, you took them anyway, too late to complain now about how “unfair” it is. (AND IT IS NOT THEFT to expect you to follow through and pay for your actions.) Much sympathy goes for the poor taxpayers who are saddled supporting abandoned children. Much sympathy for the children themselves, who are unlucky enough to have such selfish and irresponsible parents. But, once again, **NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU AND YOUR WALLET.** ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/312 "2003-02-14T20:15:54Z")
Ooh. I should have said, NO! It is NOT moral to feed children with stolen (taxpayers’) money. Yeesh. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/313 "2003-02-14T20:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Right. The opt-out would have to come before sex though. Should come before sex. If you’re really drunk the night before and forget, but get it signed afterwords, then all is good. If you forget and she refuses to sign, then you’re (heh) screwed. > [@](#): > > Also I am willing to consider that certain precautions would indicate a desire to opt-out before sex and thus constitue a prior arrangement. Exactly how much such a prior agreement limits liability I’m not sure though. The reason I’d prefer a written statement of intent is that it is unambiguous. If signaling intentions was enough, imagine the fun when he claimed he used a condom, and she claimed he made pillow talk about Baby. > [@](#): > > Just for curiosity, though, why exactly do you think that sex should not be an agreement? I’m suggesting it only because I think it is clearly an action which can be reasonably expected to cause a certain result. If you have a principle in mind which cancels this sort of responsibility out I’m interested. Mind you, I agree that the woman’s participation certainly limits the man’s responsibility. That is she definately owns part of the obligations. But you and Debaser among others seem to feel that the father has 0 obligations. I’m intrigued by the possibility that you are applying some principle that I have not consdered. Partly, I am damn leery of anything which is not explicity legally binding having the force of a contract, especially an action such as sex, which is undertaken all the time with no desire for either party to become pregnant. In addition, there is too much potential for ‘fraud’ under the current system (woman claims she had her tubes tied, is on pill, etc.) If having sex should be an enforcable agreement to care for a resultant child, should a promise that there will be no child negate that agreement? Re the responsibility: I could bring free will into this. If I make a widget, and give it to someone, then I am ‘guilty’ of giving a widget to someone. If the widget is a gun and I am giving it to a terrorist, then I am fucking dumb, but should not be held accountable if the terrorist chooses to shoot someone with it. The terrorist’s free will over what the gun does trumps my respobsibilty for making the gun. Incidentally, if you change the gun to a time bomb with a 9 month fuse, you still must remember that the terrorist chose to pick it up and carry it around for 9 months. Face: I would say that if I dropped a cigarette in your house, with your full permission and knowledge that I did it and that it could cause a fire, and that you chose to sit and watch it smoulder for 9 months with a pail of water and a fire extinguisher available, and let it burn, then it’s not my fault your house burned down. yosemitebabe: > [@](#): > > My taxes being yanked from my wallet to pay to support the child that you helped create but are too selfish (or whatever) to support is as near to theft as I can imagine. We’ve been over this 50 kazillion times. I am challenging the assertion that just because my DNA is represented in a child, that I should be forced to parent said kid. That means that you tell me \*\* why \*\* I should parent said kid. Please keep in mind that I have no problem with anyone of any age unable or unwilling to feed themself without theft starving. My basic moral premises, if you would like them to attack my arguments: Theft is wrong. Trespass and vandalism are forms of theft. Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you. (The right to access it and the right to break it, if vandalism or trespassing). I own property, which includes my body/mind. Therfore, taking something from my property is wrong. Also, for the love of God, don’t throw out the “keep it in your pants” argument. Having sex is not an agreement to care for the result of said sex, especially since there is no way to legally opt out of caring for said results. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/314 "2003-02-14T20:34:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Having sex is not an agreement to care for the result of said sex, especially since there is no way to legally opt out of caring for said results. You write that as if by stating it, it becomes true. That we will just accept it. We don’t, and it does not become true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Since when is _anyone_ not expected to be responsible for their actions? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/315 "2003-02-14T20:42:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Since when is anyone not expected to be responsible for their actions? Since when do we hold the widget-makers responsible for what people choose to do with their widgets? You are repeating that if I have sex, I **should** be held financially responsible if the woman has a baby. Not will be in a paternity case, but should. Saying that won’t make it true, either. I have presented the basis of my moral system, and tried to show a clear path from there to why enforced child support is wrong. I challenge you to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![In\_Conceivable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@In\_Conceivable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/In_Conceivable)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/316 "2003-02-14T20:44:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*yosemitebabe: > We’ve been over this 50 kazillion times. I am challenging the assertion that just because my DNA is represented in a child, that I should be forced to parent said kid. That means that you tell me \*\* why \*\* I should parent said kid. > \*\* Huh?? You aren’t forced to parent a kid. You are a kid’s parent. If the child has 50% of your DNA then you are a parent. Since you are 1/2 of the parents that kid has then you have 1/2 of the responsibility for taking care of it. \*\* > [@](#): > > Please keep in mind that I have no problem with anyone of any age unable or unwilling to feed themselves without theft starving. > \*\* Really nice. You have no problem with a three month old baby starving. Do you tell women this before you sleep with them? How can you justify that morally? You have moral arguments against theft but none against letting babies starve? > [@](#): > > \*\* > My basic moral premises, if you would like them to attack my arguments: Theft is wrong. Trespass and vandalism are forms of theft. Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you. (The right to access it and the right to break it, if vandalism or trespassing). I own property, which includes my body/mind. Therfore, taking something from my property is wrong. > \*\* There are many times that your definition of theft isn’t wrong. If you injure someone you are required to pay restitution. Just because you want to call it theft doesn’t make it wrong. Child support isn’t theft. It is taking money from you to pay your obligations. Just like restitution in a case where you injured someone. ---
**Author:** ![In\_Conceivable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@In\_Conceivable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/In_Conceivable)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/317 "2003-02-14T20:48:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Since when do we hold the widget-makers responsible for what people choose to do with their widgets? > \*\* Since always! What else are half the law suits in the country about? Why else do we have warnings on hair dryers not to use them in the shower? Why else have people gotten money out of tobacco companies for their lung cancer and Ford when their trucks burst into flames when they are in an accident? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/318 "2003-02-14T20:54:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Should come before sex. If you’re really drunk the night before and forget, but get it signed afterwords, then all is good. If you forget and she refuses to sign, then you’re (heh) screwed. > \*\* Yea, that seems like it would fall under the majority allowed opt out clause. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/319 "2003-02-14T21:05:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*The reason I’d prefer a written statement of intent is that it is unambiguous. If signaling intentions was enough, imagine the fun when he claimed he used a condom, and she claimed he made pillow talk about Baby. > \*\* That’s the situation we have now. And yes it is most confusing. They both can say anything before and the exact opposite afterwards. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be written down. It could be somethign along the lines of an implied warrenty. If we all agree that sex is risky then this sort of discussion could be used to define the risk and the circumstances under which it can be limited. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209/320 "2003-02-14T21:09:36Z")
How many states have laws that allow a woman to drop a baby off at a fire station or hospital, no questions asked, never to be seen again, and never to be supported by her? If a woman can do that and terminate all responsibility or ‘obligation’ to a born child, regardless of who the father is and without his knowledge or consent, why can’t a man terminate his fatherhood without her consent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-man-requests-but-woman-wont-have-abortion-should-he-be-freed-of-obligation/154209.md?page=17)