Pro-choice was not made the law of the land to allow women to opt out of motherhood. Abortion is allowed because it has been decided that a women should have control over her own body.
Roe v. Wade gave a women an additional choice. The choice over what happens to her body after she becomes pregnant. It did not take away any choices from men.
Abortions purpose is not to allow women to seperate the act of sex from pregnancy and childbirth. That is what birth control does for both men and women. That abortion prevents a child from being born is simply the result of a women having control over own body.
Allowing men to decide if they want a women to have an abortion or not allows them to have some control over what happens to a women’s body again.
To add to what In Conceivable said, you have to examine what has to happen in order for each gender to “opt out”, under the OP’s plan: for the mother, it’s to engage in a fairly dangerous, fertility-threatening, mentally arduous operation.
For the father, it’s to sign a piece of paper. Which may be mentally arduous, but simply isn’t the same.
I find it intriguing that often (but not always), there is a much stronger “keep it in your pants if you don’t want the responsibility” sentiment directed at men than a “don’t spread 'em if you don’t want the responsibility” sentiment directed at women… A vestige of male dominance or societal view of man as the ‘provider’ perhaps? More controversially, one vestige of sexism that the pro-choice and/or feminist camps don’t seem that eager to get rid of?
I remain of the opinion that there is a fundamental imbalance here: post-conception, women do retain a choice while men essentially don’t. (Pre-conception both have the same choice)While the options are not precisely the same for each gender, in each case it’s fundamentally about making a very long-term commitment physically, emotionally, financially and otherwise. I feel a way should be found to address this (even if not the exact way I set out before).
Don’t want to open a can of worms, but I still don’t see how one can be “pro choice” regarding a woman’s right to control the outcome of a pregnancy but deny the man involved a choice (barring extreme situations like sperm donor, rape, health issues, etc.) I don’t buy the “it’s my body, don’t tell me what to do with it” riposte to this for the simple reason that it DOES take two to tango. Ladies & Germs, you BOTH knew what might happen when you did the dirty deed… Neither of you could have created a child without the other… You should BOTH have a say in what happens from that point forward, and neither should have “veto” power: my view is if the decision IS NOT unanimous one way or 'tother, then we default in favor of either party who IS willing to take/raise the child.
Fuji: I agree with your sentiments about how a man can “control” the potential for offspring, but would add that a woman has precisely the same options to be in control: abstinence or sterlization (or both can use birth control with some added degree of risk).
Past thread on topic:Does HE have to pay for UNWANTED kid? There are others, including one from Our Winter of Missed Content that is still available through Boardreader cache, an OP by Grienspace called “Are you 100% pro choice?”
I am not of the opinion that a women should have control over the outcome of a pregnancy. But, the law is that a women has control over her own body. There is a big difference.
Exactly. Women have the same options as men until it comes to the time that she is pregnant. Before she is pregnant it is about control over the potential for offspring. After she is pregnant it is control about her body.
Why are you so quick to to give men a free pass on taking care of thier own offspring but unwilling to allow that women should have total freedom over their own body? That is a fundamental imbalance to me.
So, how about we give women total control over their own body, and men total control over their sperm cells? “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”, and IMHO, the zygote is half my nose.
One last thing before I go to bed…you are still not getting my point robert. A man has control over his body and a women has control over hers. If you don’t want a women to become pregnant you use birth control. Once a baby (or zygote) is created it isn’t about sperm or eggs or the right to not become a parent.
Abortions didn’t become legal because women have the right to opt out of having a baby. Abortions are legal because a women has a right over her body. You tell me how a zygote is part of a man’s body once it is growing in a women.
Should a man be able to opt out post-conception and before the abortion deadline? Most definitely, however I think there needs to be further restrictions. Namely I would like to see the man express he does not want a child prior to conception either explicitly through word of mouth/agreement with the woman and/or implictly via the use of contraception paraphernalia condoms/birth control etc. In this case women understand that in the event of failure of contraception the male party involved clearly does not want the child. It is therefore an educated choice wether or not to partake in Sex. Obviously this is unbalanced in favor of men since we do not have to go through abortion. However I do not think there is a fairer way to do things. Prove me wrong!
Should a man be able to force a woman to bring a baby to term with the understanding that the woman is relinquished from all parental responsibility? Most definitely not. It is forcing her to go through 9 months of hardship. Cruel and unusual as it was already pointed out.
I, In Conceivable, DO get your point. I simply don’t agree with you. Robert may well be in the same boat, but that’s for him to say.
I find it odd that you’re so quick to divorce the zygote from its origins, but you would shudder to ascribe independence of any kind to it. It’s either still a direct product of the parents’ sperm and egg jointly, or it’s an independent organism (and thus shame on you for aborting it).
You have hit on one idea I agree with utterly: bed. Goodnight all.
Because, as we all know, it’s all about money. His precious money. Damned if he should actually be responsible for his actions, or anything. Better to have the government or the woman to support a child that he helped create. As long as his precious wallet is not tampered with.
It’s an unfair game, and some of you want to make it even more unfair. The man leaves his sperm in her (something he very voluntarily does, to be sure) and then maybe she becomes pregnant. No matter what happens (abortion, carry to term and give up for adoption, carry to term and support) the woman has some really difficult choices to make. And often some really difficult changes to her body. Because that’s how biology set it up. Sucks for her, but she’s the one that gets pregnant. And what is he doing all this time? Who knows?
But the man—well, God Forbid he do anything to avoid the pregnancy he obviously doesn’t want, like, well, get a vasectomy or something like that. Even though getting a vasectomy would protect the Sacred Wallet, because he wouldn’t be fathering any unwanted children. But that would mean he’d have to have a medical procedure! Can’t have that! That’s beyond unreasonable! Better to wait until he has sex with the woman, she gets pregnant, and then he can act greived and appalled and expect her to carry the entire responsiblity for it herself. Because of course he had no clue beforehand that sex led to pregnancy. And of course he was powerless to do anything (like a vasectomy) to avoid the whole pregnancy mess in the first place. Better to wait until after the fact and then cry about how “unfair” it is. And how unfair it is to his sacred wallet.
And, of course there’s the fact that women always have to undergo medical procedures (abortion, childbirth) when a pregnancy occurs, but that’s different. Because it’s her discomfort, her body that gets affected. So that’s OK, that’s different. As long as he doesn’t have the vasectomy, all’s cool. But he shouldn’t have to pay anything for the child he helps create. That’s way too unfair. To expect that he help support the child he helped create, even though he could have prevented it by getting a vasectomy? (Or just abstaining?) Naw. That just isn’t “fair”, is it? Because it affects his sacred wallet.
Where did you get from what I said that I “shudder to ascribe independence of any kind” to a zygote? I believe firmly that a zygote is a independent one-of-a-kind organism. I am also pro-life. However the zygote is in a women’s body. The law in the US is that womem control what grows in their body.
In the OP you said
I tried to respect the guidelines you set up for this debate. It is funny how you are so quick to throw them aside rather then actually address my points.
Now although there isn’t a clear cut argument for me either way, surely the point here yosemitebabe is that it may well notsuck for her, in that the women may be quite happy with the pregnancy and happy to give birth to a baby which the guy will pay for, even though he may not want the child.
Look, your body is your property. My wallet is my property. If you (rightly, IMHO) say that you have the right to do what you want with your property an’ it harm none, why do I not have same right with mine? Isn’t demanding financial support in the same category as demanding biological support?
One thing no one has mentioned yet is the social repercussions of this if implemented.
Lets say that a new law is passed, allowing men to “Opt out” of parental obligations for pregnancies they didn’t intend, and don’t want to support. It makes sense to me. A one night stand with a condom on could still lead to a pregnancy. Some seem to think that this implies a consent to fatherhood for the man, but I don’t see that.
If this was the law of the land, there would be less out of wedlock pregancies. There would be less single mothers as a result. Mothers would be more likely to get an abortion if they knew they didn’t have the support, willing or not, of the father.
Now, having more abortions isn’t something that should be celebrated, but having less single mothers raising unwanted children is.