Perhaps for you, SciFiSam but there are women for whom abortion is quite an open option and one that they will take without much by way of moral or emotional distress. These women are, quite fortunately, a small minority, but they’re out there. So perhaps it would be best to not generalize either way, eh?
Nightime - stupid as it sounds, my Mother talked me out of it. She had a breakdown when I said I was considering adoption, and ended up persuading me to keep the child.
They shouldnt be required. If a man is not the father, and if he did not adopt, he should not be forced to pay anything, regardless of how long a time period.
tlw, I never said all women have problems after abortion. I do think it’s a significant majority though (I will try to look up some statistics on that; haven’t had any luck so far and it’s very late at night).
Since women are the “gatekeepers” to their own uterus, they should accept responsibility for whatever they allow to grow in it. I think it’s as simple as that.
Over the past decades, women have gotten greater rights. But with great rights should come great responsibilities.
You want full and complete control of your uterus? Fine. Consequently, you should have full and complete responsibility for whatever you allow to grow in your uterus.
Can’t vasectomies be reversed, though? I know reversal is not a hundred percent, but hey - sterility is a complication of abortion, as well, and what I’m hearing on this thread is that if a woman can’t afford to raise a child alone, and the man doesn’t want to, then she should get an abortion (since it’s unfair for either the father OR society to have to provide for the child). So aren’t both parties facing similar risks here?
Let’s say men are given the choice to “opt out” of child support:
Woman gets pregnant - man opts out - woman can’t afford to support child alone - woman gets abortion and risks sterility ( a potential complication of abortion). Or, woman decides to have the child and faces the responsibility of supporting that child alone, regardless of the financial burden it entails. While both parties willingly had sex, the woman is making the ultimate decision of the outcome of the pregnancy (child or no child), and also bearing the risks and/or hardships associated with abortion OR raising the child as a single parent. If abortion (no child) was chosen, the woman may or may not be able to have children later in life (the sterility issue).
Now, if men continue to be unable to “opt out” of child support:
Man gets vasectomy - man risks permanent sterility - BUT no pregnancy occurs. The “opt out” happens PRIOR TO conception, in this case (the man is making the ultimate decision about whether a pregnancy will even occur). Or, the man doesn’t have a vasectomy, remains fertile, the woman gets pregnant, and the man faces the responsibility of supporting that child, regardless of the financial burden it entails. While both parties willingly had sex, the man is making the ultimate decision of the outcome of the pregnancy (no child), and also bears the risks and/or hardships associated with vasectomy (possible sterility). If vasectomy was chosen, the man may or may not be able to have children later in life.
If my thinking is flawed feel free to point it out - I’m thinking on the fly here.
deborak: Vasectomy has a failure rate like any other form of birth control. In your second scenario, what happens if the man has a vasectomy but the woman still gets pregnant?
I’m still undecided on this topic.
In past ‘male abortion’ threads, the “child’s right to support” argument has swayed me, but now I’m not so sure. On one hand I believe the woman makes the sole choice to have the child, hence bears sole responsibility. On the other hand, given the choice, I would much prefer the actual participants to fund their offspring, rather than the general public. Obviously, I have more thinking to do.
Just thought I’d post this so some of you know that there are lurkers following your words. Might encourage some of you to continue beating your heads against the brick wall ? 
Mr2001, I’ll have to wuss out and say I’m not sure. 
Like I said, thinking aloud here, but it was more a response to the idea that vasectomy should only be considered as a permanent thing (i.e. not for a young man who is just not ready for kids yet).
There’s a part of me that is unsympathetic towards the men, if only because they’re not at least trying everything in their power to avoid pregnancy. If vasectomy has a very low failure rate and condoms a relatively high failure rate, and the future of a child is theoretically at stake, shouldn’t the man’s best effort to avoid pregnancy be used? (Note that I also expect the woman’s best effort to be used, too, in the form of effective birth control.)
There is also a part of me that concedes that, after trying his best to avoid pregnancy, it IS unfair to a man to be put in the position of supporting a child he doesn’t want.
Let’s just say that I’d be much more sympathetic toward a man that really had tried everything possible (short of celibacy, obviously) to keep an unwanted pregnancy from occuring, rather than one who might do the condom thing and then think that he’s done his part, and expect that the woman will take care of all of the awful choices that come afterward.
Gee, can’t be any more noncommital than that, can I?
I’m positive I don’t have all the answers, but as much as some here see an unfair amount of responsibility placed on reluctant fathers, I see the same amount of responsibility on the mother’s side. It’s never going to be equal, so at this point I’m all about finding the lesser of two evils.
The man is not pregnant, so it’s not his responsibility. Biology never locked a man up for not living up to his “earning potential”. Nature gives a pregnant woman an umbilical cord to support her child and nature gives a man a pair of legs to flee on. If nature has given only you choice, it has given only you responsibility, no matter how much the traditionalists in the government would like this to change.
Nature has placed this burden solely on women, so why has the government taken these intrusive steps to take money from unwilling men?
She can’t give up the child for adoption without the consent of the father, unless she doesn’t tell him about the kid at all. She can easily claim not to even know who the father is, if she want the child gone, or name him if she wants money. Thus she has all the options, none of the responsibility.
Similarly she may be obligated to pay child support, but she is incredibly unlikely to lose custody and even if that were to happen she would be less likely to be order to pay up and even then in smaller amounts with less chance of facing harsh punishment if she doesn’t pay up. No-one got elected going after deadbeat mums.
Why should men have a greater responsibility than women and women a greater choice than men? No, it’s in no way fair to give men the choices women had before abortion was legal: don’t have sex, sterilise yourself, break the law or give up control of your body.
Like blacks are more likely to be paddled in schools, these laws aren’t applied equally.
No joke, but why did pencilpusher feel it necessary to add the comment:
And then emphasize it with the little “eek” smilie?
I dunno, but I guess because it seems a little shocking at first glance that the bio father can just walk away, with no strings, but the adoptive father has no such ability. I mean, they both chose to become fathers, one by the penis, one by the pen.
Thats exactly why I put the little :eek on there. I didn’t know that he would have to pay CS until the judge told us. I was shocked to say the least. I thought it was ONLY the bio father that had to pay but since my DH has taken the reins as far as caretaker of my son I guess it’s only right.
But, I suppose, that it is not shocking that bio mothers can walk away? Nah, we’re accustomed to that.
BTW: The man that used the pen actually made a choice. The man that used the other thing is just being held to the standard of making a choice. A standard that women demand not to be held accountable to. A double standard.
… or the woman puts the child up for adoption. Or possibly just drops it off somewhere, as I believe someone in this thread said was possible. I am wondering why so many women seem to believe abortion is the only option if the man wants to opt out and she can’t afford a child, but never adoption?
Yeah, the thing that gets me is the moral outrage. There is no moral law that says women should have choices and men should not. There is no moral reason why a woman can choose not to be stuck with the burden of a child, but a man is literally forced to be stuck with it. Yet many, many people believe that this is the way it should be, rather than just the most currently practical way.
Once again, I am not saying it is fair. I am just being realistic. If men could opt out without using birth control, don’t you think that one of the major reasons for men using birth control would be gone, and far more children would be born who would have to be supported by the government? And no, I do not think that letting the children starve is an acceptable alternative.
My concern with condoms, is that it could easily turn into a he-said, she-said, over whether or not a condom was used. How could the man prove he used one? And also, they fail more often.
Perhaps the solution is to create another form of birth control for men, one that does not sterilise them, but also is effective and provable.
Well I for one don’t know about anyone else but I’M shocked that EITHER parent can just walk away from their “product of lust” as my grandmother says. I’ll never become accustomed to that. IMHO if you MAKE it you should take care of it.
**Nightime[\b], I see what you’re saying about adoption, and I agree that it is an option.
However, even in cases of adoption, the woman still has to go through the misery, discomfort, and risks of pregnancy itself, while the man goes off scot-free.
Yes, a man who decides to have sex with a woman is risking financial hardship if a child is conceived. But - a woman is risking both physical (either with abortion OR pregnancy) hardship no matter WHAT decision she makes, and also risks financial hardship if she keeps the child. So why so much emphasis on how unfair it is for the man, when the woman has a lot more to face no matter what she decides to do?
A certain amount of unfairness is just going to be the case, because the equation is unequal to begin with - only one of the sexes can give birth, so we pretty much begin on uneven ground. Yes, the woman has more choices about what to do with the baby; she also has more risks and more burdens to carry when she becomes pregnant - the risks of complications during abortion; the risks of complications during pregnancy; financial hardship and a LOT of responsibility if she decides to keep the baby.
And the guy is upset because he willingly partakes in an activity that he knows MAY result in a child, yet acts so shocked and outraged when the activity does indeed result in a child and he is required to accept the consequences of his activity and support that child? Last time I checked, sexual activity was not a requirement for most people.
It’s like me whining when I choose to drive faster than the speed limit, then get upset when I have to pay for the ticket because, after all, the police officer could have decided not to give me a ticket (and saved himself the hassle of paperwork), but instead held me responsible for my actions.
I’m all for that. And I keep wondering why there isn’t yet an effective form of birth control for men. Some people think that the reason that male birth control just isn’t “there” yet because men aren’t as motivated to use birth control. (I’m not saying this is true, I’m saying that some people speculate that this is true.) And also, perhaps there’s some loathing on men’s part to tinker with their reproductive system? But of course, women are expected to do just that—because we are never going to be let off the hook, biology-wise.
So, I will once again reiterate that I think the idea of vasectomies for men as an effective way of getting them “off the hook”. The failure rate of vasectomies is pretty damned low, so I think that if they are so all-fired determined to not support any unwanted kids, the ball is in their court as far as birth control. And I know that some men will bleat about, “Well, what if he wants kids later?” Well, he can save some sperm in a sperm bank, so that he can father kids at a time of his choosing, take his chances with not getting a vasectomy and accept that his little timetable for having kids may be pushed up a bit, or use the hand.
Freedom comes with costs. Control comes with a cost. I don’t see how one can support total equality in the eyes of the law yet still bind another to their decision.
If it is control you want, it is responsability you accept. If I have to pay, I get to have a say.
If the man’s “best effort” is a vasectomy, then shouldn’t the woman’s best effort be a tubal ligation?
I’d be more sympathetic to a woman who really tried everything possible (short of celibacy, obviously) to keep an unwanted pregnancy from occurring, rather than one who might do the oral contraceptive thing and then think that she’s done her part.
I hear they developed an effective male birth control pill, but it was covered up by a shady cabal, just like the carburetor that makes your car get 100 MPG.
Actually, all the men I know would jump for joy if we could eliminate (99.9% of) the risk of pregnancy just by eating a pill every day. Having sex with a condom is like watching TV through a shower curtain.
The problem with a male BCP, from what I’ve read, is that while women have this cycle that can be conveniently hijacked by adding hormones at the right time, men are constantly producing sperm. Female BCP just gives your body a nudge in the right direction, but male BCP would have to target and disable a specific body part.