Men and abortion

[LuckyTheDog]

I am not a fan of abortion. Who is? But, as a man, that is a decision I'll never have to face and would not presume to make for another. And, let's face it, making abortion illegal does nothing in the real world except put women at risk by making it riskier. We should not kid ourselves about that.

If we want the women in our lives to choose something other than abortion, we need to be prepared to offer the time, money and commitment the mother and child need and want. The commitment of a husband or other kind of parenting partner can, of course, make motherhood a very attractive option in a lot of cases. Other times, depending on the partner ... not so much. But in the end, it's simply not our choice to make. All we can do is be there.

Some guys think that us unfair -- that the man should have a say. But, till we can volunteer to take over the pregnancy and delivery duties (and I don't see science working very hard on making that option available), then it's not unfair.

As for men who are not even willing to "put up" a sincere offer of commitment and support in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, they should simply shut up. In fact, screw them.

[bloom]

1. Or don't "screw them"

as the case may be.

[Triana]

2. Well said Lucky

Thank you. :)

[Not Me]

3. I have been saying that for a long time...

Men don't even have a place at that table. It's a woman's body, and it ought to be a women's discussion.
Hell, I am doubly disqualified to enter the fray...as a gay man.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. I had a "scare" once

At one time, I had reason to worry that a woman I was involved with was pregnant with my kid.

My response was to tell her that I was willing to make a total commitment to her and the baby, if there was one. I didn't want to see her have an abortion because she felt alone or was worried about expenses -- so I wanted her to have that information. But I also let her know that I wasn't trying to pressure her and that, either way, I wasn't going away.

It turned out that she wasn't pregnant. Later, we got married anyway.

[Katherine Brengle]

84. You are a good man, and MrsLucky is indeed lucky.------>

I became pregnant with my daughter rather early in my relationship with her father--initially, I didn't want to go through with the pregnancy (I was still in college, and we had just gotten together, and I wasn't making much money--maybe $150 a week). He stayed by my side, and helped me get in touch with a counselor, and I decided to keep the baby. He was there outside the door while I talked to this woman, and there when I had my first ultrasound... I learned his true character through what was, at first, an awful and frightening situation.

I had been so scared and shocked at first that I thought my only option was to have an abortion. I would have, if he hadn't been there for me and ready to do whatever he had to do to make sure that I was alright.

We stayed together, we had our beautiful baby, and we got married last May. And, we're actually happy to boot, lol.

I know it doesn't work out like this for everyone, but wouldn't it be nice if it did, a little more often at least?

[liberalhistorian]

164. I sure wish it had worked out that way

for me. My boyfriend threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant because he "didn't want to deal with it." Well, hell, I sure didn't want to deal with it, either, but biologically I had no choice. Then he had the nerve, the absolute gall, to use the time-honored male trick of painting me as a slut, claiming the pregnancy wasn't his responsibility because I "had to have been sleeping around."

I remember how deeply resentful I felt that, because of a simple trick of biology, I was the one who had to deal with everything whether I wanted to or not (and believe me, I didn't, at the time I'd just graduated from college and didn't yet have a job and had no money), and he could just throw me out, toss me aside, and go merrily on his way, right back to his normal life. I really don't think men understand just how resentful a lot of women are because of that, and I have absolutely no patience at all with either pro-life men or men who whine about how bad they have it when it comes to this are. Boo-fucking-hoo!

[LuckyTheDog]

173. That guy was pond scum (nt)

[Fountain79]

5. If it is fact a woman's choice entirely...

Then shouldn't it also completely be the woman's responsibility if she decides to raise it? I mean if the man has no say then why should he in turn be forced to pay for something that he didn't want in the first place? Shouldn't that be his choice?

[LuckyTheDog]

8. I disagree

This is one case in which life is not entirely fair. The child, once born, is a innocent bystander regarding the deliberations between the parents. And that child has a claim on both parents no matter what happened before his/her birth.

Don't like those rules? Then keep in in your pants.

[Fountain79]

10. riiight

So the child is an innocent bystander who has a claim on both parents AFTER he/she is born, not before. So it is just a matter of timing in regards to whether it is a man's choice or not?

[LuckyTheDog]

13. You got it

Were you under the impression that life was always fair? Like I said earlier, till men can manage to take over the pregnancy and delivery, that's the deal we're stuck with. My advice: don't do "the crime" if you can't do "the time."

[Fountain79]

16. I was never under the impression that life is fair..

However it strikes me that as a democrat you simply dismiss this as one of life's inequities, which to split hairs here, is an inequity by law not nature. Nature can not be changed, laws however can be changed.

[LuckyTheDog]

17. Not a change I want to see

It's already too easy for men to walk away from their responsibility to children they bring into the world. Making it even easier would be bad news for society and for the welfare of women and children.

[mondo joe]

26. "Life's not fair" can equally be used to force women to carry to term

unwanted pregnancies.

You might want to consider a more thoughtful position than one in which unfairness is doled out arbitrarily.

[LuckyTheDog]

32. Not really

Pregnancy involves risks. Plus, a woman cannot ever really be 100% sure that child support will materialize. And, oh yes, it's her body. The choice needs to stay with the woman.

I really find it hard to believe that any responsible liberal would argue for the abolition of mandatory child support. That's a really, really bad idea. We are the party that values kids even after birth, remember?

[mondo joe]

35. Yes, really.

You say the choice needs to stay with the woman. The anti choicers, like you, would say she made her choice when she had sex.

I don't know who you think is arguing for abolition of mandatory child support. One poster apparently did, but others haven't.

I'm not opposed to mandatory child support - I'm opposed to a fallacious argument to support it.

[LuckyTheDog]

46. So, we agree

If we agree, then why do you care WHY we agree?

It also true that a man who is unprepared to take responsibility for a child born to any particular woman can simply choose not to have sex with her. Isn't that right?

[mondo joe]

49. Whhy care why we agree? Because the WHY is the legal principle

that protects us all. And it is worthwhile having a well thought out principle that, carried out to its logical conclusion, fails us.

You asked a question, so I'll answer:

Is it true that a man who is unprepared to take responsibility for a child born to any particular woman can simply choose not to have sex with her.

Yes - just as much as it's true that a woman who is unprepared to take responsibility for a child conceived by her can simply choose not to have sex.

There's your argument applied with a slighlty different arbitrary point. Like it?

[LuckyTheDog]

53. But remember this...

No contraception is foolproof. Thus, if a man has sex with a woman, he is assuming the risk that she might get pregnant. You know that "going in"... as it were. he should take moral and legal responsibility in that case.

So, why does that not apply to women? Simple. Women face nine months of pregnancy and the pain of delivery. And beyond that, the issue of whether or not the man pays child support is really not in her control -- so that isn't something she can count on 100%. The woman needs to be able to decide, after conception, whether or not she is willing to take those physical and financial risks. No one should be able to force her to do it.

Men, on the other hand, are in control of whether or not they can hold up their end of the parenting bargain. They are in control of whether they make child-support paynents to the best of their ability. They also can get court-ordered visitation in most cases (unless they can be shown to be dangerous). Men also don't take on the risks of pregnancy and delivery and thus, should have no say in making a woman do it.

[wtmusic]

60. Just for comparison

"No contraception is foolproof. Thus if a woman has sex with a man, she is assuming the risk that she might get pregnant. You know, that "letting in"...as it were. She should take moral and legal responsibility in that case."

[mondo joe]

61. Again, you use an arbitrary standard.

She's pregnant for 9 months, she endures labor. He works for 18 years and forks over whatever a judge tells him to pay, likely without any custody of the child he supports.

Burdens? Yup.

Are they precisely the same? Nope, but that's a matter of biology, not law.

Both mother and father bear risks and burdens. But strangely you think HE bears the burden for his risk but SHE does not, when in fact both can be risk free by simply not having sex.

Your "keep it in your pants" works both ways.

[gollygee]

154. The choice is the woman's because

she owns her uterus and gets to decide whether to allow a fetus to use it or not, just like we get to decide whether we want to donate our kidneys or give blood. Our bodies belong to us regardless of whether someone else needs use of them. She also gets to decide whether she has any medical procedure (abortion).

If a baby is born (and therefore no longer reliant upon someone else's uterus to survive), that baby has the right to support from both parents.

[Yupster]

90. I am against mandatory child support

I am for the man's right to choose.

He should not be forced into parenthood without his permission any more than a women should be.

What about the child?

That's the responsibility of every one of us as a just and caring society, not some poor guy who got drunk and unlucky the wrong night.

No woman would accept having to be a mother because she had a one night stand, yet we seem to accept that a man should be forced into fatherhood for the same reason.

[Yupster]

89. We don't have to be stuck with that deal

Robert Kennedy said somepeople look at the way things are and say why. Other people look at the world the way it should be and say why not?

Neither men or women should be forced into parenthood without their consent.

So, let's find a fair way to accomplish that goal, not just say too bad men, that's the deal we're stuck with.

[LuckyTheDog]

107. Forced into parenthood?

Look, that doesn't fly once the kid is born. After birth, a whole new conversation begins. From society's standpoint the question becomes: "You two created this child and brought it into the world... what are you doing about that?"

Birth is not an "arbitrary event." Till death, it's the most important thing that happens to a person. It changes everything about the conversation. Men who father children are not being forced into parenthood by society. They ARE parents at that point. With parenthood comes responsibility.

Men cannot agree to take on pregnancy and delivery -- which would give them a say in abortion decisions. Likewise, they cannot make things so that a baby doesn't need food shelter and clothing.

[Yupster]

167. The kid should be supported no doubt

I think the state run child support pool, paid out of general funds is the best idea I've heard.

It always seemed silly to me that one kid should get one hundred times more child support than another kid just because of who his/her mom bedded that night.

The kid can be financially cared for and each parent can also have the right to choose whether they become parents or not.

It can happen. Why accept less than choice? For men or women.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

12. Arguing for abstinance?

It's as useless in this context as it is in any other. :puke:

-Laelth

[LuckyTheDog]

15. What I am arguing for

I guess what I am arguing for is personal responsibility -- and mutual respect between people who are sleeping together. I have no patience for men who refuse to pay child support simply because they say "hey, she coulda' had an abortion." That puts reproductive rights on its head in a really perverse way.

[Laelth]

18. Personal responsibility?

That's the same argument the fundinazis make. "If she didn't want a baby, she shouldn't have had sex." If the guy doesn't want to pay for it, he shouldn't have had sex." Same thing.

Try to do better.

-Laelth

[LuckyTheDog]

21. We'll have to disagree on this one

I don't think personal responsibility and respect for women and children are values alien to the Democratic cause.

[Laelth]

28. Nor did I say they were.

I simply dislike the "keep it in your pants" argument. It is, at its base, the same argument that fundinazis use to condone their restriction of reproductive freedoms. It, therefore, makes me very nervous.

-Laelth

[Yupster]

91. Agree Laelth

yet you'll see that argument made on every DU abortion thread.

I'm sure it's probably made in every pro-lifer thread too, but

at least they're not sexist about it. They mean it for men and women while some here just seem to mesn it for men, not women.

[U4ikLefty]

95. Bravo!!!

[mondo joe]

22. Are you unaware that you are putting forth the same anti-choice

argument the cons use against women?

[LuckyTheDog]

27. I don't think that's what I am doing

I simply think that, as a matter of public policy, society needs to do things to make sure kids have a chance in life. To say that the availability of abortion should let men off the hook for child support is, to me, ethically perverse and bad policy.

[mondo joe]

31. You certainly are. Your argument is that if you don't want the

burden of a child, don't make one. That is precisely the same position so often taken up against women: don't want a pregnancy don't get pregnant.

I don't think it's necessary to resort to that to argue for paternal responsibility.

[LuckyTheDog]

40. Again

Again, the issue is that, whatever happens between the parents, the child, once born, has rights. Legally a fetus does not have civil rights under the law. But a baby (meaning one that is actually born) does have a right to support from both parents. That is a matter of law AND nature (in that the kid actually does need shelter food and other necessities).

[mondo joe]

44. And the anti-choicers would say once the child is conceived it has

rights. Whether as matter of law it has rights or not is subject to change, as you know.

Your argument still rests on an ARBITRARY distinctions which, at the core, are no different than anti choice arguments. You're merely setting your arbitrary point a bit later than they place theirs.

[LuckyTheDog]

47. That is their problem

I am most concerned with the kids who are born and who need to be cared for.

[mondo joe]

50. To the contrary, the understanding of our rights is our problem.

And that problem is coming to a head, right now.

[U4ikLefty]

97. So you would be okay with requiring the woman to notify the "father"

in time to give him the choice decide if he wishes to pay for the child??? Hey, then knowing she will/won't get support, she can excercise her choice to have the child...I like it!!!

[LuckyTheDog]

108. Nope

Men cannot agree to take on pregnancy and delivery -- which would give them a say in abortion decisions. Likewise, they cannot make things so that a baby doesn't need food shelter and clothing. Once the kid is born, the man is a parent and has responsibilities to the child.

Birth is not an "arbitrary event." Till death, it's the most important thing that happens to a person. It changes everything about the conversation.

[Yupster]

93. I agree that the child once born has rights, but

that right is to demand to be adequately taken care of.

What difference does it make to the baby where that check comes from?

Whether it comes from the government or the guy who had sex with the mother though he never did get her name, what difference does it make to the baby?

It seems people are only able to envision one place the check could come from and that's the man whether he's rich or poor, healthy or disabled, married or single, committed to the mother or didn't even remember her.

Can't we look for better solutions, rather than just accepting what's there?

[ProfessorGAC]

138. Well, I'm With Lucky On This One

I guess i have a problem with the whole anti-abstinence argument. The crux of that argument is that we are incapable of preventing our biological urges from controlling us. How pathetic we would all be were that true.

The cost/benefit equation here is simple. The benefit is obvious, the cost is that if you make a baby, then the commitment is clear.

I don't see how that's a right wing argument, just because peabrains on the right use it. They mean it in a punitive, "blame the woman" way; but absent the misogynistic connotation, it's a fair statement. And, if men are going to be unwilling to fulfill a completely reasonable societal expectation that they care for, support and nurture children they bring into the world, then they should abstain from sex. It's not impossible. In fact, that would be the noble thing to do if one intends not to support their own children.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

166. How is it reasonable ...

... to tell the guy to "keep it in his pants" and then condemn those who say the equivalent to the gal?

Despite the incredible complexities, I try to find equity in such issues - balanced ethical principles. For example ...

If South Dakota won't permit abortions in cases of rape, have they made provisions to assure that the (statutory?) rapist pays support payments? If the baby is adopted, should those support payments go to the adoptive parents? Does their possible aversion to such a continued relationship absolve the rapist from making such support payments? If the baby isn't adopted, is the birth mother required to receive such continuing support? Would she want to?

If a (statutory?) rapist isn't to be required to make support payments for 18 years, why should the law require it of other birth fathers who rebel against doing so? (Let's realize that the range of situations and reasons are far too diverse to validly say that he "should" in each and every instance.)

So, that's just one conundrum of equity and justice in the South Dakota banned-abortion case. When abortions aren't banned, the same conundrum applies, but is compounded by the considerations of choice. If, for example, financial hardship is to be regarded (legally or morally - i.e. cookie cutter of individually) as a valid reason for having an abortion, isn't it also a valid reason to dissolve paternal support obligations?

I quite frankly don't know how to resolve the ethical dilemmas and maintain infringement-free civil liberties equitably. It seems to me that 'choice' needs to be co-extensive. I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders and give license to law and civil force and say "it's not a fair world" - essentially perpetrating an injustice. As a liberal, I believe in a "do no harm" ethic in law-making. Just because "the world's no fair" is no reason we shouldn't be diligent in being fair and just in our legal systems (and social systems, too).



Do I really need to proclaim the caveat that I'm 3-trimesters 100% pro-choice up to birth? If I prize my own liberties, I'm ethically obliged to protect those of all others as well! I expect other liberals to reciprocate. That's what 'liberal' means.

[ProfessorGAC]

175. I Didn't Say It Was, Nut!

I think that's true for both genders, but the consequences for the male are different than they are for females. So, the inequity of the statements, toward men rather than women, is rooted in an intrinsic inequity.

I guess the root of my discomfort is that i just don't believe that people are inescapbly slaves of their biological urges. The side of the argument against my POV seems to be that we CANNOT control ourselves, so it's therefore an invalid argument.

I just don't think that's true. If you don't want babies, either do something proactively, or don't have sex. I'm not prudish. I don't care who sleeps with whom or how often, and nothing other people do would ever offend me. But, i just don't buy that the extrinsic options are all we have. Self-control and moderation have some value in this equation as well.

That all being said, i stand firmly against the troglodytes in the SD legislature. I want personal freedoms to be of utmost criticality and the gov't should be standing on their collective head to assure they do nothing to abridge those freedoms.
The Professor

[mondo joe]

177. You've chosen an arbitrary point at which such responsibility begins.

It's the same principle the anti choicers use - or, to show you with your own words:

"And, if women are going to be unwilling to fulfill a completely reasonable societal expectation that they care for, support and nurture children they conceive, then they should abstain from sex. It's not impossible" fact, that would be the noble thing to do if one intends not to support their own children."

You choose birth as the point at which responsibility can be reasonably imposed, they choose conception.

[Yupster]

92. As a matter of public policy society does

need to protect children.

But there are other ways to do that other than forcing the man to pay child support.

Normally with rights go responsibilities.

If the woman demands a 100% say in whether the baby is born or not, and really she must as it is her body and her decision, then the man has a 0 % say. It hardly seems fair to split the responsibilities of the child once born then.

My Body, My Choice, Our Responsibility just doesn't seem reasonable.

[TahitiNut]

33. So, the 'lesson' here is that guys should only have sex with rich girls.

Got it. :dunce: Of course, they're also the ones who can afford the good lawyers. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

42. No, they should only have sex with other guys.

I find that system quite foolproof.

[frustrated_lefty]

162. Just stay away from the horses in Washington.

[SPKrazy]

163. Be My Guest

I'll stick with my wife

[smirkymonkey]

189. Hahahaha!

:rofl:

[spacelady]

63. Why shouldn't a woman take responsibility for her own choices?

After all, If I decided to have a child, I would not rely on a man's financial support if he was unwilling to provide. My choice. My responsibility. Otherwise, I'd better keep it OUT of MY pants.

[LuckyTheDog]

110. Many women feel that way

And nobody is forcing them to seek child support if that is how they feel.

[spacelady]

64. This keep it in your pants crap is wearing thin.

[TahitiNut]

68. Abstinence. The "Just Say No" approach to everything.

Abstinece and celebacy ... my two hobbies. :silly: I'd hardly call them pastimes, though.

[Yupster]

88. That would be the

My body, My choice, Our responsibility argument.

And if the man doesn't want to risk being a parent he should have kept it in his pants. Of course that's what the pro-lifers say, but they aren't sexist about it. They tell men and women if you don't want to risk parenthood, keep your pants on. At least they're consistent about it.

[LuckyTheDog]

109. Not the same issue

After birth, a whole new conversation begins. From society's standpoint the question becomes: "You two created this child and brought it into the world... what are you doing about that?"

Men cannot agree to take on pregnancy and delivery -- which would give them a say in abortion decisions. Likewise, they cannot make things so that a baby doesn't need food shelter and clothing.

[LWolf]

113. I agree.

Both parties have a choice at the time of conception. Both could choose some type of birth control, or "keep it in their pants." After conception, only one has a choice. Fair or not, it's reality.

I'll work to protect that choice, but I won't pretend that the man whose entire life is affected by the choice he has no say in doesn't have reason for complaint. The child does have a claim on both parents.

I have a male family member raising his child as a single dad. When the woman conceived, he did the "I'll stand by whatever you choose" thing. His choice was adoption. Her choice was to keep the child. He stayed with her. When the child was 2 months old, she was partying all day while he was at work with the guy next door, and partying all night when he got home with a larger group of people, until he told her that he was leaving. She could go home to her parents, but he wasn't supporting that life style. She promptly moved in with the guy next door and continued on her merry way. 3 years and 2 more babies, 2 more fathers, later, she was arrested for abusing the kids. She doesn't really like them all that much, but having 3 men supporting her choices while she's moved on to the 4th suits her just fine. My family member took his child, sued for custody, and is now raising the kid on his own. The kid he would have given up for adoption, but who now needs him more than ever. No regrets, but I often look at the college degree that was never completed, the low wage jobs, and think about the long-term consequences. There is some responsibililty that goes along with choice. Who steps up to take responsibility for their choices, and who doesn't, is not gender-specific.

[Cats Against Frist]

186. I keep hearing the "life isn't fair" argument

But you could say the same thing to women: "life isn't fair." I haven't decided whether or not to enter this thread, yet -- because I'm just about all talked out on this, and very few people are able to discuss this issue with any intelligence, whatsoever -- but I'd just like to point out the whole "life's not fair" thing is a two-way street.

[mondo joe]

30. It's her choice because the pregnancy occurs in her body.

There is nothing to be done about that.

[Fountain79]

34. So no women should be able to vote if we should have a draft?

Cause as it stands it would be MY body taking the bullets?

[mondo joe]

39. You've confused personal autonomy with democratic decision

making at a national policy level. And you've confused them badly.

Women, you may note, live with the outcomes of elections just as you do, and there are no guarantees of those outcomes when casting a vote.

[Fountain79]

41. And men...

live in the outcome of the decision of an abortion, not as directly but will still live in that outcome.

[mondo joe]

45. You provided your own answer: "Not as directly".

Women do not have the right to abort because of the outcomes of birth.

They have the right to abort because pregnancy occurs in their body.

You just keeep missing the mark.

[Yupster]

94. I don't think anyone is questioning

that the decision whether to abort or birth should be the mother's. I think everyone here agrees with that.

[soldier101]

37. woman's choice entirely?

I would not have a problem with this statement if she decides to have the kid (shown to be mine) and she aborts. However, if she has it, I have to pay child support for the next 18 years.

Why should I not have no choice in aborting as I will be forced to pay? How is this fair to me?

Now if the woman assumes total responsibility, and I will not be stripped of my hard earned paycheck, do what you will.

[LuckyTheDog]

48. Somebody help me out here!

I can't believe that I have to argue with Democrats on the issue of child support enforcement.

[mondo joe]

51. Well, let's consider it.

I favor mandatory child support, and I also favor abortion rights.

But let's look at the question.

You've said a man who doesn't want to pay child support should not have sex. Is there a reason the same principle shouldn't apply to women? You know, a woman who doesn't want to be the sole provider to a child shouldn't have sex.

I can think of a counter argument, but I'll set that aside for the moment.

Here's another consideration: Maybe if women knew they could not get a guarantee of child support they'd be more careful with birth control. Or maybe they'd take the abortion option, and the man in the case could be required to pay half of it.

Hm. Once you make an arbitrary decision about who should be responsible when, it's not hard to place that point at any other arbitrary place.

[LuckyTheDog]

54. Guarantee of child support?

In what world can a woman get a guarantee of child support?

[mondo joe]

57. There is a guarantee of mandatory child support by law, and there is

welfare where that fails.

And why do you say "In what world can a woman get a guarantee of child support?" - the child support isn't hers, it's the child's.

[LuckyTheDog]

59. I think we basically agree

I also think you are splitting hairs and maybe I am not getting my points across well enough. In any event, I am tired. Peace.

[mondo joe]

62. As I explained earlier, the PRINCIPLE matters.

Good night.

[Yupster]

96. My proposal is the Man's Right to Choose

When a woman finds out she is pregnant, she should be under legal obligation to notify the assumed father or fathers.

The man then has a set amount of time to file a formal legal document either accepting fatherhood of the child if born along with all legal rights and responsibilities, or declining those same rights and responsibilities.

The woman would then be able to see this filing, and could then make her decision on whether to birth, or abort armed with the knowledge of whether there would be a father legally obligated to help her.

The reason I like this plan is that the decision on whether to be a mother is entirely the woman's which it must be.

The decision on whether to be a father is the man's and his alone.

It's the fairest proposal I've been able to come up with that allows each person to decide when he/she will become a parent. It seems parenthood should be chosen, not forced upon someone.

[spacelady]

67. If a woman wants to have total dominion and choice about her body

should it not be her responsibility? Give a logical answer to this with regard to having a choice in being a parent.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

183. I'll help

This is the argument of the moment. Some group decided to use a 25 year old guy who got some girl pregnant at some point and now he doesn't think he should have to give up his "hard earned money" in the form of child support and most men out there are jumping on the band wagon.

It's really quite disturbing to me to see how many men on this board are willing to say "hey, you had the kid you deal with it". And we wonder why our society is in the toilet. It shows me that the term "men are pigs" really does have some meaning.

I have yet to see one man who is in favor of this nonsense mention one word about the gazillion kids we will have with fathers that walked away and went merrily on with their lives if something this foolish were to actually see the light of day. I guess we don;t have enough of those kids already. The sad part, I don't think any of them really care.

[northofdenali]

106. soldier101, can you clarify for me?

Are you speaking of instances in which the woman deliberately tries and succeeds to get pregnant, knowing you have no desire to have or support a child? If so, I can certainly understand your thinking. If, however, you're speaking of an instance in which the pregnancy is accidental on both parts, I think you're both equally responsible for the resulting child's welfare, whether it be support or adoption.

In a totally casual "one night stand" type of relationship, if you've done all you can to prevent a pregnancy, I don't really think she has the right to come back on you later if she chooses to have the child. But then again, you have no right to tell her she cannot have an abortion or have the child and raise it or give it up for adoption.

It's such a difficult issue, one that will not be solved in my lifetime.

Oh, and if you're sincere about a woman's rights, which you appear to be - welcome to DU. This issue will be thoroughly cussed and discussed for all it's worth here - come join the fray and understand that differences of opinion abound here as they do in the rest of life.

[soldier101]

112. Woman's right to choose

I had two room mates in college that their girlfriends had to have abortions, I supported their decision.

Let me give you an instance that come up several years ago. Seems a woman gave this guy a BJ, he went away fat, dumb and happy. However, she collected his sperm and impregnated herself.

After the child was born, she sued for child support, and got it because the child was his.

So the way it works is that the woman chooses either to keep, let for adoption, or abort. The man just has to react and effectively has no say so. Seems like there should be some mutual decision here.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

184. Do tell

I'd like to know just how she pulled that off? Did she spit it in a jar? Scrape it off the floor? Use a turkey baster?


Come on. You don't actually believe that do you?

[donsu]

148. because it's not your body going through beginning pregnancy and

then the abortion and her body adjusting to that. a woman's body rages at the beginning of a pregnancy.

all the man did was fuck, his body did not and will not go through rageing changes.

your hard earned money be damned.

[soldier101]

151. Look at reply 119 for reasonable compromise

Besides it's not always just a screw, see post 112.

[Katherine Brengle]

85. While I don't agree entirely, I do think that...

men should have some part in the decision making process, especially if they are in serious relationships with the women in question. Serious partners and husbands have a right to know--not necessarily the right to override a decision, but the right to at least have their voices heard and considered.

However, when it comes down to it, as someone said in another thread today, the man has a choice to some extent--as that poster said, it's called a "C-O-N-D-O-M," BUT as we all know, sometimes bc fails. If it does, and a pregnancy results, then I don't know...

Maybe we should all sit down with prospective partners before doing the deed and say, "Okay, now, if this sexual event results in pregnancy, where do you stand? Would you want to keep it, or not?"

Might clear up that grey area...

[Yupster]

98. But a man can't have "some say" in the decision

The decision on whether to abort or not must be either yes or no.

It can't be a 70-30 decision or a 50-50 tie.

In the end it must be the woman's decision and her's alone.

The man can have his say. The woman can lisen if she wants to, but in the end the man has no say. It's the woman's decision.

[Triana]

111. Men do have a say in choice

It is a man's choice who he elects to have sexual intercourse with and if he uses protection during that act. That is the man's choice.

It is a man's responsibility to decide whether or not he wants to produce offspring and to take action based on that decision. Once the sperm has been freed to fate, however, the choices that remain belong solely to the woman.

It is the woman who will have her body altered.

It is the woman who will possibly lose a promotion within her chosen career.

It is the woman who will undergo labor and delivery.

It is the woman who must open herself up to the possibility of loss, as well as joy.

In short, it is the woman who must bear the pregnancy and all the after-shocks of that life journey.

To argue otherwise is to deny the fact that a woman's body is her own.

In order to believe that a woman's decision in reference to her own mental and physical health must be first approved by her husband or lover is to equate her with property owned by men.

A woman's liberty does not disintegrate when marriage vows are taken or when underpants are removed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not gender-specific.

Please do not try to tell me that a man has no choice in the matter of reproduction. He does.

[Left Is Write]

170. Once a child is born, the child has rights too.

In an abortion case, there's no baby.

Once birth occurs, a third person enters the equation. Fair or not, the resulting child deserves to be supported by both parents. Period.

[roguevalley]

6. Nice commentary. I would never presume to interfere with a man

who wanted his penis lengthened and so I expect them to stay away from abortion. Ha! That will teach me to read DU after dumping spam. ;)

[Yupster]

99. That would be a better comparison

if you had to send part of your wages to the guy with the long dong for the next 18 years.

As far as the decision on who should decide whether a woman has an abortion, I don't see any disagreement on that. We all agree it should be the woman's choice.

[omega minimo]

7. Now we're gettin somewhere. Let's take it another step

Thanks for a great post and personal insight.

Now, how bout this?

"If we want the women in our lives to choose something other than abortion, we need to be prepared to offer the time, money and commitment the mother and child need and want."

"If we want the women in our (nation) to choose something other than abortion, we need to be prepared to offer the" social status, human rights, equal opportunities and fair compensation that women need to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.

[LuckyTheDog]

9. That, too

I was referring to the "micro" level. On a "macro" level, you are right.

[Katherine Brengle]

86. Excellent expansion--you rule. n/t

[omega minimo]

87. Ahm about ready to pass the non-phallic torch

Tag. You're It.

:yourock:

[WillyT]

11. Yes... They Should Have !!!

:rofl::wow::rofl:

:evilgrin:

[RB TexLa]

14. The man always has a say, you do not have to allow them to have your sperm

That is our decision, while engaging in sex it is our decision to allow the woman to have our sperm. We can chose to not let them have it, they have no say in that.

[LuckyTheDog]

19. Wrap that rascal! (nt)

[Yupster]

100. I have one kid

and he was conceived when a condom slipped off.

In our case we were married and not a big deal, but saying just wea a condom doesn't do it. Or it didn't for us anyway.

[WillyT]

20. You Forgot Your Sarcasm Tag...

Looks like this: :sarcasm:

Use it!

:wtf:

[RB TexLa]

23. there was no sarcasm, you don't have to allow them to have it

[Fountain79]

24. Actually....

There have been numerous cases where the woman impregnated herself under false pretenses(saying she was infertile or claiming to be on the pill), where the "man" was underage, or even in cases where the woman impregnates herself with a spent condom the man is still liable for child support payments. So sometimes it still isn't our decision.

[RB TexLa]

25. it's your decision if you allow her to have your sperm, if you leave it in

a condom where she can get it, you have allowed her to have it. Do you leave your checkbook with people as well?

[Fountain79]

29. So I should start burning condoms?

At what point is it the woman's fault?

[RB TexLa]

36. I have no sympathy for a man that does not want to impregnate someone

yet allows a woman to have his sperm, you don't have it surgically fixed, and use condoms you can burn, bleach them, flush them, whatever. But once you allow her to have your sperm, that's it, just as she can not force you to give something that is in your body to her, you have no say over it after you allow her to have it, whether you put it in her body yourself or not.

Really I have no sympathy for a man in that position, you allow her to have it, you live with her decisions after that, and it's what you deserve.

[Fountain79]

38. So I could turn around and say??

I have no sympathy for a woman who had a consentual sexual experience and got pregnant? I mean she took the same risk as the guy with even more effective birth control options than him.

[RB TexLa]

43. If she does not want to become impregnated she can take her

precautions, and refuse to have sex with a male that doesn't take whatever precautions she requires.

But even with the precautions, if an accident happens, then she has options available to her.

Once a man allows a woman to have his sperm he has no options, and no decisions to make.

[WillyT]

80. Question: Are You, By Any Chance, Related To This Guy ???

:scared:

[RB TexLa]

81. I have no idea who that is, so I doubt I am related to him n/t

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

141. I sense your power, and crave your essence

:rofl:

But you won't allow me to have it.

:cry:

One of the few movies I can watch over and over, and never tire of.

[Yupster]

102. What kind of nonsense is that?

If someone steals something that's mine, it's my fault for leaving it within their reach?

[RB TexLa]

156. So if when you are finished using it you leave your credit card on a bar

you don't feel you allowed someone to have and use it? You think it is not your fault because even though you left it there they knew you didn't want them to use it?

[Yupster]

168. No of course not

If I leave my credit card on the table at the restaurnat, I am clearly not giving anyone permission to steal from me.

Are there people who disagree with this? Really?

Well judge, you see. He forgot his credit card on the bar, so naturally I thought he was giving me permission to use it to buy a few rounds of drinks for my friends here.

Yeah, that's a great argument for thieves to try next time in court.

On edit, I just had something like this happen to me. I left my car at a carwash, and the manager said that any change found in the car was to be kept by the workers washing the car. I said "excuse me? What did you say?"

Apparently that is their rule.

I asked him if I was hearing him correctly that if his workers found any of my currency while cleaning my property, they had his permission to steal it? He said yes, and I drove away shaking my head in amazement.

[RB TexLa]

169. So you feel you can just leave your sperm or your credit card

somewhere and because you don't want other people to use it, you have no responsibility for leaving it where someone could use it?

I guess you feel if you put the sperm inside of her yourself you have no responsibility because you didn't want it to impregnate her?

[Yupster]

171. I feel that

# 1 if I leave my credit card, I expect it to be returned to me or if that's not possible, certainly not used to steal from me. Is that a weird idea? I certainly have never seen a lost credit card and said, "great. Let's run up their tab." Has anyone here?"

# 2 by my action of having sex with a woman I am not agreeing in advance to be a father. I demand the right to choose when I become a parent just like any woman should demand that same right. Sex should not equal parenthood.

[RB TexLa]

172. And all you have to do to not become a parent is not allow someone else

to have your sperm, but you seem to think that they are responsible for something that is yours and can only come to their possession if you allow it to. It's pretty simple, if you remain in possession of something, you chose what happens with it, once you chose to allow someone else to posses something of yours you have no control of it. If you don't want someone else to do something with something of yours, don't allow them to posses it, you honestly don't think that is your responsibility? Anyone who does not want to have children and is stupid enough to allow someone else to posses their sperm gets what they deserve and should have no sympathy from anyone.

[Yupster]

101. Hell - the man could be liable for child support

even if it isn't even his kid.

[Fountain79]

52. My final point and I will just walk away...

Often I find that conservatives find simple black and white answers to questions and problems that are far greater than just a simple answer. For me, simply saying that if I was to get a woman pregnant, I would have no choice in the matter, seems so simplistic. I could not in good conscience sit back and simply repeat the mantra, "It is her choice, It is her choice", because part of me would in there, part of who I am would be developing within her. I simply do not understand those men who are easily swayed by the "It's not our choice" statement. For the record I am pro-choice but often finding myself having serious moral issues with the entire concept of abortion. Feel free to comment

[mondo joe]

55. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the fetus is not part of you.

You share genetic material, though likely not more than you share with your siblings, if you have any.

Women do not have the right to abort because it's their genetic material, but because the fetus occupies their body.

Please note, a surrogate mother with zero biological connection to the fetus would have the same right to abort, and the biological parents - male and female - would have no say.

[LuckyTheDog]

58. I agree

That's the basic reason why I think the arguments that apply to men in this case do not apply to women. It's her body on the line.

[wtmusic]

69. question

Is any part of a surrogate mother's "right" to abort due to the fact that a law forcing her to deliver would be impossible to enforce?

[mondo joe]

70. A surrogate mother has the same right to abort as any other

pregnant woman - there isn't a special right to abort for surrogates.

A law to enforce anyone to deliver would be hard to enforce - but a law prohibiting abortion would be considerably easier to enforce (though not without difficulties).

[wtmusic]

71. A law forcing someone to deliver

is the same as a law prohibiting abortion, no?

[mondo joe]

73. No. One can't be FORCED to deliver. But aborton can be prohibited,

and the outcome is the same.

[RB TexLa]

72. a surrogate mother who choses to abort would simply be

breaking a contract, if the abortion where one that was solely her decision then she would be liable civilly and most likely just have to return whatever payment she has received. I would think contracts have all such scenarios covered.

[mondo joe]

74. The point is that she has an identical right to abort because that right

is founded not on biological relationship, but the presence of the fetus in her body.

[wtmusic]

75. Why is the right founded on

the presence of the fetus in her body, and not the biological relationship? Is it only because denying her that right is impossible to enforce?

This is what I'm trying to get at.

[mondo joe]

77. Because that's the point of privacy - your body, your choice.

It's not THAT hard to enforce laws prohibiting abortion. Some slip through, but that's true of all prohibitions including murder and theft.

[RB TexLa]

78. Because everyone has the right to control their own body

the fact that a fetus is involved is meaningless to the right.

[RB TexLa]

76. Of course, there is no biological relationship that gives anyone any say

once a man allows a woman to have his sperm his say is over, that is why I do not allow such.

I've never seen a surrogate pregnancy contract but I'm sure every possible scenario is covered in it. I would be willing to bet that even if there is an abortion for non-medical reasons there would still be a certain amount of payment.

[mondo joe]

79. The surrogate contract is a separate issue. But those who think they

should have a say because they are biologically related to the fetus should consider that NO ONE has a right to that decision based on biological connection.

[Yupster]

103. Is anyone on this thread arguing

that a woman shouldn't have the sole right to abort?

I thought we all agreed on that?

[LuckyTheDog]

56. I hear you

I hear you, I really do. But it really is not our choice. Peace out.

[JerseygirlCT]

179. Your involvement is up to your involvement

if the relationship is strong, she's likely going to look for your thoughts on it. If not, she won't.

But the final decision is ALWAYS hers. It's her body involved, not yours. You contributed some sperm -- that's the extent of your physical involvement here.

Men who feel ambivilent about abortion should be doing their best to insure that other options are available for women who'd want them -- financial support, in particular. You should be doing your best to see that real sex education is available, and that birth control is improved and more widely available.

You do not, under any circumstances, get to decide whether a woman will carry a pregnancy. Until you can do that yourself, the decision is not yours to make.

[Fountain79]

181. I see...

"You do not, under any circumstances, get to decide whether a woman will carry a pregnancy. Until you can do that yourself, the decision is not yours to make."

She gets to decide whether the child lives or dies, but on the positive note...I get to pay for if she does have it no matter what. Yep that's what I call equity.

[JerseygirlCT]

182. No matter what

she doesn't get to opt out. Whatever decision she makes once she's pregnant, she will have to deal with emotional, physical, social and financial repercussions. The worst a man faces are some financial ones.

And that's somehow unfair?

[Fountain79]

185. You don't think a man would deal with emotional issues?

If the woman decides to abort the baby that he hoped to keep?

[JerseygirlCT]

188. Not the same ones, but sure... you're right

there might be emotional issues.

If what he's looking for is to walk away, though, (as in the "Male Roe v. Wade" in the news) I doubt very much there are any.

But the basic, unchanging, underlying truth here is that her body cannot be used as an incubator against her will. The father wanting a baby can't be allowed to change that.

[hopeisaplace]

65. Nicely said - Women could make a new law for Men: Mandatory Circumcision

just being sarcastic of course...and we could make this law
retroactive! All men who have not had this procedure...need I say more :smoke:

(I liked your heart-filled post, it was nicely said, so I'm not directing this
sarcasm at you - it's directed at the idiot politicians)

[Warren DeMontague]

66. How's this for a plan: Everybody STOP trying to tell other people

what to do with their own bodies.

Period.

Which means that I, as a man, don't get to decide about an individual abortion- at least until medical science somehow makes me pregnant. I'm not the one who is pregnant, it's not my call to make.

It's not about men vs. women. It's about the control freaks of all ideological stripes, vs. the people who understand that when other people do things with their own bodies that they, personally, may not particularly like- whatever that choice may be- it's really not any of their fucking business to try to make those things against the law.

[RandomKoolzip]

83. I can't believe some of the misogyny in this thread.

The OP is 100% right. There shouldn't even be a debate about this. This is a WOMAN'S decision; a man's input in the choice should be limited to asking if she needs a ride. SHE's the carrier, SHE'S the one with the womb....guys, it's NOT up to us. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it's true.

[Yupster]

104. But there isn't a debate about this

Everyone here agrees that the woman alone should make the choice. No one is arguing another side.

[mondo joe]

114. Which misogyny is that? Can you point to specific examples

please?

[RandomKoolzip]

118. Post number 5 is a sterling example.

[mondo joe]

120. That's not misogyny. That's arguing that responsibilities are

(or should be) commensurate with rights.

That's an important principle, although one that is very complex and likely to be compromised in some way with regard to this issue.

[RandomKoolzip]

122. I can see that.

Still smacks of misogyny to me, though. "Why should I pay for your brat? All I did was fuck you." I personally know women who've given birth, then been abandoned by the birth father, and were forced to work two jobs to get by, meaning that the baby itself was not getting adequate care or bonding time with the mother. Nobody should have to go through that.

Of course, there's also the "don't want a kid? Don't have sex!" subtext to many of the posts above here. :grr:

[mondo joe]

124. That might be child hating, but I don't think it's misogynistic.

To the contrary, the same poster went on to say he's very conflicted about abortion choice precisely because he feels responsibility to the fetus.

But if we talk about choice we need to talk about all the choices - who gets to choose what and for whom.

The ideal, IMO, is that rights are associated, and commensurate with, responsibility.

The nature of pregnancy is such that partners do not have equal say in every decision - so how do you then safeguard the rights of all parties?

[Cats Against Frist]

187. There are so many things getting conflated in this issue

Because one insists upon a logical argument, it does not a) mean that one is outright advocating for something and b) that one naturally assumes the worst possible position, even if they are leaning toward the issue.

In my case, I'm frustrated, because the logic is being ignored at the expense of sloganeering, arbitrary constructs and appeals to sympathy. This does not mean that I wouldn't have non-happy feelings toward a deadbeat dad. That said, there are so many inconsistencies in these arguments, that it is impossible, I think, for any person with a couple brain cells to stake out an indigant, absolute territory -- and it's what I see, over and over again.

I am pro-choice, because of what I call "default." Meaning that I have no pronouncements on when life begins, and I don't believe that anyone else can, with any seriousness, so it is up to each of us to consider. No one can answer that question, but the woman, and the state should not be involved. That, already is a huge point for me to concede, because I personally think that abortion is a moral and ethical black hole, and, for me, personally, I would err on the side of life. That said, I would insist that no one else be held to that standard.

In giving up that point, however, and lending my support to pro-choice candidates, I think I'm entitled to still have opinions, and have discussions, and still attempt to seek out logical answers to my questions. And there are many.

For instance -- I believe in choice. But I would not choose an abortion, personally. Liberals think it's okay for me to look down on a deadbeat dad, give no regard to his feelings or his own life, and to support state intervention in his life. In fact, it is encouraged. But, to me, because I personally hold that I am ONLY pro-choice by default, I have trouble distinguishing between the deeds of an aborting mother, and a deadbeat dad. As I've said, many of the reasons for abortion and abandonment are the same. Both partners chose to have sex. Both partners took on the responsibility.

And there are more questions -- support, etc. Just remember that just because someone wants a logical answer, doesn't mean that, beyond that pursuit, that everything else is worked out, or is being advocated.

[KTM]

105. What about adoption ???

Agreed, the choice to carry to term or abort SHOULD be the woman's alone. Certainly a man should not be able to force her to abort (or to carry) - though one would hope she'd care enough about the future life of her potential child to carefully consider the male's position.

As to the other posters' arguments about a man's choice and child support, nobody has raised adoption.... the woman is in no way obliged to keep & raise a baby... if a man told a woman straight out, early on, that he did not wish to have children, and she was against abortion for any of a plethora of good reasons, and chose to have that child with full knowledge that her partner did not want children, she STILL has a choice. Nothing prevents her from giving the child up - the decision to keep the child and raise it is hers alone, she is well informed of his position... she has to choose to raise that child herself.

(Although, I must add, if the man did NOT voice his thoughts, or worse stuck around for awhile and then chose to abandon her, he must assume the responsibility of support thereafter.)

[LuckyTheDog]

115. You miss one thing, though

In most states, adoption cannot happen without the birth father's consent. At the very least, I think you'd agree that a man who blocks an adoption should be on the hook for child support. Right?

[mondo joe]

116. That's a fair trade-off - but with that in place, women retain the right

to abort, but not to demand support from a father who does not wish to be involved.

[LuckyTheDog]

117. See my posts above on this

Basically, I take issue with your idea that birth is an "arbitrary event." It changes the conversation, IMO.

At that point, from society's point of view the question becomes: "OK, you to made this kid. How are you going to care for it?"

Also, it's not the mother who is entitled to support... the CHILD is entitled to support. Whether or not the mother chooses to advocate for the child is up to her. But the support payments are for the kid.

[mondo joe]

119. Some may say at birth the child becomes the responsibility of the

parents - resulting in mandatory support, some may say at conception - resulting in laws against abortion.

I do think there have been interesting options presented in this thread in which women maintain the right to abort, but men are not required to pay for a choice they had no say in. One of them is this in this sub thread: a woman may choose to abort, and if the man chooses not to pay support the mother has 2 choices: be the soole supporter or surrender the child for adoption.

[LuckyTheDog]

121. One last thing, though

There is a huge difference between conception and birth. At the birth of a child, the parents have added a new person to the society that needs a lot of care. Again, I don't see this as an "arbitrary" point in time at all.

Men who father children are not "being forced into parenthood by society" if society forces them to support those kids. They ARE parents at that point. With parenthood comes responsibility.

I see your point. But we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I guess.

[mondo joe]

123. Of course it's arbitrary. You choose birth as the point in time, the

anti choicers choose conception. Even fetuses need care and that costs money.

You have no basis for why YOUR point in time is right and theirs is not, other than because you say so. That's why it''s arbitrary.

[LuckyTheDog]

125. OK, just ONE more post

I can quit any time... really. ;-)

Birth is the most important event in one's life until death. It is not an "arbitrary point in time." It is the point at which a new person, one who is in need of a lot of care, is added to society.

Thus, at that point, I think society certainly has an interest in making sure the parents live up to their responsibilities. Before that, it's a private matter.

I see your "slippery slope" argument. But I think there is an argument to be made that birth is an exceptional event, not to be compared to others.

[mondo joe]

127. Birth is no more important to a person than their own conception.

And it's not arbitrary - what is arbitrary is YOUR assignment of birth as the moment at which rights are bestowed, rather than conception, or any other point.

A baby and a fetus both require resources.

You have NO basis for this distinction other than your own personal say so. That makes it arbitrary.

[Ovett]

131. if that is the case how can you be pro-choice?

if the fetus and the born baby are equal in your eyes--each deserving of the same rights, how can you be in favor of abortion?

if birth is "arbitrary", then why not be able to kill your baby after birth?

[mondo joe]

134. How can I be pro-choice? Easily. The fetus lives in the body of the

woman, and I believe she has the right to do with her body as she wishes.

It's unfortunate for the fetus, one might argue, but there is nothing to do about that.

You've confused abortion to be about a right to "kill". It's not. It's about self autonomy over one's own body.

[Ovett]

137. yes, but the decision is rarely made because of autonomy

do you really think abortions are decided upon due to the woman no wanting to carry for 9 months, or do you think more likely its about not wanting to be a parent? I think its the latter. Autonomy is a good legal argument for abortion rights, but as a practical matter I don't think its the primary factor. The trouble with your argument is you claim the rights of the born child over the fetus is an arbitrary distinction, but then claim that aborting the fetus is OK. The fetus either has rights or it doesn't...if you claim that it does not, or that the woman's right over her body trumps the fetus's rights, then assigning rights to the born baby is not an arbitrary distinction.

[mondo joe]

139. No one can know the basis of the decision, so that's a moot point.

The pregnancy occurs in the mother's body and it is her right to opt to not be pregnant.

If we had the capacity to simply remove the fetus without a termination that would present new questions.

I never claimed th he rights of any child are made arbitrarily.

The fetus has no more claim over the woman's body than anyone else does. In fact, the woman's right over her own body DOES trump any interest of the fetus.

For example, you have no right to demand a kidney transplant from her, even if it would save your own life. If you die because she refused a transplant has she violated your rights? Of course not.

Every day in the USA someone's interest trumps another's. This isn't a new concept.

[Ovett]

140. you stated the following:

"And it's not arbitrary - what is arbitrary is YOUR assignment of birth as the moment at which rights are bestowed, rather than conception, or any other point."

Clearly, birth IS the moment when rights are bestowed! Which was the argument in favor of the child having the right to child support from both parents, due to society's interest in the baby's welfare.

[mondo joe]

144. Yes, and the point is this: the right to abort a pregnancy does

not rest on when life starts or when a fetus or child gains rights. Choosing an arbitrary point of the start of life or rights is fallacious and counter productive.

The right to abort is founded on a woman's right over her own body. These other considerations are not material to that.

[Ovett]

129. conception is not exceptional?

at conception, life has undoubtedly begun. the baby is dependent on the mother before and after birth, with different stages of development progressing, some stages happen to occur within the womb, and the rest happen to occur outside the womb. if you are going to use the "exceptional event" argument, then how can you disregard conception?

[LuckyTheDog]

130. From the point of view of society

From the point of view of society, birth is the exceptional event. That's when society has an interest in making both parents take responsibility for the child's welfare. Before that, it is not society's business.

[Ovett]

133. so its all about society's interest?

In China society has an interest in keeping population down, so reproductive rights are restricted. What if society had an interest in population growth? Should the government then be allowed to ban abortion? Where do you draw the line between society's interest and personal freedom? The woman has ultimate freedom whether to bear a child or not based on the law. Why should a man's personal freedom be subject to the woman's whim because of society's interest, after she has made that choice?

[Bridget Burke]

143. The "personal freedom" of both parents is limited by ....

Their responsibility to a living child.

Was she an evil devil woman who fooled a credulous idiot into being her sperm donor? Was he a cad & bounder who seduced & abandoned a trusting virgin? Were both parents eager for the responsibility--until things changed?

It doesn't matter.

[mondo joe]

146. Yet we also provide oppotrunities for parents who wish to

be relieved of this responsibility to do so through the legal mechanism of surrendering the child.

So it's not a new idea to think a parent would have the right to terminaste that responsibility.

[Bridget Burke]

149. Yes, both parents can agree to let the child be adopted.

And one or both can abandon the child, if they wish. But I'm not sure about the legal mechanism involved....

[LuckyTheDog]

147. I totally agree

Once the kid is born, you are a parent. Like it or not, that is a fact of your life and you have responsibilities.

[mondo joe]

135. But abortion is not society's right.

And if it's society's view that matters, then society should be made to pay the support.

In fact both in-utero fetuses and newborns require resources.

Or are you saying society has no interest in providing prenatal care?

If from the point of view of society the event is birth, there are a lot of tax funded prenatal programs that should be defunded immediately.

[Ovett]

126. I like your argument!

You make a good point that if the woman has the sole discretion on whether to carry the child to term, then she should bear the sole responsibility. With power comes responsibility, right? I have often thought that if the man has NO say about whether the child is born, then why should he be on the hook afterwards? Those who argue that he must pay mandatory child support perhaps should be in favor of consent for an abortion by BOTH parties. They each played an equal role in conception, and they each play an equal role in parenting, so why should the woman have ultimate power for those 9 arbitrary months?

[mondo joe]

128. I can tell you why the woman should have sole decision making regarding

abortion: it's her body. As soon as men get pregnant it should also be soley their decision.

But the question then becomes who is responsible for the outcome of that choice?

In most other circumstances the person who makes the choice also gets sole responsibility.

[nolabels]

142. Actually I think it's more than just the lone womens choice

The world petri dish experiment is coming to a crescendo near you soon. Aside from the fact of of being able to physically support future human life on this planet is also rolled into this thing humans are. It's that we are also Territorial beast. I haven't seen it addressed much but it seems to play a roll in much conflict.

The thing about ownership is that it is only good till you have to check out. I haven't got there yet but I am willing to bet it will of seemed like such a worthless enterprise once I get there. Societies based on relationships seem more adapted to deal with issues and problems than them that are dedicated to things (which might include ideas of THINGS, like a rigid religion of some kind).

I could only respect some one if they give me a logical reason for their actions. The world I see today is quite a dark and ugly place that I am glad be able to say I have never helped directly to bring another into. Not condemning those who do but the ones that come after might condemn us for our selfishness

[mondo joe]

145. The fortunate thing is that rights are not based on your respect

for choices, or lack thereof.

[nolabels]

152. The exact point I was trying to get at in what kind of happens in my......

round about way I debate things in my own head. Civilizations and groups that run them often feel the need to imping on the individual to exercise the power it wishes to claim. Sometimes the reasons seem sound the other times not. This is being framed as a women issue when it's much more than that. This about the power to press one groups set of beliefs on others, it's about tying down the domestic partner of the men (the way men categorize everything as THINGS). It's about trying to ridicule others as cruel because they have freedom others think they shouldn't have. It's about introducing conflict into body politic.

It's about telling others that belief is more important that being happy, productive and helping to serve ones societal role in an efficient manner. It's just so much more and being suckered into the debate about being told how it is okay to tell others how much control they can have over their own body. It's just so wrong. Men have a dog in this fight almost as much as women but they just don't realize it.

My personal beliefs about what life is aside, no one should have the power to be dictating over another's body. Yet the reason they do is because of the need to try to keep others uneducated about much as they can and that's how it goes. Do the graph, education level as compared to birth rate

[Nobody]

160. The life at conception idea is not legally sound

When we are legally allowed to have a drivers license is the 16th anniversary of birth.

When we are legally allowed to vote is the 18th anniversary of birth.

When we are legally allowed to buy alcohol is the 21st anniversary of birth.

Senior citizen discounts kick in at the 55th anniversary of birth. (or 60th, depends on the discount, but it's always been the anniversary of birth in any case)

If a pregnant woman becomes a US citizen before giving birth, is the newborn child a US citizen because it was born to a citizen or not a US citizen because it was conceived by an alien?

Has there ever been a legal right or responsibility conferred on the anniversary of CONCEPTION? I'd like to find out, and then I'd like to find out how they know when conception occurs.

[soldier101]

150. That's some clear thinking on your part.

That gives the man some choice in the matter other than keep it in your pants. :toast:

[Bridget Burke]

132. Decent men earn a right to have a say ...

Yes, the final decision about abortion is the woman's. But she will listen to a man who offers support & concern. Or, even, to a man who says he doesn't want to be a father. Some of these guys vote with their feet. Others go along until after the kid is born--then say they were trapped.

But a living child needs support from both parents. That's life.

[LuckyTheDog]

136. THANK YOU!

:pals:

[NaturalHigh]

153. I'm often told that abortion is none of a man's business.

As such, I have no obligation to make it a priority for me. It irritates me that some women want me to "mind my own business" until abortion rights are threatened. Then, I'm supposed to get out there and "support a woman's right to choose." Which is it? It doesn't cut both ways.

[Fountain79]

155. Good point...

If it's none of my business why should I fight their cause?

[sproutster]

157. ...I don't make mens body politics part of my life either - but

because of my beliefs if any law came across that restricted you I would have your back.

:) But apparantly that's just me.

[Sparkly]

159. Well geez, why should you let us vote, if you can't tell us HOW to??

It should be a priority because it involves the rights of more than half the country to control our own bodies.

It's about the CHOICE -- not what the choice is.

[NaturalHigh]

174. Again, it should only be my priority...

if I have some stake in it and/or am at least allowed to express an opinion about it.

I'll be very up front by saying that I think abortion is wrong. That said, I don't belong or donate to any groups lobbying to ban it. I don't plan to. Normally, though, whenever I express my opinion about abortion, I am told by someone that it is none of my business because I am a man. That's fine, but if you don't want me to express an opinion on the subject (even if it is the "wrong" one), then don't expect me to "stand up for abortion rights." Don't expect me to cancel my Citicard because the company happens to be based in South Dakota. Don't expect me to avoid taking a vacation in South Dakota (my wife wants to go back this summer). In short, don't expect my support, just my apathy.

By the way, much of my opinion about abortion has been influenced by my wife, who would be considered far left on most issues (lower-left quadrant when she took the Political Compass test), but is firmly against abortion.

[sproutster]

176. Like every woman used to, she can rightly choose not to.

But...

When I was raped and had an abortion, she had no choice in what I CHOSE to do.

I hated what was in my body, HATED. I was 12 and I have no regrets, I feel I would have hurt the baby so great was my rage.

That's me. Do you feel the need to impose your will on me? Do you hate me?

[NaturalHigh]

180. No, not at all.

I'm very sorry for your tragic experience. Frankly, even though I think abortion is wrong, I would never presume to judge your decision in this case.

[Nobody]

158. Men are lobbyists while women are the senators

Lobbyists can talk to senators and express a desire for a particular bill to pass, but it is the senator who is on the floor of the senate casting the vote.

If a woman trusts you then she will likely confide in you and ask your advice and/or support. She will do this unprompted by government or screaming meemies outside clinics. If she's afraid of you, she will keep her mouth shut and find someone else she does trust.

We do NOT need a law requiring her to notify a specific individual. We do NOT need a law that effectively turns a woman into someone who can't be trusted to find her own sounding board or support person.

Women are people and should be treated as such. Women should be trusted to make their own decisions, especially about their own medical options and who they will trust to get advice from.

[Sparkly]

161. I find it sad that there was even an argument about this.

Thanks for your post. :hi:

[geniph]

165. What some people seem to be missing here is the way this really works

in the real world. In the real world, in most cases, a man can go to court to be relieved of child support obligations if they are not permitted visitation and/or partial custody. A woman who prevents legally-ordered visitation generally cannot get child support enforced.

At least, that's been the way it's worked for everyone I know here in Washington state. My own nephew has a child with his ex-girlfriend. It was a case where she decided to have the baby over his (mild) objections. He paid child support while she lived in this state and he could still insist on his share of custody. When she moved out of state with their daughter, he petitioned the court for relief, and got it.

Does it work differently in other states? In my experience, in the real world, a man who truly does not want any part of parenting can generally opt altogether out of it, especially if the woman marries someone else.

Oh, and women pay child support too. I know a number of divorced couples where the mother is the one paying the child support because the children's father has primary custody.

[JerseygirlCT]

178. Well said. And thank you. nt