NationStates Jolt Archive

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):
Meghan Daum:
Shouldn't men have 'choice' too?
FOR PRO-CHOICERS like myself, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s position regarding spousal consent for abortion seems like one more loose rock in the ongoing erosion of Roe vs. Wade. Even those of us who are too young to remember the pre-Roe era often see any threat to abortion rights as a threat to our very destinies. We are, after all, the generation that grew up under Title IX, singing along to "Free to Be You and Me" (you know, the 1972 children's record where Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda remind us that mommies can be plumbers and boys can have dolls). When it comes to self-determination, we're as determined as it gets.

But even though I was raised believing in the inviolability of a woman's right to choose, the older I get, the more I wonder if this idea of choice is being fairly applied.

Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The "choice" in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead.

But what about the kind of life men want to lead? On Dec. 1, Dalton Conley, director of the Center for Advanced Social Science Research at New York University, published an article on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times arguing that Alito's position on spousal consent did not go far enough.

Describing his own experience with a girlfriend who terminated a pregnancy against his wishes, Conley took some brave steps down the slippery slope of this debate, suggesting that if a father is willing to assume full responsibility for a child not wanted by a mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction stopping her from having an abortion — and he should be able to do so regardless of whether or not he's married to her.

Conley freely acknowledges the many obvious caveats in this position — the most salient being the fact that regardless of how "full" that male responsibility might be, the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth will always put most of the onus on women. But as much as I shudder at the idea of a man, husband or not, obtaining an injunction telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, I would argue that it is Conley who has not gone far enough.

Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality.

I realize I've just alienated feminists (among whose ranks I generally count myself) as well as pro-lifers, neither of whom are always above platitudes such as "You should have kept your pants on." But that reasoning is by now as reductive as suggesting that a rape victim "asked for it." Yes, people often act irresponsibly and yes, abortion should be avoided whenever possible. But just as women should not be punished for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, men should not be punished when those women choose not to.

One problem, of course, is that the child is likely to bear the brunt of whatever punishment remains to be doled out. A father who terminates his rights, although not technically a deadbeat dad, has still helped create a kid who is not fully supported. And (in case you were wondering) there are dozens of other holes in my theory as well: What if a husband wants to terminate his rights — should that be allowed? What if a father is underage and wants to terminate but his parents forbid him? Should a father's decision-making time be limited to the first trimester? Should couples on first dates discuss their positions on the matter? Should Internet dating profiles let men check a box saying "will waive parental rights" next to the box indicating his astrological sign?

There's also the danger that my idea is not just a slippery slope but a major mudslide on the way to Conley's idea. If a man can legally dissociate himself from a pregnancy, some will argue, why couldn't he also bind himself to it and force it to term? That notion horrifies me, just as my plan probably horrifies others. But that doesn't mean these ideas aren't worth discussing. Though it may be hard to find an adult male who's sufficiently undiplomatic to admit out loud that he'd like to have the option I'm proposing, let alone potentially take it, I know more than a few parents of teenage boys who lose sleep over the prospect of their sons landing in the kind of trouble from which they'll have no power to extricate themselves.

And although the notion of women "tricking" men into fatherhood now sounds arcane and sexist, we'd be blind not to recognize the extent to which some women are capable of tricking themselves into thinking men will stick around, despite all evidence to the contrary. Allowing men to legally (if not always gracefully) bow out of fatherhood would, at the very least, start a conversation for which we haven't yet found the right words.

Actually, there's one word we've had all along: choice. We just need to broaden its definition.
If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

It would be great to allow both people to have a say but it is impossible to do so without giving one superiority.

I'd say the solution is to onl sleep with women that you'd trust to take your views into consideration of they got pregnant.

Even though it may be the man's child, it is the woman's body. She has to go through with the pregnancy and birth and all the inconveniences that go with them, and he shouldn't be able to force her to do that if she doesn't want to.

Even though it may be the man's child, it is the woman's body. She has to go through with the pregnancy and birth and all the inconveniences that go with them, and he shouldn't be able to force her to do that if she doesn't want to.
It's her body, but it's your money. She'll have to go through pregnancy, but you'll have to deal with the child support payments. Shouldn't the law cover you, too?

It would be great to allow both people to have a say but it is impossible to do so without giving one superiority.

I'd say the solution is to onl sleep with women that you'd trust to take your views into consideration of they got pregnant.

That should say "to only" and "if they". I'm afraid my edit function is broken.

It's her body, but it's your money. She'll have to go through pregnancy, but you'll have to deal with the child support payments. Shouldn't the law cover you, too?

So how do you think the law should work?

My, what a load of crock :rolleyes:
Of course the man can speak easy here, he doesn't have to carry out and bear the child, which is both a serious pain :mad:
The woman should always have free choice for abortion, no matter what!

sure, they should have a choice over everything that isnt the woman's body. so if the fetus needs interutero surgery (and the mother agrees to the invasion of her body) the father should be consulted. once the baby is free of the mother's body, the father has equal say in all aspects of the child's life.

he just doesnt have the right to force pregnancy and childbirth on another person.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):
The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.

sure, they should have a choice over everything that isnt the woman's body. so if the fetus needs interutero surgery (and the mother agrees to the invasion of her body) the father should be consulted. once the baby is free of the mother's body, the father has equal say in all aspects of the child's life.

he just doesnt have the right to force pregnancy and childbirth on another person.

The OP still hasn't explained what system should be put in the place of the existing laws. Don't you just hate people who start controversial threads without putting their own ideas in?

3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.

I approve this message.

I approve this message.
Worked for me. Hey, you can't get anyone pregnant that way.

Worked for me. Hey, you can't get anyone pregnant that way.

But it sure is fun trying!

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.

How about:
If the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get sterilised.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with men - have sex with women.
4. Don't have sex with men - use your right hand.

Where exactly is the difference in the judgemental moralising here?

I reckon that if the man is going to be paying out (and presuming he's not some drunken loony), he should have a say. It is his offspring as well as the woman's, after all... or are men just walking sperm tanks?

Where exactly is the difference in the judgemental moralising here?

One is homosexual, and thus clearly superior.

I reckon that if the man is going to be paying out (and presuming he's not some drunken loony), he should have a say. It is his offspring as well as the woman's, after all... or are men just walking sperm tanks?

I think it comes back to the morally muddy nature of abortions - one can't compel another person to have one or not to have one.

Sometimes, there has to be a compromise, and sometimes you won't get everything your way. It's not nice, but at some stage, you just have to deal with it.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?
No, a woman has to bear the one with the burden, it is her body, it is HER choice

I reckon that if the man is going to be paying out (and presuming he's not some drunken loony), he should have a say. It is his offspring as well as the woman's, after all... or are men just walking sperm tanks?

I've always followed the idea that as far as women go, I wouldn't have sex with a woman I wasn't willing to father a child with - at the very least, be willing to fulfill obligations to the child. Yes, use contraception, but know that unless you have a confirmed zero count after vasectomy, you're rolling the dice.

If you're not willing to take that minimal level of responsibility, then to me, being gay is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

I've always followed the idea that as far as women go, I wouldn't have sex with a woman I wasn't willing to father a child with - at the very least, be willing to fulfill obligations to the child. Yes, use contraception, but know that unless you have a confirmed zero count after vasectomy, you're rolling the dice.

If you're not willing to take that minimal level of responsibility, then to me, being gay is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

That's... a conceptualisation of homo/hetero -ism! I don't think I would find it that easy to slip gracefully from one to the other, though.

A man cannot force a woman to have (or not have) an abortion. That would be infringing upon her right to control her own body - and would be, in effect, a legalized form of slavery.

I am all for the idea of a "paper abortion", however, for a man. It would either have to occur within the same period of time a woman can get an elective abortion or, should she attempt to wait to tell him until after that period, he would get a period of, say, 3 months after he is informed. He could sign away all legal rights and responsibilities to the child. If the woman is to have the final say in whether or not a child is brought into this world (and she does - with no other way to do it), then she must accept full responsibility for the raising of that child, even if the father has said he will not be a part of it.

Does it still come out a bit one-sided on many counts? Of course it does! We cannot, for instance, give a man a way to have a child even if the woman does not want to, but a woman can have a child even if the man does not want one. But these are inequalities imposed by biology, not by law. There really isn't much we can do about it, other than keep the latter case from affecting the man's life..

I'd say the solution is to onl sleep with women that you'd trust to take your views into consideration of they got pregnant.
Yeah, right. Good luck w'dat!

Elgesh']That's... a conceptualisation of homo/hetero -ism! I don't think I would find it that easy to slip gracefully from one to the other, though.
Wasn't a problem for me. Specialization is for insects.

So, the man has just to cough up some money just because the woman decides to keep the child? Bah, if the woman gets 3 months time to think about keeping the child, why not give the man 3 months to think to waive his rights(all of them!) on the child?

Of course he should have no say about the pregnancy, but if the girls decides to keep the child, doesn't that automatically involve that it's her responsibility because it's her choice.

The OP still hasn't explained what system should be put in the place of the existing laws. Don't you just hate people who start controversial threads without putting their own ideas in?

I'm more interested in Conley, for a researcher he's a little biased, of course as a person he can hold any views he wants and as a social scientist I'm sure he's got plenty of knowledge about the question but is this a piece of research or a news article?

would you mind posting any links you've been lookin through on this.

Yeah, right. Good luck w'dat!

And they say I'm a bitter fag, breeder.

No, a woman has to bear the one with the burden, it is her body, it is HER choice

Playing devils advocate here. Then maybe it should be at her expense, in this so called equal world of ours.

It's her body, but it's your money. She'll have to go through pregnancy, but you'll have to deal with the child support payments. Shouldn't the law cover you, too?
[RANT MODE]Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about the "rights" of either the man or the woman. What's important to me is the rights of the child they chose to bring into the world in such a blithe, irresponsible manner. If it were up to me, I would make it punishable by frakking DEATH to fail to care for a child you brought into the world, and yes ... I'm serious! [ cusses under his breath ] [/RANT MODE]

And they say I'm a bitter fag, breeder.
ROFLMAO! I NEVER said that! :p

Wasn't a problem for me. Specialization is for insects.

Your sexuality-flexibility fills me with awe. Awe and a number of other emotions, which are weird and... deeply confusing [/Zapp Branigann] <sorry... another thread's put me in a Futurama-mood...:)>

Elgesh']Your sexuality-flexibility fills me with awe. Awe and a number of other emotions, which are weird and... deeply confusing [/Zapp Branigann] <sorry... another thread's put me in a Futurama-mood...:)>

Experiment just so you don't miss anything.

I never want to be in a position to say later, "I wish I had tried that."

ROFLMAO! I NEVER said that! :p

You're not they. Or so you claim.

Both men and women have (imo) equal rights with regards to the choice to reproduce.

What they do *not* have -- by simple biological fiat - are identical 'windows of choice'.

A woman's window of choice stretches from 'decision to have sex' to 'decision to terminate or not teminate existing pregnancy'.

A man's window of choice is far more restricted -- it is primarily 'decision to have sex'.

It's a little a long the lines of live organ donation (to make a very rough analogy) -- once the tissue is out of donors body, they can no longer dictate how it's used by the recipient. Where as the recipient has all the usual options about how to treat what's in their body.

Is is fair? Not really. But you can't remedy an unfairness to one party (men's limited window of choice) by imposing unfairness on another party (taking away a woman's window of choice by giving control over it to men).

Especially when you consider that the two unfairnesses have un-equal negative consequences. The negative consequence for men is 'un-welcome financial burden/unwelcome personal relationships'. The negative consequence for women includes 'un-welcome financial burden/unwelcome personal relationships' as well as (actually inherent in any pregnancy, welcome or otherwise) 'risk of death/injury/infertility'.

Elicere

You're not they. Or so you claim.
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/699/smileytroutsmack8fh.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I am somewhat embarrassed to realize that this question never occurred to me. Now I have to think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Erk...iffy subject. I certainly don't think men should be able to force women to have a child through the law, though on an individual basis women should at least consider the wishes of the father when it comes to abortion.

However, it does to an extent make sense that if a man used preventative measures or the woman clearly assured him she was on the pill and she gets pregnant regardless, and he really wants her to have an abortion but she doesn't want one, he shouldn't have to support the kid. Some choices just require responsibility, and if the woman doesn't want the full responsiblity of the child then she should have an abortion.

In principle anyway. There's obviously practical problems with this - would make single mothers more of a burden on the state for a start.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/699/smileytroutsmack8fh.gif

You fail at teh Internets!

If a woman is willing to incur the financial burden of the child without the father's help, then I think he should have no say.

If the father would be forced to help, financially, then I think he should have a say.

If the father is willing to incur all the financial responsibility, the woman should carry out the pregnancy. If it is the physical pain she doesn't want, she can:

1. Get sterilised.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with men - have sex with women.
4. Don't have sex with men - use your right hand.

I don't think that a foetus should be terminated just because it hurts fashion or causes normal physical discomfort (I know, I know, understatement of the year.).

If that was the case, though, I would be killing people left and right because they give me headaches. :D

Goddistan']If the father is willing to incur all the financial responsibility, the woman should carry out the pregnancy.

So the man gets ownership rights over the woman's body simply by having sex with her? At least in old forms of slavery, there was usually some sort of monetary exchange....

So the man gets ownership rights over the woman's body simply by having sex with her? At least in old forms of slavery, there was usually some sort of monetary exchange....
I think the going price in the Old Testament was fifty shekels.

I think the going price in the Old Testament was fifty shekels.

Sounds about right. What would that be if we accounted for inflation?

Originally posted by Dempublicents1

So the man gets ownership rights over the woman's body simply by having sex with her?

Not in every case. However, one could also say that the woman foregoes that right by having sex with the man.

So the man gets ownership rights over the woman's body simply by having sex with her? At least in old forms of slavery, there was usually some sort of monetary exchange.... But isn't it his offspring as well? As the father, shouldn't he have a say in what happens to what, at the end of the day, is his offspring?

Well, well, well...

now we know why people are supposed to get married before having sex, having children, starting families.

Since the man has the responsibility of supporting the child for 18 years, but the woman only has to carry the child for 9 months, the father's wishes should take precedence.

As far as the pain and discomfort of pregnancy/childbirth, I have know many women who said it was no problem. In fact, my wife was in labor for only a couple hours before giving birth to my step-daughter...:)

signed---harsh monday mood...grrrrr!:mp5:

I don't think there would be any way to enforce this law if one were ever made. First, the parentage of the child would have to be proven, which cannot be done safely until much later in the pregnancy, as most women chose to abort in the first 8 to 10 weeks. Secondly, what type of consent is being asked for? simple notification or a "go ahead" from the second party. The whole thing just looks ugly and unreasonable (not even starting into the ability of a man to force the risks, however great or small, of pregnancy on a woman).

Since the man has the responsibility of supporting the child for 18 years, but the woman only has to carry the child for 9 months, the father's wishes should take precedence.

Oh, and women just walk away after 9 months? Eh?

Goddistan']Not in every case. However, one could also say that the woman foregoes that right by having sex with the man.

Anyone who says that is an idiot or a mysogynist. One cannot give up one's sovereign right to one's own body, especially not by anything so fleeting as sex.


But isn't it his offspring as well? As the father, shouldn't he have a say in what happens to what, at the end of the day, is his offspring?

It isn't technically offspring at all until it is born. Meanwhile, as soon as the father can carry a pregnancy to term, he can decide what to do about a pregnancy. Does this mean that a father never gets to decide whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term? Pretty much? Does that seem unfair? Yeah, pretty much? Is it an unfairness we can do anything about? Nope. Biology determines that only women get pregnant. Thus, only women can determine what to do about being pregnant.

In the United States (I dont really know in other countries) there are groups of doctors who have signed declarations of their intent to ask women to include their partners in their medical decisions during pregnancy (I have seen many of them on hospital walls and practice hallways). Perhaps those who really are serious about getting rights for fathers may want to start by attempting to make these declarations more mainstream and "out there" in the public. These groups of doctors refuse to force a woman to do anything, but they pledge to inform a woman of the benefits of including the partner in the decision along with alernatives.

Yeah, right. Good luck w'dat!

Yeah, ok, ok....

All I'm saying is that if you're in a sexual relationship it might be a good idea to talk about what you want to do if a pregnancy does occur. For eg. if the woman was fervently pro-life the guy might decide not to risk fathering a child (ok, I admit the odds of a guy turning down sex are small but it could happen:p ).

Anyone who says that is an idiot or a mysogynist.

Excellent example of a Rush Limbaugh fallacy as well as an ad hominem.

One cannot give up one's sovereign right to one's own body, especially not by anything so fleeting as sex.

"One's own body." I will let that one go, but whether the foetus is a person or not, I have a hard time reconciling it being just another part of a woman's body.

One cannot give up one's sovereign right to one's own life, especially not by anything so fleeting as sex. That includes the male.

I'll mention, I am arguing this tenetively. I have not sold myself to either side. I am merely arguing from the side that I was initially inclined, thus it is not something for which I will die on a hill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dalton-conley/why-my-mans-right-to-_b_11883.html

Goddistan']Excellent example of a Rush Limbaugh fallacy as well as an ad hominem.

Ok, you go ahead and argue that slavery is A-ok.

I'll just ignore you.

"One's own body." I will let that one go, but whether the foetus is a person or not, I have a hard time reconciling it being just another part of a woman's body.

Irrelevant. It is inside her body and she has the right to determine whether or not it is there. If I put a chia pet into your body and then claimed that you had to let it grow there, whether you wanted to or not, for nine months, would you say the law was on my side?

One cannot give up one's sovereign right to one's own life, especially not by anything so fleeting as sex. That includes the male.

No one is asking anyone to give up one's life. You, however, are saying that the man should own the woman's body simply because she had sex with him. In your own words, "One could argue that she gives up that right...."

I'll mention, I am arguing this tenetively. I have not sold myself to either side. I am merely arguing from the side that I was initially inclined, thus it is not something for which I will die on a hill.

I certainly hope not. An argument in favor of slavery is not one worth bothering with.

If I put a chia pet into your body and then claimed that you had to let it grow there, whether you wanted to or not, for nine months, would you say the law was on my side?

ch- ch- ch- Chia!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dalton-conley/why-my-mans-right-to-_b_11883.html

Still an argument that someone other than an adult human being should have the right to use that adult human being's body against their will.

Ok, you go ahead and argue that slavery is A-ok.

I'll just ignore you.
Neither of you have qualified this legal reference and so in my opinion both should be ignored :mad: I wanna know what it means dang




I certainly hope not. An argument in favor of slavery is not one worth bothering with.
This is in my tastes a leap

Still an argument that someone other than an adult human being should have the right to use that adult human being's body against their will.
If you look at my first post, you'll see that I was looking for the credentials of one of the cited 'experts' or part of the original debate.

I'm not siding with him I just thought it might be nice for people to read it.

Still your point though blunt is valid

Well, well, well...

now we know why people are supposed to get married before having sex, having children, starting families.

Since the man has the responsibility of supporting the child for 18 years, but the woman only has to carry the child for 9 months, the father's wishes should take precedence.

In what situation is a male more repsonsable the a female financialy?

Guess what bucco after the 9 months are up she is still responsable for it financialy too (baring adoption then neither of them are)

Ok, you go ahead and argue that slavery is A-ok.


If it stops the foetus being killed...

Ok, you go ahead and argue that slavery is A-ok.

I am not advocating slavery. She has all the freedoms of a normal woman with the exception of one which is only relevant to those who are pregnant. I do not endorse slavery. A woman being forced to have sex and being forced to carry the pregnancy is slavery. A woman whose daily life is being dictated by the man as a result of her pregnancy would be slavery. A woman choosing to have sex and becoming pregnant as a result is not slavery.

I'll just ignore you.

Now that wasn't fruitful in the spirit of debate. If this is an issue, it is good that both sides be brought up.

It is inside her body and she has the right to determine whether or not it is there. If I put a chia pet into your body and then claimed that you had to let it grow there, whether you wanted to or not, for nine months, would you say the law was on my side?

False analogy fallacy. It breaks down in two places.

A) The chia pet is not a living thing and would never be sentient.

B) If it was a foetus, it would not be put there with my consent in the first place.

Point B is why I think rape would be a legitimate exception.

No one is asking anyone to give up one's life.

I don't mean one's physical life. I mean one's life situation. I don't think it would be right for a man and woman to have sex, the woman get pregnant, and just be able to tell the man, "I am having this baby and you will be helping raise it." Neither do I think the woman should have the right to refuse a man the future child IF AND ONLY IF he was willing to claim sole responsibility for it.

You, however, are saying that the man should own the woman's body simply because she had sex with him.

I am not saying a man should own a woman's body, but rather, what is within it, since it is as much a part of him as it is a part of her, genetically speaking.

If you, for whatever reason, swallowed a ring that belonged to me, would you say that since it is in your body, you have the right to do with it as you please?

An argument in favor of slavery is not one worth bothering with.

I wholeheartedly agree.

A man cannot have control over whether a woman has an abortion or carries to term. This is a case in which fairness means a level of unfairness, based off biology.

However, if a woman has a right to essentially say 'I don't want to deal with a kid(even if it is the consequences of my actions),' then it is unjust and illogical to deny a man the same right. I fully support men being able to obtain a de jure abortion and as such not be forced to raise or support a child they conceived.

What if the fetus is at the point of viability and the husband is willing to take over complete parental rights? Interesting question. Of course, in order to make a decision on this, the father would have to know of the planned abortion. It seems little can be done if the father is not at least informed; he can't offer to pay or take total responsibility for bills and childcare if he doesn't even know of the existence of the child. Lots of questions there.


Edit: I suppose "husband" would be better stated as "partner" since I would imagine few abortions happen within a marriage without both parties knowing (not that I would think it never happens.)

your assuming the father dosn't go raise the child

If the woman wants the child, yet the man does not, then the woman should take care of it by herself and without any assistance of the man.

If the man wants the child and the woman does not, she can either abort it, or have it and give up all her rights to the man, and he should raise it without any assistance of the woman.

Of course, that would require informing the man, which, I think, might be what this law was suppose to be about in the first place. Informing is a decent idea, consent, however, is not.

Anyone who says that is an idiot or a mysogynist. One cannot give up one's sovereign right to one's own body, especially not by anything so fleeting as sex. I'll settle for misogynist.

I chose the term "offspring" very carefully, as it has none of the emotional or even biological connotations of "child".

Going past the 9 months of pregnancy, you seem to be assuming that the father won't have a hand in raising his offspring. As one of two parents, doesn't he have at least a hand in the decision as well? Why is it only the mother's decision which matters? It is inside her, but it's also of him. He's a parent as much as the mother is.

If the woman wants the child, yet the man does not, then the woman should take care of it by herself and without any assistance of the man.

If the man wants the child and the woman does not, she can either abort it, or have it and give up all her rights to the man, and he should raise it without any assistance of the woman.

Well said :)

A man cannot have control over whether a woman has an abortion or carries to term. This is a case in which fairness means a level of unfairness, based off biology.
snip
Exactly I am all for attempting to make society as fair as possible ... but in the end untill we can change biology on that level we dont have a choice

If the woman wants the child, yet the man does not, then the woman should take care of it by herself and without any assistance of the man.

If the man wants the child and the woman does not, she can either abort it, or have it and give up all her rights to the man, and he should raise it without any assistance of the woman.

Of course the state would have to pay for the child's welfare

As for informing it is nice in theory but I don't know in some cases there may be intimidation etc the law shouldn't force people to ruin their lives because of an innocent mistake and the man presumably knew whom he was dealing with, whether she was likely to tell him or not.

Neither of you have qualified this legal reference and so in my opinion both should be ignored :mad: I wanna know what it means dang

Main Entry: slav·ery
Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE
Function: noun
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

The only way a man can make medical decisions for a woman without her express consent is by having ownership rights to her body. In other words, definition #3a.

This is in my tastes a leap

So slavery is not one person having ownership rights over another? What is it then, pray tell?


If it stops the foetus being killed...

Most abortions don't even involve a fetus.

Goddistan]
I am not advocating slavery.

Yes, you are. You are advocating a situation in which a man would legally be able to use a woman's body against her will. That is the very definition of slavery.

She has all the freedoms of a normal woman with the exception of one which is only relevant to those who are pregnant.

She is pregnant - which means that the freedom is relevant to her.

I do not endorse slavery. A woman being forced to have sex and being forced to carry the pregnancy is slavery. A woman whose daily life is being dictated by the man as a result of her pregnancy would be slavery. A woman choosing to have sex and becoming pregnant as a result is not slavery.

A woman being forced to continue a pregnancy against her will is slavery in exactly the same way as any of these are. It gives others (in this case, a man she slept with) rights over her body - to use her as an incubator against her will.

False analogy fallacy. It breaks down in two places.

A) The chia pet is not a living thing and would never be sentient.

What does that have to do with ownership rights over it? And, last I checked, the chia pet is a living thing. All that stuff that grows out of it is living.

B) If it was a foetus, it would not be put there with my consent in the first place.

You're right. It isn't there with her consent. She consented to sex, which is not the same thing as consenting to pregnancy.


I am not saying a man should own a woman's body, but rather, what is within it, since it is as much a part of him as it is a part of her, genetically speaking.

Technically incorrect and also irrelevant. First of all, a man does not give as much genetic material, as all of the mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother. Second of all, he can own it all he wants, but she still determines whether or not it is inside of her, unless you would equally state that he could place his own clone inside of her and she would be forced to bear it to term....

If you, for whatever reason, swallowed a ring that belonged to me, would you say that since it is in your body, you have the right to do with it as you please?


I would certainly have the right to get it the hell out of my body. After that, you could have it back if you like.


I wholeheartedly agree.

Then why are you making one. Again, your own words: "One could argue that she gives up that right....." You are arguing that a woman gives up the right to ownership and control of her own body by having sex with a man.

What if the fetus is at the point of viability and the husband is willing to take over complete parental rights? Interesting question. Of course, in order to make a decision on this, the father would have to know of the planned abortion. It seems little can be done if the father is not at least informed; he can't offer to pay or take total responsibility for bills and childcare if he doesn't even know of the existence of the child. Lots of questions there.

If the fetus is at the point of viability, it is pretty much a moot point. The only way a mother could legally have an abortion at that point would be if her own health were in extreme danger or there were serious health problems with the fetus. In the first case, the man would still have no say - as the mother has the right to do what she must to protect her own life. In the latter, you're looking at something a bit more difficult, but that probably wouldn't be decided without both anyways.

I chose the term "offspring" very carefully, as it has none of the emotional or even biological connotations of "child".

And is still technically incorrect. The only real terms we have to describe it at this stage are embryo and fetus.

Going past the 9 months of pregnancy, you seem to be assuming that the father won't have a hand in raising his offspring.

Hardly. If he chooses to take on that responsibility (and the rights that go with it) and the woman chooses to carry to term, he will certainly be involved. Indeed, I think he *should* be involved. However, he has to find a *willing* woman to have his child first.

As one of two parents, doesn't he have at least a hand in the decision as well? Why is it only the mother's decision which matters?

Because it is only the mother who is pregnant. Only she can decide whether or not to remain so. He cannot use her as an unwilling incubator.

Imagine if you will, that I wanted a cherry tree. I'd always wanted a cherry tree. It was a very real desire. However, I could not get a cherry tree to grow on my land - wrong kind of soil, no place in which the tree could safely grow, etc.

One night, you and I are playing around in your yard, and I drop some seeds in a place that happens to be perfect for cherry-tree growing. Sure enough, a sapling pokes out through the soil in due time. However, you don't want a cherry tree in your yard. You never have, and you don't want one growing there now. It is your yard, and you can pull that tree up, no matter how much I want it there. It does not matter that it grew out of my seeds. It is your yard, and you can decide what does and does not grow in it.

Now, if a person has such a right over even their own land, why exactly are people arguing that a person doesn't have even that much of a right over their own bodies?

You're right. It isn't there with her consent. She consented to sex, which is not the same thing as consenting to pregnancy. Someone signs up for the Army. If you're in the Army, there's a fair chance you won't have to kill, therefore if you signed up for the Army, you shouldn't have to kill people. By your logic…
Because it is only the mother who is pregnant. Only she can decide whether or not to remain so. He cannot use her as an unwilling incubator. Last time I checked, people did not have absolute rights over even their own bodies (and that is debatable in this case whether it is) - drugs laws, right for the state to incarcerate, right to restrain etc.

Why should the father not have a decision into whether it's aborted or not? It's his embryo as much as hers. If she swallowed an item of jewellery belonging to him, would the ownership rights automatically pass to her just because it's inside her?

It is the womans choice, first...last...always.

Now, we are talking about marriage. therefore, if you have an actual marriage where both people love and respect each other, then the man should have a say. It will be half his responsibility for the next 18+ years, he deserves to have his opinions and feelings considered. However, if she really wants one, and after considering his feelings still wants one, it is her option to have one anyway.

If it is never mentioned to the partner, he is not considered, the relationship is abusive, it was created in an affair...any reason I can think of that a woman would hide this kind of thing from her partner really, then probably not mentioning the baby and getting an abortion is the least of the issues in that relationship. If a woman can choose to have an abortion, then she is capable of deciding whom she tells and when. That is not the governments decision, it is hers. She is an adult, treat her as such. With any luck, she understands that she is an adult and her actions won't only effect her and will consider her partners opinion.

Welcome to marriage...its compromise...not one party imposing their will on the other (and this applies in both directions in this case)

Someone signs up for the Army. If you're in the Army, there's a fair chance you won't have to kill, therefore if you signed up for the Army, you shouldn't have to kill people. By your logic…

No I am fairly sure this is covered under your application
Would be hard to imagine them not puting in such a clause in the paperwork

Even though it may be the man's child, it is the woman's body. She has to go through with the pregnancy and birth and all the inconveniences that go with them, and he shouldn't be able to force her to do that if she doesn't want to.The child didn't get born in a vacuum. It takes two to tango and it takes to to create a child. A woman shouldn't have rights to an abortion without taking a responsible man's wishes into account. And, depending on whether you believe life begins at conception or not, it isn't just one person's body we're talking about here.

On abortion: it should be the woman's choice. End of discussion.

On the financial situation after the child is born: a father should be able to have some sort of renunciation document that says "This is no child of mine. I will not spend a dime on this child."

On the man wanting the baby but not the woman: Tough luck, it's a woman's prerogative. I suggest you try incentives to change her minds. It will still be her choice, though.

She is pregnant - which means that the freedom is relevant to her.

I know it is relevant. I am saying it is no more restricting than before she was pregnant.

A woman being forced to continue a pregnancy against her will is slavery in exactly the same way as any of these are. It gives others (in this case, a man she slept with) rights over her body - to use her as an incubator against her will.

Basically, she would never be in that position if she hadn't slept with the man. With rights come responsibility, correct? She had the full right to sleep with said man. With that came the potential to become pregnant. She is, thus, responsible for the situation and if there is any "slavery," it is a result of her own doing, and not someone forcing her into a position that was independent of her actions.

What does that have to do with ownership rights over it? And, last I checked, the chia pet is a living thing. All that stuff that grows out of it is living.

Yes. You're right. A chia pet is living. It is not, nor would it ever be, sentient. If you put a potted plant in me, it would be the same. I question comparing a chia pet to a foetus, though.

You're right. It isn't there with her consent. She consented to sex, which is not the same thing as consenting to pregnancy.

You missed my point. My point was not that the foetus is there by her will. My point was that the "putting" of it was consentual. Was the sex willing or not? If not, then I completely agree with you.

Technically incorrect and also irrelevant.

I would be interested in hearing how something within a woman with different DNA and sometimes different reproductive structures (if the child is male) is part of a woman's body. Is a woman pregnant with a male foetus (who is far enough along to have genetalia, granted) a hermaphroditic with two different sets of DNA?

Second of all, he can own it all he wants, but she still determines whether or not it is inside of her, unless you would equally state that he could place his own clone inside of her and she would be forced to bear it to term....

If she consented to the process of it being put in, sure.

I would certainly have the right to get it the hell out of my body. After that, you could have it back if you like.

Okay, what if the person who swallowed it decided to keep it or to throw it away? Just because it is within the woman's body does not give her absolute right to it. Nor does it give her complete ownership.

Imagine if you will, that I wanted a cherry tree. I'd always wanted a cherry tree. It was a very real desire. However, I could not get a cherry tree to grow on my land - wrong kind of soil, no place in which the tree could safely grow, etc.

One night, you and I are playing around in your yard, and I drop some seeds in a place that happens to be perfect for cherry-tree growing. Sure enough, a sapling pokes out through the soil in due time. However, you don't want a cherry tree in your yard. You never have, and you don't want one growing there now. It is your yard, and you can pull that tree up, no matter how much I want it there. It does not matter that it grew out of my seeds. It is your yard, and you can decide what does and does not grow in it.

Now, if a person has such a right over even their own land, why exactly are people arguing that a person doesn't have even that much of a right over their own bodies?

Again, I question plant matter and human matter different (No, I didn't call the foetus a human). Also, if I really didn't want saplings, I would not have just watched you drop the seeds there.

I want to know what either person is thinking, though. If I see you carrying seeds around my yard, for whatever reason, and I do not want trees, I won't just stand by as you drop your seeds.

The analogy would be more accurate this way:

"Imagine if you will, that I wanted a cherry tree. I'd always wanted a cherry tree. It was a very real desire. However, I could not get a cherry tree to grow on my land - wrong kind of soil, no place in which the tree could safely grow, etc.

One night, you and I are playing around in your yard, and you and I decide to plant a cherry tree in a place that is perfect for cherry-tree growing. Sure enough, a sapling pokes out through the soil in due time. However, you don't want a cherry tree in your yard. You never have, and you don't want one growing there now. It is your yard, and you can pull that tree up, no matter how much I want it there. It does not matter that it grew out of my seeds. It is your yard, and you can decide what does and does not grow in it.

Now, if a person has such a right over even their own land, why exactly are people arguing that a person doesn't have even that much of a right over their own bodies?"

Why the hell would I have agreed for you to plant the tree? There's a chance it won't come up, of course. Maybe I'm counting on that?

According to Meghan Daum as qouted by The Eliki:

"Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The "choice" in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead."
That is exactly the thinking on abortion that is wrong. It is also an incorrect interpretation of what the Supreme Court's intentions in determining Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not say that abortion is justified if the woman thinks having a kid will prevent her from getting rich. Abortion is allowed if it harms the woman's physical life, not her financial life.
"Describing his own experience with a girlfriend who terminated a pregnancy against his wishes, Conley took some brave steps down the slippery slope of this debate, suggesting that if a father is willing to assume full responsibility for a child not wanted by a mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction stopping her from having an abortion — and he should be able to do so regardless of whether or not he's married to her.

Conley freely acknowledges the many obvious caveats in this position — the most salient being the fact that regardless of how "full" that male responsibility might be, the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth will always put most of the onus on women. But as much as I shudder at the idea of a man, husband or not, obtaining an injunction telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, I would argue that it is Conley who has not gone far enough"

Except that men have two options available if they want to be parents. Or three rather. They can impregnate a woman who wants kids with them, they can donate their sperm or they can adopt. The same options are available for women. It is unconstititutional and a violation of human rights to force the woman to die against her wishes for a child she does not want or care about. It is sad and I do oppose this. But a woman's love for a child is proved by the fact that she would be willing to die to give birth to that child. Most American women are not willing to make the sacrifice of love for their own children. They think raising and loving a child means nothing more than giving them expensive stuff and leaving them at daycare. Most women, like most men, spend little to no time at all with their children. Instead, American women, like American men, selfishly insist on putting their careers, finances and social lives ahead of the needs of their own children. Women cannot in any way claim moral superiority over men on the subject of abortion. When it comes to whether one is willing to sacrifice their very lives or livelihoods for the child, I hold both men and women in equal condemnation.
"Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years. "
That is the situation as we find it today. It would be an easy solution to allow men to terminate all responsibility for a child that they don't want but a woman insists on having. Face it, a significant number of American women have kids just so they can force men to support their immoral lifestyles while they do nothing at all except sit on the coach and watch soap operas all day and go to parties neglecting the children they have at home. These same women refuse to get jobs or make up lame excuses for why they don't work. Despite the protests from the anti american left, this happens all too often with women seeking abortion. Yet it is more complex. If we allowed men to refuse responsibility we open a potential Pandora's Box. What to hold men from irresponsibly knocking up 50 women at a time per man? There must be a give and take. Men, like women, should be required to give up something in return. For example, in return for being allowed to refuse responsibility for a child they sire, men could be required to undergo chemical castration that would prohibit them from knocking up any more women. Or we could make it more permanent. Since most men who refuse responsibility usually do not change their minds later on in life. Unlike women who do tend to change their minds later in life. Either way, men must be required to pay a price for being allowed to refuse responsibility just as women should be required to pay a price for killing an unborn child just because they think the child will prevent them from getting rich or ruin their social lives.
Of course, in the first trimester, there will, in the near future, be the option of fetal transfer. Currently this is what is done when doctors transfer fetuses from a petri dish to a woman's body.

The Eliki asks:
"If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?"
Yes. No woman should be allowed to have an abortion without the agreement of her husban or parents. The parents always know what's best for their underage daughter.

Taldaan wrote: "Even though it may be the man's child, it is the woman's body. She has to go through with the pregnancy and birth and all the inconveniences that go with them, and he shouldn't be able to force her to do that if she doesn't want to."
Yet you favor forcing the man to support the child even if he does not want it? Where is the equality under the law in that? There is none. No longer being able to go parties or night clubs as much as you used to or not getting a career path to instant wealth is not an inconveniance that justifies abortion. Let us call such things as they truely are: pure selfishness that has nothing to do with concern for the well being of child. A form of selfishness that ought to be illegal and punishable as a crime. Remember that in divorce, when the man gets the child the woman never has to pay child support. But if the woman gets the child, the man is always forced to pay child support and if he can't he gets everything he has (his car, his home, etc) siezed and taken from him. Just so the woman can continue to patronize nightclub where people do lots of immoral things like engage in adultery and orgies and drinking binges. Many women who get abortions do so because they have no morals whatever.
Dempublicents1 wrote "A man cannot force a woman to have (or not have) an abortion. That would be infringing upon her right to control her own body - and would be, in effect, a legalized form of slavery.

I am all for the idea of a "paper abortion", however, for a man. It would either have to occur within the same period of time a woman can get an elective abortion or, should she attempt to wait to tell him until after that period, he would get a period of, say, 3 months after he is informed. He could sign away all legal rights and responsibilities to the child. If the woman is to have the final say in whether or not a child is brought into this world (and she does - with no other way to do it), then she must accept full responsibility for the raising of that child, even if the father has said he will not be a part of it.

Does it still come out a bit one-sided on many counts? Of course it does! We cannot, for instance, give a man a way to have a child even if the woman does not want to, but a woman can have a child even if the man does not want one. But these are inequalities imposed by biology, not by law. There really isn't much we can do about it, other than keep the latter case from affecting the man's life.."
To force man to support a child he has stated he does not want or does not have the means to support is also an equal form of slavery. If a woman chooses to have a child, and the father of the child tells her he does not want it, she should not be allowed to force it on him.

Elicere wrote: "Both men and women have (imo) equal rights with regards to the choice to reproduce.

What they do *not* have -- by simple biological fiat - are identical 'windows of choice'.

A woman's window of choice stretches from 'decision to have sex' to 'decision to terminate or not teminate existing pregnancy'.

A man's window of choice is far more restricted -- it is primarily 'decision to have sex'.

It's a little a long the lines of live organ donation (to make a very rough analogy) -- once the tissue is out of donors body, they can no longer dictate how it's used by the recipient. Where as the recipient has all the usual options about how to treat what's in their body.

Is is fair? Not really. But you can't remedy an unfairness to one party (men's limited window of choice) by imposing unfairness on another party (taking away a woman's window of choice by giving control over it to men).

Especially when you consider that the two unfairnesses have un-equal negative consequences. The negative consequence for men is 'un-welcome financial burden/unwelcome personal relationships'. The negative consequence for women includes 'un-welcome financial burden/unwelcome personal relationships' as well as (actually inherent in any pregnancy, welcome or otherwise) 'risk of death/injury/infertility'.

Elicere "
A pretty sexist response to the issue at hand. A man's choice is not restricted to the decision to have sex. It includes whether to support the child or not. Your reducing men to nothing more than walking sperm banks who have no rights. On your third point, I would do neither. I say if a woman can have an abortion, then a man who does not want to be a father has an equal right to refuse responsibility for a child he does not want. Otherwise, as noted earlier, you reduce men to nothing more than slaves. And most people prefer death to slavery. Because all slavery, except as punishment for an evil crime, is of itself, a form of evil that should never be tolerated. I refuse to be the slave of any woman.
Laenis writes: "There's obviously practical problems with this - would make single mothers more of a burden on the state for a start"
Yes. But she could also find a man who does want to be a father to her child. There are plenty of men out there marrying or hooking up with women who are single parents and adopting the woman's child as their own. If a woman can't find such a man, it is often because she looking in the wrong places. There are lots of men who are willing to adopt fatherless children if the mothers of the children just know where to look.
Dempublicents1 wrote: "So the man gets ownership rights over the woman's body simply by having sex with her? At least in old forms of slavery, there was usually some sort of monetary exchange"
If you compare the issue to slavery do so with fairness. The fact is that for the woman, the slavery only lasts 9 months. For the man it lasts his entire life. Women have the option of giving the child up for adoption. Men, under current law, do not.
"Thus, only women can determine what to do about being pregnant."
I would agree and only men have the right to decide if they will support a child they don't want. You can't say that only women have rights and claim that that is equality under the law.
Regarding the statement that a fetus is just a part of a woman's body. False and provably wrong. A fetus is not part of a woman's body. A fetus is a symbiot. A seperate lifeform that is dependent on the woman's body for nourishment. See earlier threads where I noted the physical benefits women get from being pregnant such as increased endurance and increased ability to endure pain etc.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?
Nope.

Of course the state would have to pay for the child's welfare

This isn't necessarily so. If the law allowed a father to renounce his rights and responsibilities regarding his child, this renunciation could function also as the state's renunciation of the responsibility of welfare. An exception could of course be made to allow for unexpected circumstances that occurred after the birth, e.g. the child is a year old, and the mother is laid off. An exception could also be made if the woman has an adoptive father by the time of the birth (or marries one thereafter).

How about:
If the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get sterilised.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with men - have sex with women.
4. Don't have sex with men - use your right hand.

Where exactly is the difference in the judgemental moralising here?
What the frig has morality got to do with it. It's about rights. People have the right to make determinations about their own bodies.


I reckon that if the man is going to be paying out (and presuming he's not some drunken loony), he should have a say. It is his offspring as well as the woman's, after all... or are men just walking sperm tanks?
The only way to do that is to breach someone's rights. What you are suggesting is no more justified that suggesting that as more men get murdered than women and as more women get raped than men, the State should intervene and have X number of women murdered and X number of men raped at the end of every year just to even out the numbers so that things are 'equal'. And hey since women have to give birth and men dont, isnt this treating women like baby tanks/delivery systems. Why dont force men to wear 'pregnancy suits' and take nausia causing drugs during their baby's mother's pregnancy, and then when she goes into labour we can find some way to induce a similar experiance in the father using some kind of drugs...
It doesnt look like you're worried about morality so much as worried that 'the other sex might be advantaged....boo hoo'.
Getting pregnant is a possible consequence of sex as is getting someone pregnant. Both parties have to deal with the consequences and the fact that those consequences are not identical for both parties is a fact we cant reasonably do anything about no matter what measures we attempt. The only sensible course of action is to try to ensure that all parties are enabled to maximise their ability to pursue the best possible outcome in the situation that can be achieved without violating anyone's rights. Forcing a women to undergo either a pregnancy or termination falls outside those necessary boundaries. Once a child is born they become a rights bearing citizen and exempting a father from meeting their responsible in accordance with a child's rights also falls outside those reasonable boundaries.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

Nope. An opinion, yes. I certainly hope the mother of that unborn child listens to as many people and opinions as possible and consider all options. But the bottom line is that SHE has the ONLY say. ANything else turns her into a baby incubator for the State.

What the frig has morality got to do with it. It's about rights. People have the right to make determinations about their own bodies.

Read the post they were responding to. That's what it has to do with.

I must say... I'm fully supportive of a woman's right to choose. However... it's the man's child also. While a woman has to carry the child to term, and it IS her choice, if she gives birth to the child and the man, the father, has repeated asked and pleaded with her to get an abortion...

he should, by law, be absolved of his responsibilities. With the legalization of abortion, it's unfair for the male, who repeatedly has asked for not having this child, to be placed under the burden for carrying for this child.

Just like it's a woman right to choose to have the kid.

It should be a man's right to choose whether he should open his wallet in a case like this.

and BTW...


DOWN WITH ROE V. WADE! LET THE STATES CHOOSE!

1. I think it should be the woman's choice because it is her body. I.E. most to all countries don't make blood donation mandatory once a month by all healthy, drug-free adults.

2.Men should have to pay child support for the good of the child.

This could possibly change though. What if something like artificial wombs are available so that if a women doesn't want to bear a child the embryo or fetus could be brought to term in an artificial womb? Would fathers' right change? Would mothers' rights change?

Trans-human']1. I think it should be the woman's choice because it is her body. I.E. most to all countries don't make blood donation mandatory once a month by all healthy, drug-free adults.

2.Men should have to pay child support for the good of the child.

This could possibly change though. What if something like artificial wombs are available so that if a women doesn't want to bear a child the embryo or fetus could be brought to term in an artificial womb? Would fathers' right change? Would mothers' rights change?
Why?

Why should the man be financially punished because the woman made a choice that the man disagree with? Why is a man forced to pay for 18 long years if he made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to have the baby?

If a relationship has turned sour, I can understand the man be forced to pay for his child's support. After all, he did want it at the moment of conception. But when a woman is lying about taking the pill and gets pregnant, why is the man obligated to forfeit a part of his salary to raise an unwanted child?

Why?

Why should the man be financially punished because the woman made a choice that the man disagree with? Why is a man forced to pay for 18 long years if he made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to have the baby?

If a relationship has turned sour, I can understand the man be forced to pay for his child's support. After all, he did want it at the moment of conception. But when a woman is lying about taking the pill and gets pregnant, why is the man obligated to forfeit a part of his salary to raise an unwanted child?

Why should children be punished by witholding support of two parents(financially at least)? The child is the true victim here. It didn't ask to be born. It's rights(once it's born) take precedence over either parents.

Trans-human']Why should children be punished by witholding support of two parents(financially at least)? The child is the true victim here. It didn't ask to be born. It's rights(once it's born) take precedence over either parents.
Agreed with the exception of adoption

tough choice really you can't force someone to have an abortion so I think the man should be able to sever all ties with the child (he won't pay support but he can't see it either)

I think this does happen anyway though this does cause some trouble 18 years on when the father changes his mind

my two cents
there is nothing you can really do about it since you can't arrest someone who was forced to eat the stolen donut

Trans-human']Why should children be punished by witholding support of two parents(financially at least)? The child is the true victim here. It didn't ask to be born. It's rights(once it's born) take precedence over either parents.

What you are doing is nothing less than advocating that men be stripped of their rights and reduced to absolute slavery.
Further, what you propose is the reduction of men to nothing more than sperm banks for the state.
I oppose both.

Spare me the semantics of "oh the child needs the support of two parents" crap. 80% of todays children are raised by only one parent and they are turning out just fine.

All persons have the right to refuse to support a child they don't want. This right is just as inalienable as a woman's right to abortion and is indeed based upon it.

Take away a man's right to choose and you, of necessity, remove a woman's right to choose.

No man should be forced to support a child that he has consciously stated previously he did not want. It is immoral and a violation of a man's basic human rights. And contrary to what you propagate, no person's rights take precedence over another persons. In the US all persons are equal under the law and no person's rights take precedence over anyone else's rights.

When you remove the rights of either the woman or the man, you also remove the rights of the child.

The very idea that the rights of the child or woman or anyone else would take precedence over the rights of any other American or human being is, by its very nature, anti-american.

When you remove the rights of either the woman or the man, you also remove the rights of the child.

The very idea that the rights of the child or woman or anyone else would take precedence over the rights of any other American or human being is, by its very nature, anti-american.

Are you in fact, at this moment, striking a herioc pose naked while draped in old glory, standing on a rock on a cliff over the sea while feverishly humming 'mine eyes have seen the glory' as the sun sets on purple headed mountains?!?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't make fun! But next time you reread your post, admit that it is a _little_ funny!:D

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

I think the men should have a choice. If the mom says no and the dad says yes then he has to pay for everything. Medical, lost wages, and a means for the woman to return her body to the way it was before. It should also exempt the woman from paying any child suport.

Also if the man dosn't care or doesn't want the child he should not be able to wave his rights and responsibilities without the express writen woman's consent. It does take two to tango and he should be held responsible just like the mother is.

Trans-human']Why should children be punished by witholding support of two parents(financially at least)? The child is the true victim here. It didn't ask to be born. It's rights(once it's born) take precedence over either parents.
Why would the right of the child takes precedence over the right of the father (financially) but not of the woman (abortion).

Who decided that particular order of priorities?

If you say that the man forfeit his way of living because the care of the child takes precedent, I would ask why would the woman has a free ride on abortion if the man's hand are tied.

What goes for the goose goes for the gander. Bear in mind that we are talking about the case where the man didn't want to have the baby but was either lied to or the precautions taken failed. If the woman is aware of that fact and still wants to have the baby, she should face the financial consequences alone.

What you are advocating is as much slavery as when the pro-choice lobby wants to force the woman to bear the child to term. Whittier had a point, even if it was lost in the empty rhetoric of patriotism.

I think the men should have a choice. If the mom says no and the dad says yes then he has to pay for everything. Medical, lost wages, and a means for the woman to return her body to the way it was before. It should also exempt the woman from paying any child suport.

Also if the man dosn't care or doesn't want the child he should not be able to wave his rights and responsibilities without the express writen woman's consent. It does take two to tango and he should be held responsible just like the mother is.
sorry to burst your bubble, but after you have a kid your body is never the same it was before, you can lose the weight, but there are things that you can never "fix". I think abortion is wrong, but I don't think it's okay for a man to force a pregnancy on a woman because he is going to "pay for her medical bills and some slim fast".

In an ideal world nobody would get pregnant if they didn't want to have kids, but in the real world stuff happens. I know the kid belongs to the man too, but he isn't the one who actually has to deal with having it.

Now, as far as a man having a choice, I am going to assume that he would be able to sign away his rights. I think there should be limited circumstances where this is allowed, just like I think there should be limited circumstances where abortion is allowed.

Someone signs up for the Army. If you're in the Army, there's a fair chance you won't have to kill, therefore if you signed up for the Army, you shouldn't have to kill people. By your logic…

Classic example of a strawman. When you sign up for the army, your job is specifically to kill if ordered to do so. It is part of the job. On the other hand, most people have sex to have sex - not to create children. In most cases, neither participant wants a pregnancy and are, in fact, actively avoiding it.

Last time I checked, people did not have absolute rights over even their own bodies (and that is debatable in this case whether it is) - drugs laws, right for the state to incarcerate, right to restrain etc.

I never said anything about absolute rights over their own bodies. Of course, the only thing you have listed that makes any sense here is drugs. The rest involve freedom to move, not rights to one's own body. A convict on death row still gets input into what medical attention he gets. Laws are made against drugs because people who take them have proven to be a danger to other people. Thus, those who take drugs infringe upon the rights of others.

Meanwhile, you are completely getting away from the point. The law has already decided that a woman has the right to determine whether or not she will be pregnant - it is part of the right to one's own body. You wish to take that away from her.

Why should the father not have a decision into whether it's aborted or not?

Because he isn't pregnant.

It's his embryo as much as hers.

Not really, she provides much, much more material to it. But even if it were, I'm sure she'll be happy to give it to him (assuming that passing out biohazards isn't illegal) as soon as it is out of her body.

If she swallowed an item of jewellery belonging to him, would the ownership rights automatically pass to her just because it's inside her?

Nope, but she would be legally allowed to get it the hell out of her body and give it back to him. He wouldn't be able to say, "You have to keep that jewelry in your body for nine months and let it cause you health problems just because I say so."

Goddistan']I know it is relevant. I am saying it is no more restricting than before she was pregnant.

Which is utter bullshit. According to you, before she was pregnant, she had the right to make her own medical decisions and control her own body. Afterwards, that right is stripped from her and given to the man she happened to sleep with.

Basically, she would never be in that position if she hadn't slept with the man. With rights come responsibility, correct? She had the full right to sleep with said man. With that came the potential to become pregnant. She is, thus, responsible for the situation and if there is any "slavery," it is a result of her own doing, and not someone forcing her into a position that was independent of her actions.

There is never a responsibility to be enslaved. There is never a responsibility to let someone use you as an incubator. Sorry.

Yes. You're right. A chia pet is living. It is not, nor would it ever be, sentient.

Irrelevant. Your argument was that he put it there, it is part his, therefore he should have a say.

You missed my point. My point was not that the foetus is there by her will. My point was that the "putting" of it was consentual.

Incorrect. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy any more than consent to skiing is consent to a broken leg. Most likely, both parties were taking precautions to avoid pregnancy, and yet it happened.

I would be interested in hearing how something within a woman with different DNA and sometimes different reproductive structures (if the child is male) is part of a woman's body.

I never said it was. Please try again.

If she consented to the process of it being put in, sure.

And she didn't. She consented to sex, not pregnancy.

Okay, what if the person who swallowed it decided to keep it or to throw it away? Just because it is within the woman's body does not give her absolute right to it. Nor does it give her complete ownership.

Which is irrelevant to the conversation. Once she gets the embryo/fetus out of her body, he is welcome to it. He can keep it in a jar if he likes. She has the right to her own body. "Ownership" of the fetus is irrelevant.

Also, if I really didn't want saplings, I would not have just watched you drop the seeds there.

Why not? We were playing a game. It was fun. I told you the seeds were infertile, and you had done what you could to condition your ground such that things wouldn't grow there. You even had a tarp over the ground such that you could come pick up the seeds later. You just happen to have missed one. Oops.

One night, you and I are playing around in your yard, and you and I decide to plant a cherry tree in a place that is perfect for cherry-tree growing.

Incorrect analogy. Most people who have sex are not trying to get pregnant.

Why the hell would I have agreed for you to plant the tree? There's a chance it won't come up, of course. Maybe I'm counting on that?

A woman who consents to sex does not consent to pregnancy.

Elgesh']Are you in fact, at this moment, striking a herioc pose naked while draped in old glory, standing on a rock on a cliff over the sea while feverishly humming 'mine eyes have seen the glory' as the sun sets on purple headed mountains?!?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't make fun! But next time you reread your post, admit that it is a _little_ funny!:D

It may be funny to you but it is nevertheless a fundamentally self evident truth.

What you are doing is nothing less than advocating that men be stripped of their rights and reduced to absolute slavery.
Further, what you propose is the reduction of men to nothing more than sperm banks for the state.
I oppose both.

Spare me the semantics of "oh the child needs the support of two parents" crap. 80% of todays children are raised by only one parent and they are turning out just fine.

All persons have the right to refuse to support a child they don't want. This right is just as inalienable as a woman's right to abortion and is indeed based upon it.

Take away a man's right to choose and you, of necessity, remove a woman's right to choose.

No man should be forced to support a child that he has consciously stated previously he did not want. It is immoral and a violation of a man's basic human rights. And contrary to what you propagate, no person's rights take precedence over another persons. In the US all persons are equal under the law and no person's rights take precedence over anyone else's rights.

When you remove the rights of either the woman or the man, you also remove the rights of the child.

The very idea that the rights of the child or woman or anyone else would take precedence over the rights of any other American or human being is, by its very nature, anti-american.

First, sperm donors sign contracts absolving themselves of rights and responsibilities whereas most men take the risk of conception even with birth contro(if vaginal)l. Secondly, most children of single parents are worse off than those with the support of two parents( though I think this is mostly economical). Thirdly, no state I know gives men the right to choose, but all I know give women that right. Fourthly, under the law a person's rights can be restricted due to their actions(such as prisoners). Fifthly, All states demand child support from fathers(except sperm donors) so the law gives children the right to a portion of their fathers income under the law. Sixthly, it is immoral to harm the future of children because of the actions of their parents you anti-american child-hating loony .

That is exactly the thinking on abortion that is wrong. It is also an incorrect interpretation of what the Supreme Court's intentions in determining Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not say that abortion is justified if the woman thinks having a kid will prevent her from getting rich. Abortion is allowed if it harms the woman's physical life, not her financial life.

Roe v. Wade clearly stated that 1st trimester abortions, at least, could not be blocked for any reason. Thus, even, "I want to get rich" is a valid and legal reasoning at that time point.

"Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

If we allowed men to refuse responsibility we open a potential Pandora's Box. What to hold men from irresponsibly knocking up 50 women at a time per man?

Do you really think there are many men so heartless that they would be able to sign a paper making it illegal for them to attempt to have any contac with their potential children - or, indeed, to even attempt to find out if a child resulted? I think most men would view the idea of a "paper abortion" with as much scorn as most of us do. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option for those cases where it is necessary.

Of course, in the first trimester, there will, in the near future, be the option of fetal transfer. Currently this is what is done when doctors transfer fetuses from a petri dish to a woman's body.

You're jumping the gun a bit here. First of all, there is no "fetal transfer" from a dish to a woman's body. There is transfer of an embryo. And the chances that it will implant are low. If we get to the point that one woman has already had an embryo implanted, the chances of it implanting in another woman's womb are going to be incredibly small, and most abortion do occur after implantation.

Yes. No woman should be allowed to have an abortion without the agreement of her husban or parents. The parents always know what's best for their underage daughter.

I really, really, really hope this was sarcasm. Otherwise, it is probably the most idiotic thing you have ever said. What if the father of that underage daughter is the father of her child - can we really say he knows what is best for her? And the idea that a grown woman has to ask anyone else what to do with her body is idiotic and mysogynistic. At what point does a man have to ask a woman what medical procedures he will and will not have?

Yet you favor forcing the man to support the child even if he does not want it?

How do you know if he favors that or not?

Remember that in divorce, when the man gets the child the woman never has to pay child support.

Unsupported bullshit.


To force man to support a child he has stated he does not want or does not have the means to support is also an equal form of slavery.

Not exactly "equal", considering that he does not have to physically support it. Meanwhile, why exactly did you FAIL TO READ WHAT YOU QUOTED? I specifically and incredibly clearly said that a man should not be forced to support the child.

A pretty sexist response to the issue at hand. A man's choice is not restricted to the decision to have sex. It includes whether to support the child or not.

I thought you were just decrying the fact that, at present, a man has no such choice????

I say if a woman can have an abortion, then a man who does not want to be a father has an equal right to refuse responsibility for a child he does not want.

I would agree.

If you compare the issue to slavery do so with fairness. The fact is that for the woman, the slavery only lasts 9 months. For the man it lasts his entire life. Women have the option of giving the child up for adoption. Men, under current law, do not.

HOLY SHIT!!! WOULD YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE MAKING STUPID ASSUMPTIONS THAT I HAVE ALREADY DISPELLED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Trans-human']First, sperm donors sign contracts absolving themselves of rights and responsibilities whereas most men take the risk of conception even with birth contro(if vaginal)l.
most women take the risk of conception even with birth control.
why the double standard?

Trans-human']Secondly, most children of single parents are worse off than those with the support of two parents( though I think this is mostly economical).
No argument there. But I don't know that this is relevant.

Trans-human']Thirdly, no state I know gives men the right to choose, but all I know give women that right. Fourthly, under the law a person's rights can be restricted due to their actions(such as prisoners).
So why is the man's right can be restricted but not the woman's? Why the double standard?

Trans-human']Fifthly, All states demand child support from fathers(except sperm donors) so the law gives children the right to a portion of their fathers income under the law.
And this is what we are arguing. In some instances, the law should have provision exempting the man of this obligation. Otherwise, the man's right is being trampled over and the child's right are put before the man's. I ask again, why the double standard since you agree that it is the woman's choice of having an abortion.

Trans-human'] Sixthly, it is immoral to harm the future of children because of the actions of their parents you anti-american child-hating loony .
Again, why the double standard? It is as immoral not to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term as to force the man to pay for a child he did not want. Obviously, the insults were not for me so i'll not comment on those.

I think the men should have a choice. If the mom says no and the dad says yes then he has to pay for everything. Medical, lost wages, and a means for the woman to return her body to the way it was before. It should also exempt the woman from paying any child suport.

Also if the man dosn't care or doesn't want the child he should not be able to wave his rights and responsibilities without the express writen woman's consent. It does take two to tango and he should be held responsible just like the mother is.

What you saying is that men are nothing more than slaves of women. I catagorically reject the place you put men in.

If a woman can abort just because she does not want the child, then a man has a right to reject responsibility for a child he does not want as long as he states it before the 3rd trimester. The 3rd trimester (for those who don't know) is the point in the pregnancy in which abortion becomes illegal for any reason except to save the physical life of the mother.

To East Canuck: What does patriotism have to do with this? That's just the way I talk.

Also a link for the ill effects that abortion has on women:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178509,00.html

Trans-human']Why should children be punished by witholding support of two parents(financially at least)? The child is the true victim here. It didn't ask to be born. It's rights(once it's born) take precedence over either parents.

If a woman makes the informed (ie. the man can't tell her at the beginning of pregnancy he's all about it and then later try and back out) decision to bring a child into the world as a single parent, she is singularly responsible for the child's welfare. If anyone is then "punishing the child", it is her.

What you saying is that men are nothing more than slaves of women. I catagorically reject the place you put men in.

Is reading really that hard for you? The person you were replying to clearly stated that this would be in the case that the man wanted the child, but the mother did not. Thus, the man would be responsible for paying for the medical bills associated with pregnancy and then taking the child - fairly even compensation for a 9-month pregnancy meant to be handed over to the man, now isn't it?

Why would the right of the child takes precedence over the right of the father (financially) but not of the woman (abortion).

Who decided that particular order of priorities?

If you say that the man forfeit his way of living because the care of the child takes precedent, I would ask why would the woman has a free ride on abortion if the man's hand are tied.

What goes for the goose goes for the gander. Bear in mind that we are talking about the case where the man didn't want to have the baby but was either lied to or the precautions taken failed. If the woman is aware of that fact and still wants to have the baby, she should face the financial consequences alone.

What you are advocating is as much slavery as when the pro-choice lobby wants to force the woman to bear the child to term. Whittier had a point, even if it was lost in the empty rhetoric of patriotism.

1.Before viability a fetus isn't self aware enough to have rights. After a certain period it(relatively self-aware person) has rights which include being taken care of by their parents.
2. Men take a risk whenever they have vaginal sex even with birthcontrol. It is implied consent. If I kill someone by hitting them with a car while driving drunk I still have to go to jail even if I didn't meen to kill anybody.
3. Children can't choose to be born while rational adults can predict reasonable outcomes of there actionsincluding conception.
4.Paying child support is like going to prison. A person has to take responsibility for their actions.Going to prison(i.e. paying child support) isn't slavery because they knew that they were breaking the law(risking conception). Actions have consequences.
5, Women have more right in this area because gestation takes place in their bodie
This could change if artificial wombs can takeover for her. Then men might will probably have more rights.

most women take the risk of conception even with birth control.
why the double standard?


No argument there. But I don't know that this is relevant.


So why is the man's right can be restricted but not the woman's? Why the double standard?


And this is what we are arguing. In some instances, the law should have provision exempting the man of this obligation. Otherwise, the man's right is being trampled over and the child's right are put before the man's. I ask again, why the double standard since you agree that it is the woman's choice of having an abortion.


Again, why the double standard? It is as immoral not to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term as to force the man to pay for a child he did not want. Obviously, the insults were not for me so i'll not comment on those.

East Canuck my first post on this thread partially covered the double standard wiith it being her body(if not why abortion is okay i.e. fetuse and embryos aren't self-aware persons). Also, in my first post I speculated that artificial wombs may change the balance of parental rights because a woman's body is no longer an issue.The comment about two parent support superiority to single parent children was to contrast Whittier who said that single parent children grow up fine. Under the law, for the most part, parents have an obligation to there children(so if Dad is taking care of the child Mom pays child support) with the exceptions being sperm and egg donors and those who give their children up for adoption. Fathers have visitation rights and possibly custody rights.

I think the men should have a choice. If the mom says no and the dad says yes then he has to pay for everything. Medical, lost wages, and a means for the woman to return her body to the way it was before. It should also exempt the woman from paying any child suport.

Also if the man dosn't care or doesn't want the child he should not be able to wave his rights and responsibilities without the express writen woman's consent. It does take two to tango and he should be held responsible just like the mother is.

But if the man says no and the woman says yes - the man has to pay child support anyway. Like you said, it takes two to tango so if the child is born, the financial burden falls on both parties. You can't have your cake and eat it too (I never understood that expression - what good is having a cake if you can't eat it?). What heartless fuck brings a child into the world and doesn't at least send some money anyway? (that is just a hypothetical question - I realize plenty do)

You can't have your cake and eat it too (I never understood that expression - what good is having a cake if you can't eat it?).

It was misinterpreted. It actually (correctly interpreted) goes

"you can't eat your cake and have it too"

makes more sense right?;)

What heartless fuck brings a child into the world and doesn't at least send some money anyway? (that is just a hypothetical question - I realize plenty do)

While I agree with your sentiment, I still have to point out that, technically, it is solely the woman's decision on whether or not to bring a child into the world. If the man does not want to be involved and makes that very clear, and she still decides to continue her pregnancy, she has taken on that responsibility herself. Indeed, the child will be better off with one loving parent than two, one of them coerced into parenting in the first place.

To East Canuck: What does patriotism have to do with this? That's just the way I talk.


You talk about being un-american. This is patriotism and brings nothing to the debate. Hell, I'm Canadian and I couldn't care less if it is the "American" thing to do. It's a society debate that involves more than the resident of the US of A.

That's what my patriotism remark was about.

Trans-human']1.Before viability a fetus isn't self aware enough to have rights. After a certain period it(relatively self-aware person) has rights which include being taken care of by their parents.
True. But let me ask you this: Why should we give carte-blanche to the woman on the matter of abortion (and I'm a strong defender of this position) but the man is having his hand tied because of the woman's decision?

Trans-human']2. Men take a risk whenever they have vaginal sex even with birthcontrol. It is implied consent. If I kill someone by hitting them with a car while driving drunk I still have to go to jail even if I didn't meen to kill anybody.
Women take the same risks. It takes two to tango and all that. So why are we giving the woman's absolute veto power over the whole situation. To put it more bluntly: why is the man forced to change his lifestyle because of an unwanted pregnancy while the woman does not? The "you did it, now accept the consequences" card is not valid unless you accept the same card when arguing about the woman's right to abortion.

Like Dempublicents1 like to say, the man agree to sex, not a child.

Trans-human']3. Children can't choose to be born while rational adults can predict reasonable outcomes of there actions including conception.
So you are arguing against abortion? Because the woman can "predict reasonable outcomes of there actions including conception" too. Why the double standard?

Trans-human']4.Paying child support is like going to prison. A person has to take responsibility for their actions.Going to prison(i.e. paying child support) isn't slavery because they knew that they were breaking the law(risking conception). Actions have consequences.
Bearing a child to term is like going to prison. A person has to take responsibility for their actions.Going to prison(i.e. bearing a child to term) isn't slavery because they knew that they were breaking the law (risking conception). Actions have consequences.

Look at the two paragraph and explain to me why the double standard.

Trans-human']5, Women have more right in this area because gestation takes place in their bodie

That's a load of rubbish. That is preciely what we are arguing against. Why is the woman having more rights? Why can't a man forfeit his obligation s to the child if he doesn't want one? Give me one good reason why a man has no say in his right to propriety being taken away while the woman retains his right to privacy and body. Give me one good reason why the man has to be slave to the decision of the woman when he explicitly made his opinion clear on the subject.

Trans-human']East Canuck my first post on this thread partially covered the double standard wiith it being her body(if not why abortion is okay i.e. fetuse and embryos aren't self-aware persons). Also, in my first post I speculated that artificial wombs may change the balance of parental rights because a woman's body is no longer an issue.The comment about two parent support superiority to single parent children was to contrast Whittier who said that single parent children grow up fine. Under the law, for the most part, parents have an obligation to there children(so if Dad is taking care of the child Mom pays child support) with the exceptions being sperm and egg donors and those who give their children up for adoption. Fathers have visitation rights and possibly custody rights.
I agree with most of what you said so far. My beef is with your stance that we should force men to pay for child support no matter what.
Maybe because I know of a friend who's being a victim, being forced to pay for a kid he didn't want in the first place, maybe because I feel frustrated with having no say in the matter. However, I strongly object to the double standard that men are being subjected to.

I'm not saying stop child support. Far from it. I'm saying that the man should have a legal recourse to make plain his view that the child is not his responsibility. A way to have an paper abortion, if you will. Being subject to stipulation on when to file it, what it covers, and so on and so forth.

Trans-human']First, sperm donors sign contracts absolving themselves of rights and responsibilities whereas most men take the risk of conception even with birth contro(if vaginal)l. Secondly, most children of single parents are worse off than those with the support of two parents( though I think this is mostly economical). Thirdly, no state I know gives men the right to choose, but all I know give women that right. Fourthly, under the law a person's rights can be restricted due to their actions(such as prisoners). Fifthly, All states demand child support from fathers(except sperm donors) so the law gives children the right to a portion of their fathers income under the law. Sixthly, it is immoral to harm the future of children because of the actions of their parents you anti-american child-hating loony .
1. It most cases they are forced by law to sign such contracts which prohibit them from contacting the resulting offspring even if the offspring want to contact them. Sperm donor laws are fatally flawed and must be changed.
Further, women take equal risk of conception even with birth control as men do. It is just wrong to assert that one has more risk in the matter than the other.
2. We have always assumed this. Yet where are the stats to support it? Where are the studies. All the single parent kids I knew are doing perfectly fine now as adults. They were not irrevocably harmed by not having a father pay their way (as we all know there was a seriously problem in getting fathers to child support in the past).
3. Just because slavery is legal does not make it morally right. For hundreds of years we believed slavery to be right. It took a civil war and disobedience in several nations before the western world realized how evil forced slavery was.
4. Under the law rights can only be deprived if a person has committed a major crime. Getting a woman pregnant is not a crime nor will it ever be a crime. Your comparison of inseminating a woman with a serious crime is nothing short of a red herring.
5. In theory states also demand the same of women or so they claim. But only men go to prison and lose their livihoods if they don't pay up. Women always get away with murder. Men don't. Again, just because that is how things are, does not make it right. Fortunately, we have people that waking up to the unfairness of the system you are advocating. That is why we have states finally cracking down on women pedophiles as harshly as they do men pedophiles. The law cannot treat women with special privileges while treating law abiding men as criminals.
6. Like the other posters, I will not reply to this flame.

I think a lot of people here are assuming an abortion is something that is simple and doesn't carry any consequences. Let's say a woman becomes pregnant and her husband refuses to help pay for the child (and, lets contend for a moment that this is legal and she has no way of getting money from him). She then has the choice of aborting and living with the emotional effects this will have on her or having a child she has no money to raise. It is the same with adoption, do you not think this has effects for the woman?

The father in this scenerio gets off free while the woman is stuck damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

In addition, I have to wonder if any of those throwing out their opinions on child support have actually read the support laws in their area or just go by what they think its all about based on TV....the numbers you have to pay are not unreasonable. In all the rules I have looked at, there are ways out for extreme circumstances, differences between "deadbeats" and "dead brokes", and definite statements about equality for amount invested by the mother and the father.

I think a lot of people here are assuming an abortion is something that is simple and doesn't carry any consequences. Let's say a woman becomes pregnant and her husband refuses to help pay for the child (and, lets contend for a moment that this is legal and she has no way of getting money from him). She then has the choice of aborting and living with the emotional effects this will have on her or having a child she has no money to raise. It is the same with adoption, do you not think this has effects for the woman?

The father in this scenerio gets off free while the woman is stuck damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

In addition, I have to wonder if any of those throwing out their opinions on child support have actually read the support laws in their area or just go by what they think its all about based on TV....the numbers you have to pay are not unreasonable. In all the rules I have looked at, there are ways out for extreme circumstances, differences between "deadbeats" and "dead brokes", and definite statements about equality for amount invested by the mother and the father.
Strawman. Do you not think that this has emotionnal consequences for the man too? However you look at it, there will be emotionnal turmoil by both sexes.

And the current situation for the man is "damned no matter what" since he has to pay for a child he didn't want or has to live with the fact that the woman choose to have an abortion despite his view. So what makes the current scenario any better?

Roe v. Wade clearly stated that 1st trimester abortions, at least, could not be blocked for any reason. Thus, even, "I want to get rich" is a valid and legal reasoning at that time point.

"Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?



Do you really think there are many men so heartless that they would be able to sign a paper making it illegal for them to attempt to have any contac with their potential children - or, indeed, to even attempt to find out if a child resulted? I think most men would view the idea of a "paper abortion" with as much scorn as most of us do. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option for those cases where it is necessary.



You're jumping the gun a bit here. First of all, there is no "fetal transfer" from a dish to a woman's body. There is transfer of an embryo. And the chances that it will implant are low. If we get to the point that one woman has already had an embryo implanted, the chances of it implanting in another woman's womb are going to be incredibly small, and most abortion do occur after implantation.



I really, really, really hope this was sarcasm. Otherwise, it is probably the most idiotic thing you have ever said. What if the father of that underage daughter is the father of her child - can we really say he knows what is best for her? And the idea that a grown woman has to ask anyone else what to do with her body is idiotic and mysogynistic. At what point does a man have to ask a woman what medical procedures he will and will not have?



How do you know if he favors that or not?



Unsupported bullshit.




Not exactly "equal", considering that he does not have to physically support it. Meanwhile, why exactly did you FAIL TO READ WHAT YOU QUOTED? I specifically and incredibly clearly said that a man should not be forced to support the child.



I thought you were just decrying the fact that, at present, a man has no such choice????



I would agree.



HOLY SHIT!!! WOULD YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE MAKING STUPID ASSUMPTIONS THAT I HAVE ALREADY DISPELLED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
First, it is good to see that we agree on the substance if not the details.

2. I not touched on the subject of contact with one's own offspring. Though I would say that if a man makes continual contact with his offspring, he, by default, gives up his right to refuse responsibility for that child. What? A man wants to hang with his kid but he does not want to support the same kid? What hypocrisy.

3. Regarding fetal transfer, that is why I said in the future. What with all the advances in biotechnology that are coming into fruition there is no reason to suppose that this would remain impossible.

4. And that would be punishing the child for the crimes of the father. A crime that the fetus or embryo did not committ. Even in the case of incest, as long as it was consensual, I oppose abortion because it punishes a human being for a crime that someone else committed. If there is to be an execution for the supposed crime of incest, let the father die, not the child. Yet we often let the father off and kill the child instead.
If she is under 18 she not a grown woman and subject to the will of her parents as all other children are. This just and right. If a woman gets an abortion against the wishes of her husband it should be grounds for divorce in which the man gets everything and the woman gets nothing. A price must be paid for abortion. There must be accountability. Under the current system immoral women are not held accountable for their actions, someone else always is forced to pay the price for them.

5. And you how do you know doesn't? It should be up to the man not to society and most certainly not to the woman.

6. All forced slavery is equally evil. No form is a greater evil than the other. The evils of financial slavery are just bad as the evils of so called physical slavery.

7. We agree on the rest.

I think a lot of people here are assuming an abortion is something that is simple and doesn't carry any consequences.

On the contrary, although you seem to think that a man giving up any and all rights and responsibilities to his cihld is something that is simple and doesn't carry any consequences.

Let's say a woman becomes pregnant and her husband refuses to help pay for the child (and, lets contend for a moment that this is legal and she has no way of getting money from him).

He'd have to divorce her for their finances to not be intermingled, but ok....

She then has the choice of aborting and living with the emotional effects this will have on her or having a child she has no money to raise. It is the same with adoption, do you not think this has effects for the woman?

And do you not think that there would be emotional effects to a man of taking this action? Do you not think that, like a woman who has chosen to abort or give a child up for adoption, he will wonder what his child might look like, might be doing? Do you not think that he would have to deal with the emotional effects of possibly wanting rights to that child in the future, but having given them up completely?

The father in this scenerio gets off free while the woman is stuck damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

You really are being hypocritical here. A man taking such an action doesn't "get off free" any more than a woman who has an abortion or gives a child up for adoption. The emotional concerns of giving up a child, or potential child, are still there. You think they don't apply to men?

If a woman makes the informed (ie. the man can't tell her at the beginning of pregnancy he's all about it and then later try and back out) decision to bring a child into the world as a single parent, she is singularly responsible for the child's welfare. If anyone is then "punishing the child", it is her.



Is reading really that hard for you? The person you were replying to clearly stated that this would be in the case that the man wanted the child, but the mother did not. Thus, the man would be responsible for paying for the medical bills associated with pregnancy and then taking the child - fairly even compensation for a 9-month pregnancy meant to be handed over to the man, now isn't it?
He made no such clarification. His entire assertion throughout this thread is that men are meant to be the slaves of women.

2. I not touched on the subject of contact with one's own offspring.

Any "paper abortion" would have to involve contact. A man who refuses to help support his offspring (giving up the responsibilities) must also give up the rights associated with those responsibilities. He cannot have the benefits of associating with his child and not take on the associated responsibility to support that child. A "paper abortion" must be just as final as a real abortion would be. The man who gets one will have no rights whatsoever to any child that ends up resulting from the pregnancy.

Though I would say that if a man makes continual contact with his offspring, he, by default, gives up his right to refuse responsibility for that child. What? A man wants to hang with his kid but he does not want to support the same kid? What hypocrisy.

Exactly.

And that would be punishing the child for the crimes of the father.

This is an argument against abortion, not for parental consent. What you are basically saying in this argument is, "I don't like abortion, but I can't take it away from grown women. Instead, I'm going to make a young girl who has been raped by her father ask his permission in order to get a perfectly legal abortion."

If she is under 18 she not a grown woman and subject to the will of her parents as all other children are. This just and right.

Yes, even if they are abusive, eh?

If a woman gets an abortion against the wishes of her husband it should be grounds for divorce in which the man gets everything and the woman gets nothing.

That is idiotic. "You made a personal choice about your body. You didn't let your husband enslave you as an incubator. This means you must be thrown out on the street with nothing."

A price must be paid for abortion. There must be accountability. Under the current system immoral women are not held accountable for their actions, someone else always is forced to pay the price for them.

Once again, you are arguing against abortion, not for spousal consent. You are saying, "Abortion is perfectly legal, but I think we can make it illegal for a woman who is married."

5. And you how do you know doesn't? It should be up to the man not to society and most certainly not to the woman.

I don't know whether or not the poster you were replying to favors that position or not. It was your silly assumption that he does.

6. All forced slavery is equally evil.

Is paying income tax slavery? Of course not! Slavery entails control of one's body - one's self - not of one's wallet. You might could argue that it is stealing, but there is no argument to be made for it being slavery, as the man's body is not being used against his will.

I am sorry to have contended that the man would have no effects at all, but it cannot be his choice alone that dictates what the woman will go through. He can't say "I don't want the child," and then be able to have nothing to do with it because it leaves the woman between a rock and a hard place. At least with child support she can chose to have the child and know that, even with a minimum wage job, she will have enough for her child. If she does chose abortion, I suppose it doesn't matter, but I feel the man would be condemning her to the choice if he got off scott free in the money department. (I was thinking solely of a case in which the man and woman are not married, divorced, or separated but more of an accidental pregnancy in a noncommitted relationship--as I feel this argument seems to be centering on.)

Maybe a better idea than the thinking of "abortion or 18 years of child support would be to also include an option for the man to help pay for the therapy or support groups the woman might want to attend after an abortion. I feel this would ease, at least somewhat, the choice between "raise this child with no money or get an abortion." I dunno, even this idea seems tacky and like it won't help with the emotional feelings one has after an abortion. But I guess I really have no other real options unless there is an overhaul of these "unfair" child support systems taht people seem to be talking about here (none of which I have seen but have no doubt they exist somewhere out there).

He made no such clarification.

I think the men should have a choice. If the mom says no and the dad says yes then he has to pay for everything.

What was that again? No clarification? The only time that the man is supposed to pay for everything in his post is in the case that he wants to use the woman as an incubator.

His entire assertion throughout this thread is that men are meant to be the slaves of women.

Who has ever asserted that a man must give over ownership of his body to a woman? Slavery implies ownership of a human being. Having legal rights to some of another human beings' money, while we may see it as immoral for many reasons and may even view it as legal stealing, is not slavery.

I am sorry to have contended that the man would have no effects at all, but it cannot be his choice alone that dictates what the woman will go through.

It isn't. It is her choice and his that decides what she will go through. And it is her choice and his that decides what he will go through.

Once the decision to have sex is made, the possibility of pregnancy is there. And both will decide what to do.

In the law now, the mother has fully control and full decisions over what both partners will go through. She can decide to terminate the pregnancy and leave him depressed and yearning for a child he will not have. She can decide to carry to term and force him into supporting a child he does not want, does not love, and is, in fact, detrimental to simply by being an unloving parent. A paper abortion would keep the latter case from happening, although nothing can be done about the former.

He can't say "I don't want the child," and then be able to have nothing to do with it because it leaves the woman between a rock and a hard place.

Why not? She can say, "I don't want the child," and leave him yearning for what will never be.

At least with child support she can chose to have the child and know that, even with a minimum wage job, she will have enough for her child. If she does chose abortion, I suppose it doesn't matter, but I feel the man would be condemning her to the choice if he got off scott free in the money department.

The fact that the woman must make this choice is a product of biology, not of inequity in the law. If a woman cannot support a child on her own, she should not have one - and that goes for women who are married, etc. as well, as there is always the possibility of the man deciding to cut and run. If a woman will absolutely not consider elective abortion (as I will not), she should not have sex unless she can support a child.

But I guess I really have no other real options unless there is an overhaul of these "unfair" child support systems taht people seem to be talking about here (none of which I have seen but have no doubt they exist somewhere out there).

I believe people are arguing that the "unfairness" comes from being forced to support a child you never wanted and want nothing to do with, despite the fact that you made that clear from the beginning.

But a man can have sex if he can't support a child?

But a man can have sex if he can't support a child?

Morally? I would say no.

Legally? Yes. Of course, so can a woman. And legally, if she cannot support that child, she can abort.

Remember that the woman has the ultimate right to decide whether or not she will bring a child into this world by continuing her pregnancy - a right granted to her by biology and not given to men (who cannot get pregnant). With an increase in rights comes an increase in responsibilities. Thus, a woman who decides, as is her right, to carry a pregnancy to term takes on the responsibilities of her decision - taking care of the child that she alone had the right to bring into the world. A man has no rights to make such a decision, and thus has no legal responsibilities associated with it.

He can, if he so wishes, decide to take on the rights and responsibilities associated with raising the child once it is born. Most of us would agree this is the moral thing to do. But legally forcing it upon him is giving him responsibilties without the associated right of deciding whether or not to take them on.

[NS]Trans-human wrote: "1.Before viability a fetus isn't self aware enough to have rights. After a certain period it(relatively self-aware person) has rights which include being taken care of by their parents.
2. Men take a risk whenever they have vaginal sex even with birthcontrol. It is implied consent. If I kill someone by hitting them with a car while driving drunk I still have to go to jail even if I didn't meen to kill anybody.
3. Children can't choose to be born while rational adults can predict reasonable outcomes of there actionsincluding conception.
4.Paying child support is like going to prison. A person has to take responsibility for their actions.Going to prison(i.e. paying child support) isn't slavery because they knew that they were breaking the law(risking conception). Actions have consequences.
5, Women have more right in this area because gestation takes place in their bodie
This could change if artificial wombs can takeover for her. Then men might will probably have more rights."
1. Unsupported fallacy. You have no proof of this. But we do know that the child is considered self aware beginning at the start of the second trimester. Whether it is self aware at any point in the first has not been determined and is still subject to debate which, unfortunately, is highly politicized.
2. Again, you saying a man who gets a girl pregnant is a criminal. For your concept to work, it would also have to be implied consent to have the child whenever the woman agrees to sex.
3. No rational adults cannot predict the outcomes of their actions. But they can prepare for the worse case scenarios.
4. Paying child support is not the same as going to prison. Why do you hate men so much? Unjustly forced child support is a form of slavery. Actions do have consequences, for the woman as well as the man.
5. No. One right does not take precedence over another. A woman does not have more rights than a man.

"The comment about two parent support superiority to single parent children was to contrast Whittier who said that single parent children grow up fine. Under the law, for the most part, parents have an obligation to there children(so if Dad is taking care of the child Mom pays child support) with the exceptions being sperm and egg donors and those who give their children up for adoption. Fathers have visitation rights and possibly custody rights."
Again you resort to "under the law" as if the law decides what is morally right or what is just. The law is a neutral instrument neither good nor evil. There more laws in this world promoting evil than there are laws promoting good. Just becuase something is the law does not make it right. Fathers tend to have, more often than not, very limited visitation and custody rights. Where as the same rights for women are virtually unlimited. Furthermore, you have given no proof that children suffer irreperable harm by being supported by just one parent financially. Happiness and good development are not dependent on wealth.
Anybodybutbushia wrote "But if the man says no and the woman says yes - the man has to pay child support anyway. Like you said, it takes two to tango so if the child is born, the financial burden falls on both parties. You can't have your cake and eat it too (I never understood that expression - what good is having a cake if you can't eat it?). What heartless fuck brings a child into the world and doesn't at least send some money anyway? (that is just a hypothetical question - I realize plenty do)"
That is what we are debating. It all comes up to what the intentions of the two parties are.
Dempublicents1 wrote "While I agree with your sentiment, I still have to point out that, technically, it is solely the woman's decision on whether or not to bring a child into the world. If the man does not want to be involved and makes that very clear, and she still decides to continue her pregnancy, she has taken on that responsibility herself. Indeed, the child will be better off with one loving parent than two, one of them coerced into parenting in the first place."
I agree with your assertion. A child is better off with just one parent who loves it 100% than it is with two parents who love it only 50%. However, I think we need something for unscrupulous men who would deliberate knock a girl up just for bragging rights but then refuse to accept responsibility for it. Again, as I've tried to state before, we need to protect the rights of men but we must make sure we not creating loopholes for those who have evil intentions. The devil always seems to be hanging out in the details.

To East Canuck: That's the way I talk when I am bringing a point home. Its nothing about one nation being better than another. I have no problem with Canada but I am not familiar with their experiences with the issue as I am with America's. Therefore, the patriotism part was more pointed at persuading Americans than anyone else. Though, as you noted, people would agree with the slavery point regardless of their nationality. Speaking of which, would you prefer I used another term such as uncivilized or inhumane?

To Carriedom:
If the husband refuses to support the child,
1. That should be grounds for divorce and he should be forced to give up everything to the woman. In marriage things are not the same as they are if you are just boyfriend and girlfriend. In marriage a man is owned by his wife just as a woman is owned by her husband. They cannot do anything without the consent of the other.
2. The woman is always free to find a man who is willing to take on the child as his own. There are lots of men out there willing to do so.
3. In most states no provisions or exemptions are made for men who are down on there luck. You owe 5,000 in child support but you only make 500. Tough luck, you're going to prison for not paying up.
Unemployed and unable to get work? Tough luck, you're going to prison and your having everything you ever owned taken from you because you failed to make payment. That is the law.

To East Canuck: well said

To East Canuck: That's the way I talk when I am bringing a point home. Its nothing about one nation being better than another. I have no problem with Canada but I am not familiar with their experiences with the issue as I am with America's. Therefore, the patriotism part was more pointed at persuading Americans than anyone else. Though, as you noted, people would agree with the slavery point regardless of their nationality. Speaking of which, would you prefer I used another term such as uncivilized or inhumane?

You express your point however you feel like it. By all means, use slavery if you want. The thing is, you might have gone a bit over the top back then. It reeked of jingoistic patriotism. But, from the rests of your posts, I see I have jumped the gun and drew the wrong conclusions. I apologize if my comment seemed inapropriate.

BTW, you might want to edit that last post. It is hurtfull to the eyes and your comments are lost in the shuffle.

Any "paper abortion" would have to involve contact. A man who refuses to help support his offspring (giving up the responsibilities) must also give up the rights associated with those responsibilities. He cannot have the benefits of associating with his child and not take on the associated responsibility to support that child. A "paper abortion" must be just as final as a real abortion would be. The man who gets one will have no rights whatsoever to any child that ends up resulting from the pregnancy.



Exactly.



This is an argument against abortion, not for parental consent. What you are basically saying in this argument is, "I don't like abortion, but I can't take it away from grown women. Instead, I'm going to make a young girl who has been raped by her father ask his permission in order to get a perfectly legal abortion."



Yes, even if they are abusive, eh?



That is idiotic. "You made a personal choice about your body. You didn't let your husband enslave you as an incubator. This means you must be thrown out on the street with nothing."



Once again, you are arguing against abortion, not for spousal consent. You are saying, "Abortion is perfectly legal, but I think we can make it illegal for a woman who is married."



I don't know whether or not the poster you were replying to favors that position or not. It was your silly assumption that he does.



Is paying income tax slavery? Of course not! Slavery entails control of one's body - one's self - not of one's wallet. You might could argue that it is stealing, but there is no argument to be made for it being slavery, as the man's body is not being used against his will.

I agree on these except the last. If deception or manipulation on the part of the woman are involved, then there can be no argument that it is not slavery.
I am against all abortion except when the physical or pychological life of the woman is in danger.

If it's the kind of woman who is trying to entrap you on purpose, he shouldn't be having sex with her - maybe he's just not socially aware.

If it's the kind of man who would get a woman pregnant and run, she shouldn't be having sex with him - maybe she's just not socially aware.

Responsible people have the discussion about "what if the contraception doesn't work" before they have sex.

I am sorry to have contended that the man would have no effects at all, but it cannot be his choice alone that dictates what the woman will go through. He can't say "I don't want the child," and then be able to have nothing to do with it because it leaves the woman between a rock and a hard place. At least with child support she can chose to have the child and know that, even with a minimum wage job, she will have enough for her child. If she does chose abortion, I suppose it doesn't matter, but I feel the man would be condemning her to the choice if he got off scott free in the money department. (I was thinking solely of a case in which the man and woman are not married, divorced, or separated but more of an accidental pregnancy in a noncommitted relationship--as I feel this argument seems to be centering on.)


Maybe a better idea than the thinking of "abortion or 18 years of child support would be to also include an option for the man to help pay for the therapy or support groups the woman might want to attend after an abortion. I feel this would ease, at least somewhat, the choice between "raise this child with no money or get an abortion." I dunno, even this idea seems tacky and like it won't help with the emotional feelings one has after an abortion. But I guess I really have no other real options unless there is an overhaul of these "unfair" child support systems taht people seem to be talking about here (none of which I have seen but have no doubt they exist somewhere out there).

Its not silly. It would actually be a fair trade off. Afterall, if the reason the woman is getting the abortion is because of pressure from the man, the man becomes obligated to pay for the abortion with his money and to pay for the mental counseling and other resulting medical expenses the woman must go through.
This would also go along way toward promoting a more responsible society.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

The choice is not whether or not to have to raise a child or whether or not to have a child. The choice afforded women is that of what happens to their body. Men are afforded the same choice, the exact same choice. So, yes, men have a choice.

Responsible people have the discussion about "what if the contraception doesn't work" before they have sex.

Damn straight!

If you are a man who considers abortion immoral, would you want to have sex with a woman who intends to abort any accidental pregnancy? If you are a man who absolutely does not want children, do you want to have sex with a woman who will not consider abortion if an accidental pregnancy occurs? If you are a woman who absolutely will not abort, do you want to have sex with a man who would choose not to support his child? If you are a woman who plans to abort any unintentional pregnancy, would you want to have sex with a man who would try and push you to do otherwise?

I don't care how "unromantic" it seems, these types of things should be discussed before sex

What was that again? No clarification? The only time that the man is supposed to pay for everything in his post is in the case that he wants to use the woman as an incubator.



Who has ever asserted that a man must give over ownership of his body to a woman? Slavery implies ownership of a human being. Having legal rights to some of another human beings' money, while we may see it as immoral for many reasons and may even view it as legal stealing, is not slavery.
You just qouted a different person than the one I was responded to (Trans Humans).
However you view it, it nothing less than morally evil.

You just qouted a different person than the one I was responded to (Trans Humans).

Incorrect. Go back and look at it yourself. The person you were responding to with that comment was Evenrue.

And the idea that a grown woman has to ask anyone else what to do with her body is idiotic and mysogynistic.



The fact that loads of women are determined to be able to choose to terminate their own pregnancy makes the above quite sensible.

[Background: I am a single mom; my ex-husband and I have one son who is now six.]

Here's how child support in the US usually works: Say the man makes $60K, and the woman makes $40K per year in gross salary. The court will choose a percentage of both parents' combined pretax income. It varies from state to state, but for the sake of this argument we'll assume 10%, or $10K. On paper, the woman owes $4,000 per year to the child support "pot" and the man owes $6,000 (he has 60% of the financial burden).

However, those numbers are altered by the amount of time the child spends with each parent. When the child is in your custody, you are meeting your financial obligation to him by providing for his needs, and by definition your ex is not. If the man and woman split the custody of the child 50/50 exactly, he would owe her $1,000 per year, not $6,000. Why does he owe her anything? Because he has 60% of the financial burden. In order to avoid child support entirely, he would need to have possession of his child 60% of the time, so he can meet the financial burden 60% of the time.

Generally, however, it is the mother who ends up raising the child. Her portion of the financial burden is usually entirely fulfilled by the amount of time her child spends with her. The father's burden, therefore, is fulfilled by payments, although his payments are generally reduced by the percentage of time he spends with the child. (Not always, but generally.)

My ex does not pay me child support because I have never pursued it in court. I make a good living (engineer) and he barely scrapes by (musician). It would be nice to have more money, certainly, but I don't need it and neither does my son. Besides, I believe there is value in him growing up watching both of his parents be able to make ends meet in their homes.

Other statements about this thread:

* No legitimate medical procedure should ever be forbidden to a licensed physician who is acting in the best interests of his patient, whatever those interests may be. That includes abortion.

* I believe paternal consent to birth, abortion, and adoption are desirable and would solve lots of problems. So would abstinence until marriage. None are realistic.

* Sex, pregnancy and childbirth all take place inside a woman's body. Some men (who want to be fathers while their girlfriends do not) think none of that is fair, some women (rape victims) also think none of that is fair. Newsflash: no law will ever make life fair! All we can ever do is encourage people to do the right thing. We can't and shouldn't force them. Ever.

For the record, women do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy (as has been claimed and suggested to be unfair throughout this thread). They have a right to control their bodies and decide which medical procedures they undergo. Men have the same rights. Women don't have more rights than men. Men simply aren't capable of undergoing an abortion or it would be their choice as well. Men are also not permitted to get hysterectomies. Is this a decrease in rights?

Birth is a medical procedure. Women are permitted to avoid that procedure so long as it does not abridge the rights of another (thus the reason the surgery is restricted during the third trimester). Men have the same rights.

[Background: I am a single mom; my ex-husband and I have one son who is now six.]

Here's how child support in the US usually works: Say the man makes $60K, and the woman makes $40K per year in gross salary. The court will choose a percentage of both parents' combined pretax income. It varies from state to state, but for the sake of this argument we'll assume 10%, or $10K. On paper, the woman owes $4,000 per year to the child support "pot" and the man owes $6,000 (he has 60% of the financial burden).

However, those numbers are altered by the amount of time the child spends with each parent. When the child is in your custody, you are meeting your financial obligation to him by providing for his needs, and by definition your ex is not. If the man and woman split the custody of the child 50/50 exactly, he would owe her $1,000 per year, not $6,000. Why does he owe her anything? Because he has 60% of the financial burden. In order to avoid child support entirely, he would need to have possession of his child 60% of the time, so he can meet the financial burden 60% of the time.

Generally, however, it is the mother who ends up raising the child. Her portion of the financial burden is usually entirely fulfilled by the amount of time her child spends with her. The father's burden, therefore, is fulfilled by payments, although his payments are generally reduced by the percentage of time he spends with the child. (Not always, but generally.)

My ex does not pay me child support because I have never pursued it in court. I make a good living (engineer) and he barely scrapes by (musician). It would be nice to have more money, certainly, but I don't need it and neither does my son. Besides, I believe there is value in him growing up watching both of his parents be able to make ends meet in their homes.

Other statements about this thread:

* No legitimate medical procedure should ever be forbidden to a licensed physician who is acting in the best interests of his patient, whatever those interests may be. That includes abortion.

* I believe paternal consent to birth, abortion, and adoption are desirable and would solve lots of problems. So would abstinence until marriage. None are realistic.

* Sex, pregnancy and childbirth all take place inside a woman's body. Some men (who want to be fathers while their girlfriends do not) think none of that is fair, some women (rape victims) also think none of that is fair. Newsflash: no law will ever make life fair! All we can ever do is encourage people to do the right thing. We can't and shouldn't force them. Ever.

Very informative and well-put. I agree with you entirely on the last two points.

Here's how child support in the US usually works: Say the man makes $60K, and the woman makes $40K per year in gross salary. The court will choose a percentage of both parents' combined pretax income. It varies from state to state, but for the sake of this argument we'll assume 10%, or $10K. On paper, the woman owes $4,000 per year to the child support "pot" and the man owes $6,000 (he has 60% of the financial burden).

In GA, at least, there is a flat minimum of (11 years ago, at least), $450/child. This minimum has nothing to do with income or time spent with the child. My mother specifically stated that she did not wish to receive child support, but the court would not allow that option.

For the record, women do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy (as has been claimed and suggested to be unfair throughout this thread). They have a right to control their bodies and decide which medical procedures they undergo.

.....one of those medical procedures being the termination of a pregnancy. Thus, if a woman has a right to determine what medical procedures to undergo, she has a right to terminate her pregnancy.

I've been saying this for years. If a woman is allowed to abort a baby, then so should be a man. Of course, the man has no dominion over the woman's body, but there's no reason to say he can't sever his ties with the entire mess (simultaneously waiving the responsibility to support the child and the right to participate in its upbringing). Women will abort their babies whether or not you tell them it's O.K. Men won't pay their child support whether or not you tell them to do so. It's better to be honest about it. Here's what I would do:

Situation 1: both parents know about the pregnancy in enough time to abort. The mother may choose to abort. The father may choose to opt out, but he must give the mother enough time afterwards to abort.
Situation 2: the mother knows about the pregnancy in time to abort but doesn't tell the father and chooses to keep the baby. The father may choose to opt out at any time.
Situation 3: neither parent knows about the pregnancy in time to abort. They're stuck with it.

How about this plan:
The government does nothing.
Spouses are able to have a say in abortion if that was part of their agreement upon marriage. Otherwise, they aren't.
There you go, no problem anymore.

Situation 1: both parents know about the pregnancy in enough time to abort. The mother may choose to abort. The father may choose to opt out, but he must give the mother enough time afterwards to abort.
Situation 2: the mother knows about the pregnancy in time to abort but doesn't tell the father and chooses to keep the baby. The father may choose to opt out at any time.
Situation 3: neither parent knows about the pregnancy in time to abort. They're stuck with it.

In situation 2, I would still place a limit on it - depending on the abortion laws in the state, 3-6 months after he *does* find out.

How about this plan:
The government does nothing.
Spouses are able to have a say in abortion if that was part of their agreement upon marriage. Otherwise, they aren't.
There you go, no problem anymore.
What if they're not married, or hadn't spoken about this? Ovaries don't magically turn on once you're married k'know. <.<

In GA, at least, there is a flat minimum of (11 years ago, at least), $450/child. This minimum has nothing to do with income or time spent with the child. My mother specifically stated that she did not wish to receive child support, but the court would not allow that option.



.....one of those medical procedures being the termination of a pregnancy. Thus, if a woman has a right to determine what medical procedures to undergo, she has a right to terminate her pregnancy.

Incorrect. I have a right to defend myself, even with deadly force if necessary, but I do not have a right to kill. The right to self-preservation might allow me to do it legally, but it is not an inherent right. The right to an abortion is a right to control your body, that in some cases infers the ability to legally abort. Again, men cannot undergo hysterectomies but it does not amount to a variance in rights.

Both men and women have the same rights, but due to a difference in biology those rights have different effects. The termination of a pregnancy is an effect of the right to control her body. If a fetus were capable of survival at three months into the pregnancy there would be a different debate and I think it would be likely that at that point a man could argue that the child be artificially incubated and that the woman be responsible for the child much like a woman can require now. Regardless of the stage of development, if her body were not involved, there would likely be no access to an abortion. The entire argument is based around how pregnancy abridges her freedoms, not the possible child.

What if they're not married, or hadn't spoken about this? Ovaries don't magically turn on once you're married k'know. <.<
Well, if they aren't married, I can't see why there should be any contract on who can do what.
If they hadn't spoken about it, I suppose the same thing would happen as whenever people don't speak about something else before marriage, whatever that is.

I've been saying this for years. If a woman is allowed to abort a baby, then so should be a man. Of course, the man has no dominion over the woman's body, but there's no reason to say he can't sever his ties with the entire mess (simultaneously waiving the responsibility to support the child and the right to participate in its upbringing). Women will abort their babies whether or not you tell them it's O.K. Men won't pay their child support whether or not you tell them to do so. It's better to be honest about it. Here's what I would do:

Situation 1: both parents know about the pregnancy in enough time to abort. The mother may choose to abort. The father may choose to opt out, but he must give the mother enough time afterwards to abort.
Situation 2: the mother knows about the pregnancy in time to abort but doesn't tell the father and chooses to keep the baby. The father may choose to opt out at any time.
Situation 3: neither parent knows about the pregnancy in time to abort. They're stuck with it.

The problem is, how can you prove the women knew about the pregnancy in time to abort? The situation seems ripe for abuse.

Again, men cannot undergo hysterectomies but it does amount to a variance in rights. Both men and women have the same rights, but due to a difference in biology those rights have different effects.
I'm confused, did you mean to say "doesn't"?

In situation 2, I would still place a limit on it - depending on the abortion laws in the state, 3-6 months after he *does* find out.
I can see a case for that. My reasoning, though, is that the woman claimed full responsibility herself when she declined to tell him (provided he was available to be told; if not, then he should not be permitted to waive his rights and responsibilities). However, she may not terminate his rights.

I'm confused, did you mean to say "doesn't"?

What do you mean? That's what it says! *Jocabia quickly corrects his post*

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?
At first I was going to post a response saying "Hell no, the guy should have kept it in his pants just like the article says, so screw him," but the more I think about it, the more I appreciate your idea. If the woman has the right to terminate her parental rights, why shouldn't the man? I think the idea of allowing a man to force a woman to not have an abortion is nonsense, but permitting him to terminate his parental obligations seems fair and square.

Incorrect. I have a right to defend myself, even with deadly force if necessary, but I do not have a right to kill.

Improper analogy. You are talking about exceptions to the rule while I am talking about the rule itself.

Your phrasing is exactly like saying, "I have a right to dental care, but I don't have a right to get a filling." If I have a right to dental care, I have a right to a filling.

The right to an abortion is a right to control your body, that in some cases infers the ability to legally abort.

Certainly. And inherent in the choice to either abort or not do so is the decision of whether or not to bring a child into this world. The two are not separate choices. You cannot choose to abort but still bring a child into the world, and you cannot choose to continue a pregnancy to term and not bring a child into the world.

Again, men cannot undergo hysterectomies but it does amount to a variance in rights.

Nope. But again, this is an improper analogy. A woman choosing to have a hysterectomy places no direct financial or physical burden on anyone else. It affects only her. Any medical decision she makes should affect only her.

If you can name a medical decision a man makes that directly affects the life of a woman, you can state that all is equal here. Otherwise, we have to examine the fact that a woman has something a man does not - a medical decision that directly affects the life of another adult human being.

The entire argument is based around how pregnancy abridges her freedoms, not the possible child.

Now, I know for a fact you've been in enough discussion of abortion to know better. Point me to a single discussion of abortion where, "Having a baby might keep her from going to school/her career/etc." doesn't come into play.


The problem is, how can you prove the women knew about the pregnancy in time to abort? The situation seems ripe for abuse.

How do we legally figure out when anyone knows anything? At what point did she have a pregnancy test? If she had no prenatal care or pregnancy test, we're pretty much thrown into Situation 3 unless the man can bring enough witnesses to testify that she knew ahead of time (ie. she was telling her friends, etc.).

Cat-Tribes is going to dominate this thread in time :p

The problem is, how can you prove the women knew about the pregnancy in time to abort? The situation seems ripe for abuse.
I concur. If they end up with a "surprise baby" with both claiming they didn't know about it beforehand, I think the man should still be able to opt out for 3 months. It's not as though the woman can't opt out via adoption.

Of course, that would require informing the man, which, I think, might be what this law was suppose to be about in the first place. Informing is a decent idea, consent, however, is not.
A law requiring a woman to inform the father before having an abortion would be unenforceable.

A law requiring a woman to inform the father before having an abortion would be unenforceable.

Indeed. Florida (IIRC) tried to institute such a law (although it may have been about adoption instead of abortion) and had women taking out ads in the paper listing all of her sexual partners. This was, obviously, found to be a law in breach of her right to privacy.

Improper analogy. You are talking about exceptions to the rule while I am talking about the rule itself.

Your phrasing is exactly like saying, "I have a right to dental care, but I don't have a right to get a filling." If I have a right to dental care, I have a right to a filling.

No, the point is that the financial burden is a effect of the right, not the right itself. A woman has no right to financially burden a man with a child. She has a right to control her body and an effect of that right is that she can decide to either have or not have a procedure that causes a man to either have or not have a financial burden related to having a child. The man does not give the woman money. He gives the child money.

Also, as far as your analogy, you don't have a right to dental care. You have a right to control your body which includes dental procedures. You put it backwards to try and make the point, but it actually makes mine when used properly. Because dental care is a part of controlling your body does not mean you have a 'right' to dental care. You have a right to make decisions about your body including dental decisions.

Certainly. And inherent in the choice to either abort or not do so is the decision of whether or not to bring a child into this world. The two are not separate choices. You cannot choose to abort but still bring a child into the world, and you cannot choose to continue a pregnancy to term and not bring a child into the world.

They are seperate choices. The court did not say women have the right to determine whether children come into the world. Women have the right to control their bodies. The same right men have.

Inherent to the choice of whether or not to use lethal force to stop an intruder is the death of the intruder, yet we have no RIGHT to take the life of another.

You cannot NOW choose to abort and still bring a child into the world, but that may be something that is an issue in the future and it will be a completely different argument that has not been decided on yet. Women were never given the right to decide whether the child is born, they were given the right to decide what happens to their body. Again, the same right men have.

Nope. But again, this is an improper analogy. A woman choosing to have a hysterectomy places no direct financial or physical burden on anyone else. It affects only her. Any medical decision she makes should affect only her.

The financial burden is a side-effect. Much like if I kill a man who breaks into my house, I might place a financial burden on the family of that man. I can reasonably expect that is an effect, but it has NO bearing on my ability to exercise my right to self-preservation.

If you can name a medical decision a man makes that directly affects the life of a woman, you can state that all is equal here. Otherwise, we have to examine the fact that a woman has something a man does not - a medical decision that directly affects the life of another adult human being.

A woman has the right to no such decision. It is an effect.

A man who is paying child support and alimony can choose to take a job that pays half of what he was making at the time that child support and alimony were granted. That choice will directly affect the financial position of the woman and the child, but the man is permitted to do so. The effect on the financial position of the woman and the child do not give them a right to decide whether he can change jobs, nor does it give them to right to say before he changes jobs that he will be required to maintain the same payments so as not to place a financial burden on them.

Now, I know for a fact you've been in enough discussion of abortion to know better. Point me to a single discussion of abortion where, "Having a baby might keep her from going to school/her career/etc." doesn't come into play.

I don't care what people talk about when discussing it. It's not a part of the legal discussion, which is the point. Legally a woman has a right to control her body. Abortion has nothing to do with her right to a career or school or anything else. You are talking about legal rights.

How do we legally figure out when anyone knows anything? At what point did she have a pregnancy test? If she had no prenatal care or pregnancy test, we're pretty much thrown into Situation 3 unless the man can bring enough witnesses to testify that she knew ahead of time (ie. she was telling her friends, etc.).
"I wasn't sure who the father was." "I called him but he didn't answer." "I told him, but he's lying and saying I didn't." "I didn't have his number." "I didn't know where he was." It's ripe for abuse. More importantly the one who loses in the event of a paper abortion is the child. There is no child to lose out in the event of an abortion. You are giving a right to the male parent by removing rights from the child. The child is held to have the right to support from both parents.

No, the point is that the financial burden is a effect of the right, not the right itself.

Which, in the end, is irrelevant. With rights come responsibilities. If she has a right with such an effect, the responsibility is hers as well. Indeed, the effect itself can be a responsibility, as it is in this case.

If I have the right to protect myself, the responsibilities that come along with having killed an attacker are my own, not someone else's.

You are trying to completely separate the effects (ie. the responsibilities) that go along with a right from the right itself. This is logically impossible.

Also, as far as your analogy, you don't have a right to dental care. You have a right to control your body which includes dental procedures.

And, once again, if I have a right to control my body, I also have a right to dental procedures. You can't pretend to separate the two. They go hand in hand.

The financial burden is a side-effect. Much like if I kill a man who breaks into my house, I might place a financial burden on the family of that man. I can reasonably expect that is an effect, but it has NO bearing on my ability to exercise my right to self-preservation.

No, it doesn't. Of course, a man having the right to a paper abortion wouldn't affect a woman's right to exercise her right to medical procedures either. It would still be in effect.

A woman has the right to no such decision. It is an effect.

Again, trying to separate direct effects of a decision from the decision itself. This is a logical impossibility. Her decision directly affects the man because the effects of it directly affect him. If you decide to shoot at an intruder, are you going to claim that your decision doesn't affect his life because his death is not your decision, but an effect of your decision?

A man who is paying child support and alimony can choose to take a job that pays half of what he was making at the time that child support and alimony were granted.

I don't know about alimony, but child support is not necessarily affected in any way by the man's job. The state in which I live places an absolute amount, regardless of what job the man has (or doesn't have) and requires him to continue paying it until the kids are 18.

"I wasn't sure who the father was."

And you apparently didn't try to find out. Therefore, you made the decision to have a child completely and totally on your own and are thus completely and totally responsible for that child - on your own. Stop trying to get others to pay for it.

"I called him but he didn't answer."

Very unlikely to happen, considering that everyone and their brother has voicemail and answering machines these days. If you don't leave a message in a case like this, you didn't call.

"I told him, but he's lying and saying I didn't."

This would be decided in a court of law much like, "He raped me and is lying and said he didn't." Both sides would present what evidence they could, as well as character witnesses.

"I didn't have his number." "I didn't know where he was."

And what efforts did you make to find out? What documentation do you have of it?

More importantly the one who loses in the event of a paper abortion is the child. There is no child to lose out in the event of an abortion. You are giving a right to the male parent by removing rights from the child. The child is held to have the right to support from both parents.

I am not removing any rights from the child. The child has the right to be supported. If a woman decides to bring that child into the world with only her own income to pay for it, she has taken on full responsibility for that child. If the child is then not supported, it is her fault, as it was her responsibility, and she should be charged with neglect.

The only way a person can say that a child is automatically harmed by a paper abortion is if they are mysogynists claiming that a woman cannot possibly support a child on her own or that she cannot possibly be responsible for her own decisions.

Edit: That came off really harshly, but it is the logical conclusion of your argument. "Women cannot possibly take on full responsibility for their children, therefore children are harmed when a man who does not love them is forced to be a partial parent anyways. Never mind the very real emotional problems for all involved that can be caused by this arrangement. Money = all-important."

Married or unmarried the government should stay out of the issue. If a woman wants a man to take care of her kid(s) she should not f**K losers who will leave her and the kid high and dry. If a man wants to have a baby but the woman doesn't to bad buddy you should have thought about that before sex.

*snip long post about how you don't understant the difference in rights and effects of denying or allowing an actual abortion versus a paper abortion*
First, no matter how many times you state it, rights are not equal to their effects. The right to have a medical procedure is not the same as the right to decide whether or not a child appears in the world. If and when a fetus can be artificially incubated at two months this will be a completely different conversation. The right to control one's body is not equal to the right to stop a child from being born. Regardless, even if the right existed a man could not have that right.

The child has a right to support of BOTH parents. The woman is not consenting to the child not having support of the father. The father is choosing on his own. The woman is in a position to make decisions on behalf of the child (since she would obviously have sole custody in this scenario) and can deny the father the right to deny the child support. She is not excercising her rights in doing so, she is exercising the rights of the child. You are confusing the child's rights with her own. She has NO right to burden the father. That right is a right of the child and a side-effect of is that since the mother has the responsibility to make decisions for the child when it is in her care, she can decide whether or not the father is burdened. The father is not at that time in custody of the child and thus CANNOT make decisions on behalf of the child (which you are trying to give him the right to do). No matter how you slice it, if there is a child, that child has the right to support from BOTH parents unless the guardian(s) of that child choose to waive that right on behalf of the child (even still they must do so with the child having adequate support). At the time the child is in the womb, the one and only guardian of the child, sole-custody of the child, is the woman.

First, no matter how many times you state it, rights are not equal to their effects.

I've never stated any such thing. I've stated that with rights come responsibilities - and often effects = responsibilities. If I decide to have an abortion, there are effects of that decision, some of which are responsibilties placed upon me. The same goes for if I decide to continue a pregnancy and give birth. One of the effects (and responsibilities) of deciding to continue a pregnancy is having a child.

Edit: Now I have stated that those things which fall under the umbrella of a right amount to that right. The right to have an abortion falls under the right to make one's own medical decisions. They are inseparable, and are thus part and parcel of the same thing. The right to have dental work done falls under the right to make one's own medical decisions, thus they are part and parcel of the same thing. One is not an effect of the other, as they are all parts of the same right.

Your logic in this amounts to saying, "You have no right to be read the Miranda Warning." This is incorrect. The right have the Miranda Warning read falls under the right to due process. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

It amounts to saying, "You have no right to practice Christianity." This, again, would be incorrect. It falls under the right to free practice of religion. They are part and parcel of the same right.

The right to have a medical procedure is not the same as the right to decide whether or not a child appears in the world.

As you have stated, the existence of a child is a direct effect of that decision. Thus, the responsibility for taking on the effects of that decision falls upon the person who makes it.

If and when a fetus can be artificially incubated at two months this will be a completely different conversation.

Not really. If a woman does not want the invasive procedure that would be necessary to remove it intact, she will not be forced to have it anyways. Thus, the decision of whether or not to artificially incubate it will still be hers - and hers alone.

The child has a right to support of BOTH parents.

Why?

You are confusing the child's rights with her own.

Hardly. You have yet to explain why someone who has no right in determining whether or not there is a child or not - when that decision is directly made by what medical procedures someone else decides to have - has any legal responsibility whatsoever to the child.

The father is not at that time in custody of the child and thus CANNOT make decisions on behalf of the child (which you are trying to give him the right to do).

No, at the time that the decision would be made, there would be no child. Thus, to state that the father is making decisions for the child would be ludicrous. You cannot make decisions for something that does not exist.

No matter how you slice it, if there is a child, that child has the right to support from BOTH parents unless the guardian(s) of that child choose to waive that right on behalf of the child (even still they must do so with the child having adequate support).

Again, provide some sort of objective reasoning for this. Why does someone who has no wish to take on this burden - who has tried everything to prevent this burden - have no say in the matter?

Meanwhile, even by the law, a child has no such right. In just about every state in this country, a mother can drop her child off at a hospital - no questions asked. They don't ask who she is or why she is doing it. They don't ask about the father. They simply take the child and call DFACs. If a child has such a right, why can she do this? Shouldn't she be forced to take care of it?

At the time the child is in the womb, the one and only guardian of the child, sole-custody of the child, is the woman.

We have discussed this and you have agreed my dear - there is no child involved in abortion (most abortion anyways). There is no "custody of the child" during this time period, as there is no child. If there were, we probably wouldn't be having the abortion discussion at all - it would probably be illegal.

when I found out 12 years ago I was unexpectedly with child and circumstances were as such that the bio parent was not in any shape to care for that child i decided to have him anyway. So i figured he is mine and soley mine. He is not on the Birth certificate, he has never been gone after for support. I was married before my child was born (to another man) and against my advice HE decided to be put on the birth certificate. Now as far as law goes he is responsible for support no matter what I say and have fought against. As far as i am concerned my son has always been mine and only mine, he is my responsibility, my joy, my frustration, and I housed him and birthed him and I will be damned if any male who has not been there can come in because he was with me for a very short time and say what i can do with him... but perhaps that is a different matter in itself.

Married or unmarried the government should stay out of the issue. If a woman wants a man to take care of her kid(s) she should not f**K losers who will leave her and the kid high and dry. If a man wants to have a baby but the woman doesn't to bad buddy you should have thought about that before sex.
Yeah because you can always tell who will do things like that :rolleyes:

Sometimes people suprize you when push comes to shove

I've never stated any such thing. I've stated that with rights come responsibilities - and often effects = responsibilities. If I decide to have an abortion, there are effects of that decision, some of which are responsibilties placed upon me. The same goes for if I decide to continue a pregnancy and give birth. One of the effects (and responsibilities) of deciding to continue a pregnancy is having a child.

Edit: Now I have stated that those things which fall under the umbrella of a right amount to that right. The right to have an abortion falls under the right to make one's own medical decisions. They are inseparable, and are thus part and parcel of the same thing. The right to have dental work done falls under the right to make one's own medical decisions, thus they are part and parcel of the same thing. One is not an effect of the other, as they are all parts of the same right.

Your logic in this amounts to saying, "You have no right to be read the Miranda Warning." This is incorrect. The right have the Miranda Warning read falls under the right to due process. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

It amounts to saying, "You have no right to practice Christianity." This, again, would be incorrect. It falls under the right to free practice of religion. They are part and parcel of the same right.

No, because you gave examples of religions (freedom of religion) and process (due process), but the existence of the child is not a medical procedure. Your own examples make my point. Thanks for that.

As you have stated, the existence of a child is a direct effect of that decision. Thus, the responsibility for taking on the effects of that decision falls upon the person who makes it.

And the decision to have sex and the decision to not wear a condom (if they didn't) or what kind of condom you chose (if they did) and the decision of what person to have sex with and the decision to use any other types of birth control, etc. There are dozens of decisions that result in the existence of that child most of which are also made by the man. The woman already has the responsibility of dealing with continuing the pregnancy, a responsibility the man does not have. Again, equal rights. The fact that one of their rights has an additional effect of affording an additional decision to the woman and also for the same reason gives her additional responsibilities (of carrying the child). It's actually amazing how fair it is by it's very nature.

Not really. If a woman does not want the invasive procedure that would be necessary to remove it intact, she will not be forced to have it anyways. Thus, the decision of whether or not to artificially incubate it will still be hers - and hers alone.

You make an assumption that it would be more invasive than an abortion. It is not necessarily true. I love how you make it a more invasive procedure than an abortion just to make it not possible.

Also your point proves mine. The woman has a right to determine what happens to her body, not to decide on the existence of the child. Your suggestion makes it quite clear that only if the procedure was invasive to her body would it be her decision. Thanks for making my point, again.

Amazingly, you would require the woman to have an invasive procedure to have the fetus removed from her body in order to not be forced to raise the child alone and you call this fair, but you suggest making her undergo an invasive procedure equal to abortion in order to ACTUALLY be equitable would be unfair in your mind.

Why?

Is that a joke? You're trying to deny the child the support of both his parents, a right that is responsible for child support (child support is granted the child not the mother). You're denial of that right doesn't change it's existence.

Hardly. You have yet to explain why someone who has no right in determining whether or not there is a child or not - when that decision is directly made by what medical procedures someone else decides to have - has any legal responsibility whatsoever to the child.

Again, because the child has a right to support from both parents who are responsible for his existence. You cannot actually deny the fact that the father is also responsible for the existence of the child. "You touched it last so you have to take care of it."

No, at the time that the decision would be made, there would be no child. Thus, to state that the father is making decisions for the child would be ludicrous. You cannot make decisions for something that does not exist.

Whether the child is going to exist is not affected by the paper abortion. If the child does not exist, he does need the paper abortion, thus it only matters if the child comes to exist. He is denying that child the support of his father and claiming this some equals a case in which there is no a child.

Again, provide some sort of objective reasoning for this. Why does someone who has no wish to take on this burden - who has tried everything to prevent this burden - have no say in the matter?

Because it's not his body. He has no say in what happens to the woman's body. If it were possible to give him the ability to have a say in the existence of the child without affecting the woman's body, we might. We can't. It's impossible. Since we can't, you want to deny the child some of the support it deserves.

Meanwhile, even by the law, a child has no such right. In just about every state in this country, a mother can drop her child off at a hospital - no questions asked. They don't ask who she is or why she is doing it. They don't ask about the father. They simply take the child and call DFACs. If a child has such a right, why can she do this? Shouldn't she be forced to take care of it?

False. The woman has to either say she doesn't know who the father is, that the father cannot be found or get the father's consent.

Let's see what your state has to say.

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/alabama-laws,3.html

Yep, requires the presumed father's consent, whether or not paternity is proven. Try looking at the first four states in alphabetical order. All require consent of the father if known (trying looking at the information on putative fathers). Strange that most states don't require father consent and yet the first four I looked at all required consent. Odd, that is. I mean, one might reach the conclusion that you just made that up.

As far as your point, the support of the child is taken on by another legal entity at the permission of the party(ies) responsible for make legal decisions for the child. In the case of the 'paper abortion', you are not allowing the party responsible for making legal decisions for the child make decisions on behalf of the child. You are entirely taking away the child's right in order to give the father a right he does not and should not have.

We have discussed this and you have agreed my dear - there is no child involved in abortion (most abortion anyways). There is no "custody of the child" during this time period, as there is no child. If there were, we probably wouldn't be having the abortion discussion at all - it would probably be illegal.
The point is that in an abortion there is no child, EVER. A 'paper abortion' however has no effect on the existence of the child. If the child comes to exist, the mother would have been making decisions on behalf of the child even prior to its existence (for example in the case of adoption). You can't pretend that the mother doesn't make decisions on behalf of the child in the event the child comes into existence. She does. You know she does. I know she does. The father has a right to be involved in those decisions at the moment the child leaves her body (which is why his consent in the case of adoption is needed, since it doesn't happen until after the birth).

You can't escape the fact that regardless of what document the father signs the child is the one being denied support. In the case of an actual abortion, there is no child so there is no need to consider it. However, in the case of a 'paper abortion' there may or may not be a child. Again, if there is no child, the paper abortion has no effect. If there is a child, the paper abortion would have effect and the only effect would be denying the child support of the father. How does that make things equitable? It doesn't. You are trying to give a man a right at the expense of the child.

[Background: I am a single mom; my ex-husband and I have one son who is now six.]

Here's how child support in the US usually works: Say the man makes $60K, and the woman makes $40K per year in gross salary. The court will choose a percentage of both parents' combined pretax income. It varies from state to state, but for the sake of this argument we'll assume 10%, or $10K. On paper, the woman owes $4,000 per year to the child support "pot" and the man owes $6,000 (he has 60% of the financial burden).

However, those numbers are altered by the amount of time the child spends with each parent. When the child is in your custody, you are meeting your financial obligation to him by providing for his needs, and by definition your ex is not. If the man and woman split the custody of the child 50/50 exactly, he would owe her $1,000 per year, not $6,000. Why does he owe her anything? Because he has 60% of the financial burden. In order to avoid child support entirely, he would need to have possession of his child 60% of the time, so he can meet the financial burden 60% of the time.

Generally, however, it is the mother who ends up raising the child. Her portion of the financial burden is usually entirely fulfilled by the amount of time her child spends with her. The father's burden, therefore, is fulfilled by payments, although his payments are generally reduced by the percentage of time he spends with the child. (Not always, but generally.)

My ex does not pay me child support because I have never pursued it in court. I make a good living (engineer) and he barely scrapes by (musician). It would be nice to have more money, certainly, but I don't need it and neither does my son. Besides, I believe there is value in him growing up watching both of his parents be able to make ends meet in their homes.

Other statements about this thread:

* No legitimate medical procedure should ever be forbidden to a licensed physician who is acting in the best interests of his patient, whatever those interests may be. That includes abortion.

* I believe paternal consent to birth, abortion, and adoption are desirable and would solve lots of problems. So would abstinence until marriage. None are realistic.

* Sex, pregnancy and childbirth all take place inside a woman's body. Some men (who want to be fathers while their girlfriends do not) think none of that is fair, some women (rape victims) also think none of that is fair. Newsflash: no law will ever make life fair! All we can ever do is encourage people to do the right thing. We can't and shouldn't force them. Ever.

You are erroneously thinking that child support laws are exactly the same in all 50 states and in all US territories when I know for a fact that they depend on what state you are in.
Further, it is not to woman that child support is owed, but to the child. The money is solely for the child, not a penny of it is meant for the woman.
Currently in most states, the amount of time a father spends with his child has no bearing on the amount of money he must pay. Your state may be an exception to this however.
As for the 60/40 ratio, there is nothing fare about that as it places more of burden on the father in the event that he is out of work and unable to pay up. Hence he ends up in prison just for being unemployed or laid off cause the company he worked for went under. Most states make no provision for such circumstances.

Your other comments:
1. I agree, unless it violates the patient's religious beliefs which always take precedence.

2. Without paternal consent, you can not make a valid claim for paternal responsibility.

3. No it is not fair. But the history of mankind has been one of trying to make things fairer than they were before. That is what this discussion is about. About how to make the system fairer to both parties. To replace lopsided, one sided system we have now which always screws over men and reduces them to nothing more than slaves of women.

For the record, women do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy (as has been claimed and suggested to be unfair throughout this thread). They have a right to control their bodies and decide which medical procedures they undergo. Men have the same rights. Women don't have more rights than men. Men simply aren't capable of undergoing an abortion or it would be their choice as well. Men are also not permitted to get hysterectomies. Is this a decrease in rights?

Birth is a medical procedure. Women are permitted to avoid that procedure so long as it does not abridge the rights of another (thus the reason the surgery is restricted during the third trimester). Men have the same rights.
Tell me you didn't just claim that abortion is not the termination of pregnancy.

Look in any dictionary or encyclopedia:
Abortion= termination of a pregnancy. Right to abortion is right to terminate a pregnancy.
Further, men are allowed to get procedures similar to hysterectomy.
To totally ban either would be a decrease in rights.
Birth and abortion are both medical procedures. Women are permitted to terminate pregnancy only within the first trimester. Later, it is only allowed in the cases of threats to the woman's life.

See, I think its kind of funny that Republicans seem to be more concerned with what a woman decides to happen her her womb than what the Presidant does with an entire country. I say we should just let woman choose what they want to with an undeveloped baby and focus on actual problems.

No, because you gave examples of religions (freedom of religion) and process (due process), but the existence of the child is not a medical procedure. Your own examples make my point. Thanks for that.

I love the way you try to take things out of context. Please go back and try again.

And the decision to have sex and the decision to not wear a condom (if they didn't) or what kind of condom you chose (if they did) and the decision of what person to have sex with and the decision to use any other types of birth control, etc.

So a woman who choses to have sex does not consent to having a child, or even to pregnancy, but a man who choses to have sex consents to having someone else decide that he will be responsible for a child for 18 years. Real equitable, that.

You make an assumption that it would be more invasive than an abortion.

It is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Removing an embryo/fetus intact would, by necessity, be more invasive than most abortion procedures. It could not be done without making incisions into the womb and, well, removing it intact. You can't exactly remove it intact without doing so invasively.

Also your point proves mine. The woman has a right to determine what happens to her body, not to decide on the existence of the child.

Her right to decide what to do with her body has the direct result of determining the existence (or non-existence) of the child. Thus, as it is the effect of her decision alone, it is her responsibility.

Amazingly, you would require the woman to have an invasive procedure to have the fetus removed from her body in order to not be forced to raise the child alone and you call this fair,

A woman is never forced to raise a child, alone or otherwise. She *always* has the option of giving it up for adoption. The only person ever forced by law to have any responsibility for the child is the father. Every other person who might ever have custody of that child gets a choice in the matter.

Is that a joke? You're trying to deny the child the support of both his parents, a right that is responsible for child support (child support is granted the child not the mother). You're denial of that right doesn't change it's existence.

You have yet to show any such right and, indeed, the law flatly disagrees with you. If the child had a legal right to support from both parents, adoption of any child that is not an orphan would be illegal. The parents would be legally required to support that child. Yet, they are not. Giving a child up for adoption is legal, even if adoptive parents have not yet been found.

As it is, the only person ever forced by law to take on the responsibility of supporting a child is the father. The mother can give it up for adoption without even looking at the child, much less taking responsibility for it. She makes an active choice to either take on that responsibility or leave the infant at the hospital to be taken by DFACs and put up for adoption. Even if it is not born in a hospital, she can take it to one and drop it off, no questions asked. There doesn't even have to be a legal record that she is the mother. An adoptive parent obviously takes on the role willingly. A guardian who takes a child on after a parent dies has the choice of whether or not to take that responsibility and can either pass it off on the next closest kin or put it up for adoption if they do not want custody. A foster parent takes that on willingly.

The only person ever forced by the law to take responsibility for a child against his will is the father. The only argument you (and the standing law) actually makes is that, if a woman makes the conscious decision to take responsibility for her child, she can force the father to do so as well. If she gives it up, she gives up his responsibilities as well. He is the only person who will ever have any responsibility to support that child against his will, and this will often be done even if he is given no custody rights whatsoever.

Again, because the child has a right to support from both parents who are responsible for his existence.

If this were true, adoption would be illegal. It would be illegal for either parent (or both together) to give up those rights. It is not true. The law holds that a child has a right to be supported. There is nothing to suggest that it must be the parents that provide it. The mother can opt out of these rights even after giving birth, or can take them on. Somehow, that means the man gets forced along.

You cannot actually deny the fact that the father is also responsible for the existence of the child.

In abortion, we separate the act of sex from the possible consequence of being pregnant. We separate the situation of pregnancy from the possible consequence of having a child. But, somehow, for men, the act of sex = creating a child, even though it doesn't for a woman. How interesting.....

Whether the child is going to exist is not affected by the paper abortion.

This is partially true. It may affect the decision made by the woman, depending on her own views on abortion. However, it will not continue or discontinue the pregnancy. It is rather obvious that only the woman can do that.

Because it's not his body. He has no say in what happens to the woman's body. If it were possible to give him the ability to have a say in the existence of the child without affecting the woman's body, we might. We can't. It's impossible. Since we can't, you want to deny the child some of the support it deserves.

I deny the child nothing. If a mother brings a child into this world with only her income to support it and her income is not enough, she has denied that child the support it deserves. The child was a direct result of her exercising her rights, and is thus her responsibility.

False. The woman has to either say she doesn't know who the father is, that the father cannot be found or get the father's consent.

No, it is absolutely true. Most hospitals have policies that they will take any child that is brought in and ask the mother no questions. They are allowed to do this because, otherwise, the child might end up in a dumpster somewhere.

In the case of a child actually born at a hospital, there is paperwork to be filled out (as there is a legal birth certificate), but the woman never has to name a father on the birth certificate, even if she knows it and he is there.

Let's see what your state has to say.

Hate to break it to you dear, but I don't live in Alabama.

Meanwihle, in all the cases listed, it is assumed that the father has already taken on responsibility for the child or has been given the chance to do so. It says nothing at all about the case I was talking about.

As far as your point, the support of the child is taken on by another legal entity at the permission of the party(ies) responsible for make legal decisions for the child.

And every single person who might ever take on that support does so willingly, except the father. The father is the only one ever forced to do so.

You are entirely taking away the child's right in order to give the father a right he does not and should not have.

I am taking no rights away from the child. The child still has the same right every child has - the right to be supported. There is no evidence whatsoever that the child ever has the right to "support from both parents" except by an express decision made only by the mother.

You can't escape the fact that regardless of what document the father signs the child is the one being denied support.

Yes, I can, because nothing I have said in any way denies the child support. The child is still entitled to support. It simply must come from willing parties, since every single person who might ever take on that support is doing so willingly, except for the father. There is no other person that is ever forced to do so legally.

In the end, all your argument has done has made me realize that even the "paper abortion" wouldn't be equitable. A mother can give up her legal rights and responsibilities to the child even at birth (or afterwards, if she is the only parent listed on the birth certificate). She never even has to look at the child first. A father never even gets the illusion of a choice in the matter. Indeed, to make things truly equitable, both would have to be able to give the child up for adoption, even after it was born. A woman has that right until she walks out of a hospital (laws that include the father notwithstanding - she never has to name him at all). To be equitable, a man should actually have that right until the first child support payment is due, until he has to make the decision to either take on that support, or give it up.

You have made me realize that the only person ever forced, by law, to support a child is the father. Everyone else gets a choice in the matter. And you call that somehow equitable?

Further, it is not to woman that child support is owed, but to the child. The money is solely for the child, not a penny of it is meant for the woman.

And yet, no attempt is ever made to ensure that it is spent that way.

It's her body, but it's your money. She'll have to go through pregnancy, but you'll have to deal with the child support payments. Shouldn't the law cover you, too?
Yes, because women nowadays never ever lift a finger to earn our own money or pay our own bills. We always expect a man to do everything for us so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about things like getting a job. :rolleyes:

If you don't want to be a dad, don't sleep with women who won't abort an unplanned pregnancy.

Yes, because women nowadays never ever lift a finger to earn our own money or pay our own bills. We always expect a man to do everything for us so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about things like getting a job. :rolleyes:

If you don't want to be a dad, don't sleep with women who won't abort an unplanned pregnancy.
While I understand your arguement puting the weight of the decision at sexual intercourse works as badly for a man as it does a woman

(Note I do NOT believe this part)
By that logic the standard pro-life (or anti choice whatever) arguement works as well
if she did not want to be pregnant she should not have had sex

And that arguement falls down for the same reasons
Consenting to sex != consenting to prenancy nor to be used as an incubator

While I understand your arguement puting the weight of the decision at sexual intercourse works as badly for a man as it does a woman

(Note I do NOT believe this part)
By that logic the standard pro-life (or anti choice whatever) arguement works as well
if she did not want to be pregnant she should not have had sex

And that arguement falls down for the same reasons
Consenting to sex != consenting to prenancy nor to be used as an incubator
Well, I support the paper abortion thing for men, it seems fair enough.

But if a man isn't ready for biological fatherhood, then he should consult with his sexual partners before intercourse.

Well, I support the paper abortion thing for men, it seems fair enough.

But if a man isn't ready for biological fatherhood, then he should consult with his sexual partners before intercourse.
That deffinatly would be the SMART thing to do (the consult) because once she is pregnant it is her decision through that prenancy

AFter words I am of two minds ... I like the idea of a paper abortion but not quite convinced of the practicality ...

I do like browsing the arguements pro and anti paper abortion, intresting thoughts on both sides (at least usualy when it gets brought up)

I do like browsing the arguements pro and anti paper abortion, intresting thoughts on both sides (at least usualy when it gets brought up)
Yeah. The only thing with it is that there would have to be some rather strict controls on such a process, seeing as many women might be counting on support for carrying through with the pregnancy and it could be used by an anti-choice boyfriend who wants to keep his girlfriend from aborting but then he signs the paper abortion as soon as she can't get an abortion anymore.

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.
5. Don't have sex with women - use your left hand.
6. Don't have sex with women - use a blow-up doll.
:p

Tell me you didn't just claim that abortion is not the termination of pregnancy.

Look in any dictionary or encyclopedia:
Abortion= termination of a pregnancy. Right to abortion is right to terminate a pregnancy.
Further, men are allowed to get procedures similar to hysterectomy.
To totally ban either would be a decrease in rights.
Birth and abortion are both medical procedures. Women are permitted to terminate pregnancy only within the first trimester. Later, it is only allowed in the cases of threats to the woman's life.

What is protected is your right to control the medical procedures your body undergoes so long as it does no infringe on the rights of another. There is no right to terminate a pregnancy. It's a right to control your body that results in the ability to terminate a pregnancy. If it were possible to continue a pregnancy without controlling a woman's body this would be a completely different discussion.

I love the way you try to take things out of context. Please go back and try again.

Uh-huh, I'm the one that breaks up every one of my posts into individual sentences and removes context. Yep, that's me. Amusing. It's okay. That's not the last thing you made up in this post.

So a woman who choses to have sex does not consent to having a child, or even to pregnancy, but a man who choses to have sex consents to having someone else decide that he will be responsible for a child for 18 years. Real equitable, that.

Yep. When a man needs to consent to pregnancy he will be permitted to. Until then, the only person who has a choice about pregnancy is a woman. A man can only decide on whether to get SOMEONE ELSE pregnant, and because of the nature of that, he gets to decide up until the moment that happens how things go. After that, it's SOMEONE ELSE and thus SOMEONE ELSE who decides. Absolutely equitable. A man has control over his body and a woman has control over her body.

It is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Removing an embryo/fetus intact would, by necessity, be more invasive than most abortion procedures. It could not be done without making incisions into the womb and, well, removing it intact. You can't exactly remove it intact without doing so invasively.

No, it's not. They currently remove things the size of an embryo in the first eight weeks without doing anything more invasive than current abortion procedures. It's reasonable to believe that at some time they will become even less invasive. It's still goes to show that you can only make a legal argument if the woman's body is affected against her consent. Because as you know, legally abortion is only about control of the woman's body and has nothing to do with termination of her responsibility to the child.

Her right to decide what to do with her body has the direct result of determining the existence (or non-existence) of the child. Thus, as it is the effect of her decision alone, it is her responsibility.

That's crap. It's your old last touch rule. The last touch rule was crap when I was twelve, it's crap now. The child needs to be considered and you wish you pretend it does not exist.

A woman is never forced to raise a child, alone or otherwise. She *always* has the option of giving it up for adoption. The only person ever forced by law to have any responsibility for the child is the father. Every other person who might ever have custody of that child gets a choice in the matter.

The man is never forced to raise it alone either. He has the option of stopping an adoption. The only thing a man does not have the right to is to force a woman to undergo a medical procedure. Once the child exists, the child must be considered. Your paper abortion only has an effect when a child exists. Neither parent has the right to terminate their responsibilities without the consent of the other parent once a child exists.

You have yet to show any such right and, indeed, the law flatly disagrees with you. If the child had a legal right to support from both parents, adoption of any child that is not an orphan would be illegal. The parents would be legally required to support that child. Yet, they are not. Giving a child up for adoption is legal, even if adoptive parents have not yet been found.

Yes, it's legal because the parents are permitted to make legal decisions on behalf of the child. You pretend like parents aren't allowed to act on behalf of the child. In the case of this document, you are talking about denying the permission of the child or its guardian (the mother). You are taking that right away from the custodial parents (the father in the case of your paper abortion is denying his custodial rights), thus the mother must agree. In the case of adoption the former custodians and the new custodians both consent to the proceedings. It is not done without the consent of everyone involved.

A paper abortion is done without the consent of the custodial parent and thus the child (since she makes decisions for the child).

In the case of an abortion, there is no child and thus no custodial parents so the father has no rights unless a child is born.

As it is, the only person ever forced by law to take on the responsibility of supporting a child is the father. The mother can give it up for adoption without even looking at the child, much less taking responsibility for it. She makes an active choice to either take on that responsibility or leave the infant at the hospital to be taken by DFACs and put up for adoption. Even if it is not born in a hospital, she can take it to one and drop it off, no questions asked. There doesn't even have to be a legal record that she is the mother. An adoptive parent obviously takes on the role willingly. A guardian who takes a child on after a parent dies has the choice of whether or not to take that responsibility and can either pass it off on the next closest kin or put it up for adoption if they do not want custody. A foster parent takes that on willingly.

Not true. The mother cannot give a child up for adoption without the consent of the father. The mother can equally be forced to care for a child once the child exists. Their rights are equal. I showed you a site listing the laws, but you chose to ignore them. Your ignorance of them does not change what they are and what they say.

The only person ever forced by the law to take responsibility for a child against his will is the father. The only argument you (and the standing law) actually makes is that, if a woman makes the conscious decision to take responsibility for her child, she can force the father to do so as well. If she gives it up, she gives up his responsibilities as well. He is the only person who will ever have any responsibility to support that child against his will, and this will often be done even if he is given no custody rights whatsoever.

Still not true, but keep repeating it. Repetition makes things true.

If this were true, adoption would be illegal. It would be illegal for either parent (or both together) to give up those rights. It is not true. The law holds that a child has a right to be supported. There is nothing to suggest that it must be the parents that provide it. The mother can opt out of these rights even after giving birth, or can take them on. Somehow, that means the man gets forced along.

Ah, more repetition. Yay.

In abortion, we separate the act of sex from the possible consequence of being pregnant. We separate the situation of pregnancy from the possible consequence of having a child. But, somehow, for men, the act of sex = creating a child, even though it doesn't for a woman. How interesting.....

When a man can get pregnant he can choose whether or not to undergo birth (a medical procedure) until then, he will not have that choice. You want to give men an extra right. Currently women do not have the right to terminate their parental rights without the permission of those taking on custody of the child. You are giving men that right.

This is partially true. It may affect the decision made by the woman, depending on her own views on abortion. However, it will not continue or discontinue the pregnancy. It is rather obvious that only the woman can do that.

Good. Progress.

I deny the child nothing. If a mother brings a child into this world with only her income to support it and her income is not enough, she has denied that child the support it deserves. The child was a direct result of her exercising her rights, and is thus her responsibility.

False. The man's 'paper abortion' is given the man a made-up right that denies a child the support it deserves. Women do not have a right to terminate their responsibility to a child without the consent of all involved parties (she or all custodians consent on the part of the child). With abortion there is no child. With a 'paper abortion' the legal document only has an effect when there is a child. This is the only time one parent can absolve their responsibility to a child and put it on another parent. There is no equivalent for women.

No, it is absolutely true. Most hospitals have policies that they will take any child that is brought in and ask the mother no questions. They are allowed to do this because, otherwise, the child might end up in a dumpster somewhere.

Yes, they simply ignore the law. Good job making crap up. I checked four states. Would you like to give me a list of states that permit adoption without the consent of the father?

In the case of a child actually born at a hospital, there is paperwork to be filled out (as there is a legal birth certificate), but the woman never has to name a father on the birth certificate, even if she knows it and he is there.

You're correct, but that does not mean that the father doesn't have to consent to the abortion. Not putting the father on the certificate does not terminate his rights. Adoption does, so they require consent of the father.

Hate to break it to you dear, but I don't live in Alabama.

Crap, that's right, Georgia. Forgot. Anyway, I looked at the first four states. I actually didn't pick any states out. All four have laws that men must consent.

Meanwihle, in all the cases listed, it is assumed that the father has already taken on responsibility for the child or has been given the chance to do so. It says nothing at all about the case I was talking about.

Not true. You should read a little more of that site. Specifically, read about putative fathers. In some cases they require a woman to show that all reasonable efforts were made to include the father in the decision. In other cases they require a woman to put on record that she has no way of knowing who the father is. They do this because if she says so and it later turns out to be untrue, it gives the father recourse since the adoption was done under fraud.

And every single person who might ever take on that support does so willingly, except the father. The father is the only one ever forced to do so.

False. A women can try to put up a child for abortion and have it stopped by the father. Similarly, the father can try to put the child up for adoption and have it blocked by the mother. Exactly equal. Once a child exists, neither parent can absolve responsibility without the consent of the other.

I am taking no rights away from the child. The child still has the same right every child has - the right to be supported. There is no evidence whatsoever that the child ever has the right to "support from both parents" except by an express decision made only by the mother.

Huh. I guess I just imagined child support (child support proceedings involve the mother only because she is acting on behalf of the child, as parents tend to do).

Yes, I can, because nothing I have said in any way denies the child support. The child is still entitled to support. It simply must come from willing parties, since every single person who might ever take on that support is doing so willingly, except for the father. There is no other person that is ever forced to do so legally.

Ah, more repetition. Still not true. But then, you know that.

In the end, all your argument has done has made me realize that even the "paper abortion" wouldn't be equitable. A mother can give up her legal rights and responsibilities to the child even at birth (or afterwards, if she is the only parent listed on the birth certificate). She never even has to look at the child first. A father never even gets the illusion of a choice in the matter. Indeed, to make things truly equitable, both would have to be able to give the child up for adoption, even after it was born. A woman has that right until she walks out of a hospital (laws that include the father notwithstanding - she never has to name him at all). To be equitable, a man should actually have that right until the first child support payment is due, until he has to make the decision to either take on that support, or give it up.

Yep, keep ignoring the law and making up what rights a mother has. The mother and father have equal rights when it comes to a child. In the case of an abortion, no child exists. Once a child exists their rights become equal. In fact the only unequal part is that once it is considered a child (at about six months) the mother MUST undergo birth and the father has no such requirement. Other than that, there are exactly equal rights once a child exists.

You have made me realize that the only person ever forced, by law, to support a child is the father. Everyone else gets a choice in the matter. And you call that somehow equitable?

Still not true.

And yet, no attempt is ever made to ensure that it is spent that way.
The custodial parent makes decisions on behalf of the child. Child support is not the only time this is considered to be the case. Also, in some cases an effort is made to show it is spent this way. Is there anything in this argument you're not just making up?

So how do you think the law should work?

Neither gets any money, either via state assistance or via payments by the father; provide abortion for free and tell them, "keep the baby and support it yourself, or get an abortion" - sweet, short and simple, and most importantly straight to the point.

Don't believe in abortion? you've already had a fuck outside marriage, you might as well go the full monty and get that thing scrambled and sucked out.

Yeah. The only thing with it is that there would have to be some rather strict controls on such a process, seeing as many women might be counting on support for carrying through with the pregnancy and it could be used by an anti-choice boyfriend who wants to keep his girlfriend from aborting but then he signs the paper abortion as soon as she can't get an abortion anymore.

Well, to be fair to Dem, she said that a point of this is that it would have to completed while the woman still had the option of abortion, unless she somehow limited his ability to make the decision in time.

There is no right to terminate a pregnancy. It's a right to control your body that results in the ability to terminate a pregnancy.

So there is no right to be read a Miranda Warning? It isn't an example of Due Process, but a result of it instead? The courts would disagree.....

No, it's not. They currently remove things the size of an embryo in the first eight weeks without doing anything more invasive than current abortion procedures.

Not if they are trying to keep them intact and alive, at least not last time I checked. We can remove all sorts of things from the body if we don't worry much about what condition it is in afterwards.

It's still goes to show that you can only make a legal argument if the woman's body is affected against her consent. Because as you know, legally abortion is only about control of the woman's body and has nothing to do with termination of her responsibility to the child.

There you go making silly equations. I said that an abortion is termination of a pregnancy (something you seemed to be denying earlier), not termination of responsibility. There is no responsibility to be had until there is a child to speak of.

That's crap. It's your old last touch rule. The last touch rule was crap when I was twelve, it's crap now. The child needs to be considered and you wish you pretend it does not exist.

It has nothing at all to do with "last touch" and you know it. It is rights and responsibilities going hand in hand. The woman makes the decision that directly decides whether or not there will be a child. The man has no such decision to make. Thus, the woman must have more responsibilities as well.

The man is never forced to raise it alone either.

No, but he is the only one forced to raise it at all. Everyone else has an option in the matter.

Neither parent has the right to terminate their responsibilities without the consent of the other parent once a child exists.

The law states this, but is completley unenforceable and thus useless. A woman never even has to name a father when she gives birth. Thus, the father's consent never actually has to be gained if she wishes to give the child up for adoption unless the father shows up and tries to assert paternity rights and somehow manages to get a court injunction to test.

Yes, it's legal because the parents are permitted to make legal decisions on behalf of the child.

If a child is entitled to support from both parents, the legal decision to give the child up would not be included. That isn't a legal decision on behalf of the child, but on behalf of the parent that does not want the responsibility to take care of the child.

You pretend like parents aren't allowed to act on behalf of the child.

I've never even come close to suggesting any such thing.

In the case of this document, you are talking about denying the permission of the child or its guardian (the mother). You are taking that right away from the custodial parents (the father in the case of your paper abortion is denying his custodial rights), thus the mother must agree. In the case of adoption the former custodians and the new custodians both consent to the proceedings. It is not done without the consent of everyone involved.

And yet you agree to a father being forced to take responsibility he never consents to......

Meanwhile, a person who gives their child up for adoption does not have to agree to, for instance, the adoptive parents. Once they give that child up, it is a ward of the state until the state chooses adoptive parents.

A paper abortion is done without the consent of the custodial parent and thus the child (since she makes decisions for the child).

I love the way you assume that the father has responsibilities to the child but no parental rights. In other words, she gets complete custody but he somehow has responsibility anyways.

Not true. The mother cannot give a child up for adoption without the consent of the father.

You keep saying this, but from a practical perspective, it is false. A woman never has to name a father. No father has to be put on a birth certificate. A woman who gives birth at home and never makes out a birth certificate can drop a child off at the hospital with no questions asked. The woman has to get consent from the father if and only if she either chooses to name him, or he knows about the pregnancy and shows up demanding a paternity test.

The mother can equally be forced to care for a child once the child exists. Their rights are equal. I showed you a site listing the laws, but you chose to ignore them. Your ignorance of them does not change what they are and what they say.

What the law says is irrelevant when, as in this case, it is unenforceable (and unenforced).

Currently women do not have the right to terminate their parental rights without the permission of those taking on custody of the child.

Incorrect. She can hand the child over to DFACs who will then go and find parents to adopt it. The ultimate adoptive parents don't have to give consent before the mother gives up parental rights.

Good. Progress.

I'm not sure how saying exactly what I have been saying the entire time is somehow "progress" to you, but ok.

False. The man's 'paper abortion' is given the man a made-up right that denies a child the support it deserves.

You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that a child "deserves" support from any specific person, instead of just having a right to support in general.

Women do not have a right to terminate their responsibility to a child without the consent of all involved parties (she or all custodians consent on the part of the child).

Unless she chooses to list a father (or is a minor herself), she is the only involved party.

Yes, they simply ignore the law. Good job making crap up. I checked four states. Would you like to give me a list of states that permit adoption without the consent of the father?

All of them, as none of them require a mother to list a father in the first place. Last time I checked, they aren't throwing women in jail for not listing fathers on birth certificates. How many single moms are there out there with no father in sight?????

Not putting the father on the certificate does not terminate his rights.

Effectively, it does. If no father is listed, they don't force the mother to take care of the child. They go, "Woops! Didn't have a father here. Oh well."

In other cases they require a woman to put on record that she has no way of knowing who the father is. They do this because if she says so and it later turns out to be untrue, it gives the father recourse since the adoption was done under fraud.

Again, completely unenforceable. She claims to have slept with 10 people during the time she could have become pregnant. She didn't know most of their names. Thus, she has no way of knowing who the father was. Prove she is lying. I dare you.

The only state that has made a real effort at forcing a woman to inform the father ended up having her take out an ad in the paper advertising her entire sex-life in order to get in touch with all men she had slept with. It was, of course, struck down as an invasion of her privacy.

False. A women can try to put up a child for abortion and have it stopped by the father.

You are assuming the father knows of the child and is either listed on the birth certificate or can prove paternity. Neither is a valid assumption, considering that we aren't really talking about cases where the man is being involved.

Huh. I guess I just imagined child support (child support proceedings involve the mother only because she is acting on behalf of the child, as parents tend to do).

Child support is the only shred of legal evidence you have. On the other hand, there is adoption, in which parents give up complete rights and responsibilities. Thus, your assertion that a child is entitled to support from both parents is patently incorrect. If it were true, adoption would be completely illegal. The parents would always have to support the child. They do not. As it ends up, the child has a right to support. Only if the mother makes the willing decision to keep the child is the father forced to take care of it.

Yep, keep ignoring the law and making up what rights a mother has.

As long as the law is unenforceable, it is nothing more than lip service.

The custodial parent makes decisions on behalf of the child.

And how can you possibly justify (in the absence of abuse or neglect), forcing support without custodial rights?

Also, in some cases an effort is made to show it is spent this way.

Oh really? Please, do tell? Show me a statute that goes through a woman's (or man's, if he has custody) finances in order to prove that every penny of child support is spent on the child.

Is there anything in this argument you're not just making up?

The entire thing. It isn't my fault that you think unenforceable and unenforced laws are somehow an argument for what rights and responsibilities a person actually has. It isn't my fault that you think that "right to abortion" is not part of "right to control one's own body and the medical procedures done on it." It isn't my fault you think that women are incapable of supporting a child on their own. It isn't my fault that you assert that we can assign responsibilities without associated rights.

*Shrug*

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.

of course, a women has the same options - tubes tied, the pill, homosexuality, masturbation.

so, given that your average unintended preganancy is a 50-50 proposition from the standpoint of fault, I rather like the notion of "terminating responsibility" for the man.

personally, I fear that the subtext of the abortion-rights debate consistently undermines feminism in every other socio-economic-political arena. The insistence on woman's absolute right to terminate a pregnancy carries with the the implied caveat that women are too weak and stupid to avoid unintended prgnancies, and need abortion to protect them from their own frailties.

The truth of that presence is implicit in Deep Kimchi's response: men are smart enough that if they don't avail themselves of the non-procreative avenues available, they should have to pay for the consequences of their neglect. Women, on the other hand, for some unstated reason, deserve the recourse of abortion to avoid similar (albeit more physically imposing) consequences.

The end result of such thought is the exact opposite of that intended: choice advocates seek to liberate and empower women in a society that remains decidedly tilted in favour of men. But the absolutism of their position subtlely undermines their goal by affirming the notion that women are less capable of self-determinism than men.

Until the pro-choice movement ties their ethics to an equitable legal situation - i.e. one devoid of legally compelled paternity - I'll remain deeply conflicted about this aspect of the issue.

There is simply no way to make a logically or ethically consistent argument that includes absolute pre-birth choice for the woman and legal post-birth responsibility for the man.

And please don't misunderstand me - I'm not interested at this point in the actual facts, for example, that hardly any men actually meet these legal responsibilities in such cases. I'm just insisting that the law of the land be consistent, one way or the other.

Yep. When a man needs to consent to pregnancy he will be permitted to. Until then, the only person who has a choice about pregnancy is a woman. A man can only decide on whether to get SOMEONE ELSE pregnant, and because of the nature of that, he gets to decide up until the moment that happens how things go. After that, it's SOMEONE ELSE and thus SOMEONE ELSE who decides. Absolutely equitable. A man has control over his body and a woman has control over her body.

until he get's her pregnant, then she gets to control his body-by-proxy: the product of his labour. philosophically speaking, your argument is weak. Legally speaking, it's complete hogwash. Strictly speaking, the law doesn't even recognize human beings, it recognizes legal entities, and the problem with the laws as they stand today is that they don't recognize the the father or the child as legal entities until the moment of birth.

While it's true that a man can only decide to "get SOMEONE ELSE pregant," it is equally true that ONLY a woman can decide to get pregnant.

Until that inequity is addressed, the rest of this debate is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing...

I love the way you try to take things out of context. Please go back and try again.



So a woman who choses to have sex does not consent to having a child, or even to pregnancy, but a man who choses to have sex consents to having someone else decide that he will be responsible for a child for 18 years. Real equitable, that.



It is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Removing an embryo/fetus intact would, by necessity, be more invasive than most abortion procedures. It could not be done without making incisions into the womb and, well, removing it intact. You can't exactly remove it intact without doing so invasively.



Her right to decide what to do with her body has the direct result of determining the existence (or non-existence) of the child. Thus, as it is the effect of her decision alone, it is her responsibility.



A woman is never forced to raise a child, alone or otherwise. She *always* has the option of giving it up for adoption. The only person ever forced by law to have any responsibility for the child is the father. Every other person who might ever have custody of that child gets a choice in the matter.



You have yet to show any such right and, indeed, the law flatly disagrees with you. If the child had a legal right to support from both parents, adoption of any child that is not an orphan would be illegal. The parents would be legally required to support that child. Yet, they are not. Giving a child up for adoption is legal, even if adoptive parents have not yet been found.

As it is, the only person ever forced by law to take on the responsibility of supporting a child is the father. The mother can give it up for adoption without even looking at the child, much less taking responsibility for it. She makes an active choice to either take on that responsibility or leave the infant at the hospital to be taken by DFACs and put up for adoption. Even if it is not born in a hospital, she can take it to one and drop it off, no questions asked. There doesn't even have to be a legal record that she is the mother. An adoptive parent obviously takes on the role willingly. A guardian who takes a child on after a parent dies has the choice of whether or not to take that responsibility and can either pass it off on the next closest kin or put it up for adoption if they do not want custody. A foster parent takes that on willingly.

The only person ever forced by the law to take responsibility for a child against his will is the father. The only argument you (and the standing law) actually makes is that, if a woman makes the conscious decision to take responsibility for her child, she can force the father to do so as well. If she gives it up, she gives up his responsibilities as well. He is the only person who will ever have any responsibility to support that child against his will, and this will often be done even if he is given no custody rights whatsoever.



If this were true, adoption would be illegal. It would be illegal for either parent (or both together) to give up those rights. It is not true. The law holds that a child has a right to be supported. There is nothing to suggest that it must be the parents that provide it. The mother can opt out of these rights even after giving birth, or can take them on. Somehow, that means the man gets forced along.



In abortion, we separate the act of sex from the possible consequence of being pregnant. We separate the situation of pregnancy from the possible consequence of having a child. But, somehow, for men, the act of sex = creating a child, even though it doesn't for a woman. How interesting.....



This is partially true. It may affect the decision made by the woman, depending on her own views on abortion. However, it will not continue or discontinue the pregnancy. It is rather obvious that only the woman can do that.



I deny the child nothing. If a mother brings a child into this world with only her income to support it and her income is not enough, she has denied that child the support it deserves. The child was a direct result of her exercising her rights, and is thus her responsibility.



No, it is absolutely true. Most hospitals have policies that they will take any child that is brought in and ask the mother no questions. They are allowed to do this because, otherwise, the child might end up in a dumpster somewhere.

In the case of a child actually born at a hospital, there is paperwork to be filled out (as there is a legal birth certificate), but the woman never has to name a father on the birth certificate, even if she knows it and he is there.



Hate to break it to you dear, but I don't live in Alabama.

Meanwihle, in all the cases listed, it is assumed that the father has already taken on responsibility for the child or has been given the chance to do so. It says nothing at all about the case I was talking about.



And every single person who might ever take on that support does so willingly, except the father. The father is the only one ever forced to do so.



I am taking no rights away from the child. The child still has the same right every child has - the right to be supported. There is no evidence whatsoever that the child ever has the right to "support from both parents" except by an express decision made only by the mother.



Yes, I can, because nothing I have said in any way denies the child support. The child is still entitled to support. It simply must come from willing parties, since every single person who might ever take on that support is doing so willingly, except for the father. There is no other person that is ever forced to do so legally.

In the end, all your argument has done has made me realize that even the "paper abortion" wouldn't be equitable. A mother can give up her legal rights and responsibilities to the child even at birth (or afterwards, if she is the only parent listed on the birth certificate). She never even has to look at the child first. A father never even gets the illusion of a choice in the matter. Indeed, to make things truly equitable, both would have to be able to give the child up for adoption, even after it was born. A woman has that right until she walks out of a hospital (laws that include the father notwithstanding - she never has to name him at all). To be equitable, a man should actually have that right until the first child support payment is due, until he has to make the decision to either take on that support, or give it up.

You have made me realize that the only person ever forced, by law, to support a child is the father. Everyone else gets a choice in the matter. And you call that somehow equitable?



And yet, no attempt is ever made to ensure that it is spent that way.
actually I campaigned for Congress on the premise of getting that changed on the basis that it was not fair and that was stealing from the child. But the Republicans stabbed me in the back.

.

The custodial parent makes decisions on behalf of the child. Child support is not the only time this is considered to be the case. Also, in some cases an effort is made to show it is spent this way. Is there anything in this argument you're not just making up?
That is the ideal. However in reality, the majority of women to whome child support is paid don't spend it on the child. And I don't believe that the woman spending the money on her boyfriend or on nightclubs and booze or whatnot, can be considered spending it on the child. But shockingly, many state laws consider it to be. See that's the problem I have with the system. The states have so far failed or refused to do anything to address this.
There should at the least be something like a child support fraud just like there is welfare fraud. Whatever, I have dislike for it because it is immoral, wrong, theft. It's an evil that badly needs to be addressed.
Now if you know a girl or are a girl who does spend the money on the child, that great and I applaud you but you are not in the majority. There are women out there that are giving the female gender a bad rep.

Yeah. The only thing with it is that there would have to be some rather strict controls on such a process, seeing as many women might be counting on support for carrying through with the pregnancy and it could be used by an anti-choice boyfriend who wants to keep his girlfriend from aborting but then he signs the paper abortion as soon as she can't get an abortion anymore.
That is precisely the type of evil that I prognosticate that we need to guard against if we reform the current system. We must not close one loop hole only to open another to a different type of evil.

Jocabia: Would you be so kind as to state why the right of the child to sustenance has to be met by BOTH parents. Can you show me a caselaw where it is stated that the child must be provided by BOTH parents.

The child has to be provided for. That's up to the the legal guardian to do that. No other.

There is no such thing as a right to be provided for by BOTH parents. The right that exist is the right to be provided for. If a single mother want to try to do it alone, she can. She should have no legal recourse to force the sperm donor to pay.

It was misinterpreted. It actually (correctly interpreted) goes

"you can't eat your cake and have it too"

makes more sense right?;)

Yes it does. Thanks! :)

That is the ideal. However in reality, the majority of women to whome child support is paid don't spend it on the child. And I don't believe that the woman spending the money on her boyfriend or on nightclubs and booze or whatnot, can be considered spending it on the child. But shockingly, many state laws consider it to be. See that's the problem I have with the system. The states have so far failed or refused to do anything to address this.
There should at the least be something like a child support fraud just like there is welfare fraud. Whatever, I have dislike for it because it is immoral, wrong, theft. It's an evil that badly needs to be addressed.
Now if you know a girl or are a girl who does spend the money on the child, that great and I applaud you but you are not in the majority. There are women out there that are giving the female gender a bad rep.

Evidence, please? I've actually never met a single mom receiving child support that didn't take excellent care of her children. Could you show any evidence that women who use the money selfishly are in the majority as you imply?

:rolleyes:

Jocabia: Would you be so kind as to state why the right of the child to sustenance has to be met by BOTH parents. Can you show me a caselaw where it is stated that the child must be provided by BOTH parents.

The child has to be provided for. That's up to the the legal guardian to do that. No other.

There is no such thing as a right to be provided for by BOTH parents. The right that exist is the right to be provided for. If a single mother want to try to do it alone, she can. She should have no legal recourse to force the sperm donor to pay.

Have you not heard of child support. That is a case that evidences the child's right to have the non-custodial parent also pay for their care.

The case you cite is when the custodial parent, who makes decisions on behalf of the child legally, signs a contract that agrees to not receive support from the biological father. All releasing of biological parents of this responsibility in every case is done by the custodial parents with the only exception of cases where children must be removed from parents to protect them. This 'paper abortion' allows a non-custodial parent to sign away their own rights and responsibility without the permission of the person who is taking that responsibility on. You cannot find a single case of this occurring anywhere else. Even in the case where children are removed to protect them, the state takes custody and responsibility voluntarily. The state agrees to relieve the parents of their responsibility. In this case you are forcing the mother to relieve the father of this responsibility simply because she happens to incubate the child.

Read your own statement - if the mother WANTS to. You cannot name a single-case where someone is forced to be responsible for a child alone without their consent. Name a single case where anyone has replaced one or both biological parents without the consent of the person taking on the responsibility with the exception of fraud.

:rolleyes:

What a convincing argument! I'm moved by your debating skills. How about we actually admit that women who abuse the system are the exception, like people who intentionally abuse welfare, blacks who are violent, priests who are child-molestors, and nearly every other negative stereotype. Many of these stereotypes is because people like those described above make a lot of noise and get a lot of notice. This is not evidence that the stereotypes are the majority. I've also never met a muslim that wanted to destroy the infidels despite what some might claim. If you expect anyone to buy into these stereotypes how about some evidence.

I have a question: How much money would it take for you (women) to consider being a surrogate mother?

If the man want's the child, yet the mother wants to abort the fetus, there is a method that is in the testing stage, but would solve the problem.

It is the concept of the Artificial Womb. There has been research at a number of facitilities, including the Cornell University's Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Juntendou University and Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Harley Street, London.

These would solve the problem, as if the father wished the child, yet the mother did not, the embryo would be transfered to one of these artificial wombs to grow to development.

Thus the responsibility for proper division would fall to each parent singly(to keep or 'divorce' themselves from the fetus) rather than the woman choosing whether it comes to term and the man being force to pay for it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-05.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/student/olc2/g-bioe-17.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_wombs.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/23/nbnw23.html

I first have to say that I had to stop at page 10 of this thread - I couldn't make myself read any further, my eyes were getting blurry.

2ndly, I am a woman, and am strongly against abortion. 2 of my precious cousins were almost aborted - no, make that 3 (he'll be born any day now).
I personally stated that I would adopt these 3 if their mother's did not want them. My cousin said that he would rather give his two girls to me if their mother did not want them (she finally left them and their older son anyway for a life of drugs). Besides the point :)

As for myself, I have health problems and have been told not to have children (I am not married either - but am of an age that I could care for a child - late 20's).

Now, if something happened to me (rape, as I would not be having sex unless I was married), I would against the judgement of my dr, carry the child to term.


As for men getting a choice, yeah they should. They should have a right to the life of the child. If a woman wants the right to abort, then there needs to be checks and balances. If a man wants out of paying child support, then the woman needs to have a right to have child support. Again, that is checks and balances. If neither side comes to an agreement, then a mediator comes in to help - whether this be a lawyer, judge, counsilor, preist/pastor, family friend, ect.

A work situation, that bears relevance.

My boss said "You will be working x more hours a week." he didnt ask, he told.
My response, "No."
His reply, "you work for me, you will do what I say."
My own reply, "no, I work for me. If I worked for you, I'd be your slave. I am not. I work so that I may eat, so that I may pay my rent, so that I can enjoy the finer things in life. It just so happens that the work I do benefits you, and so you reward me with money."

Pregnancy is slavery. For three trimesters, A mother is a slave to that baby. Every thing she eats, the baby takes some. Her every action is shared with the baby. Every demand the fetus makes, she must fulfill. She is that babies slave, but biology works a little miracle, and most moms do this with pride and joy.

Make no mistake, raising a child is also slavery. When you work hard all month, and 90% of that money is spend providing for a helpless little squealer, you no longer work for you, you work for the baby.When you make 3k a month and your snot nosed punk 13 year old(No not you. Yer a good kid, I mean the other ones reading this.) needs 6 000 in dental work, you work for them(and the bank!) but again, biology works its wonders, and you head off to work each day, not for yourself, but for others.

I dont want kids. Never. I just dont have the womb!

If you dont marry that girl before you poke it in her, you better be sure what her feelings are about motherhood, tie a knot in your nut, double bag it, and pull out fast! Remember that a lady can change her feelings on a subject awful fast!


Prenuptial agreements are fairly common nowdays. I predict that Preconception agreements will follow!

(little off topic, details behind the story)
The issue had been that I owned a small vending business, and when they hired me, the agreement was that I would have friday afternoons off to deal with that. They reneged on that agreement, and in effect, were preventing me from earning 400 dollars a week. at that point the employer was paying me about 500 weekly, so i faced a choice, abandon the business, and take a 400 decrease in pay or quit, and take a 500 dollar decrease in pay, and gain 36 odd hours of free time per week. they seemed all shocked that I quit!

because the most important consideration in abortion is the woman's right to determine whether or not she carries a pregnency, the male unequivocally has no standing whatsoever.

I have a question: How much money would it take for you (women) to consider being a surrogate mother?

Most likely, I wouldn't do it at all. I don't think the lengths people go to to have their "own" children are justified when there are so many children out there who already need good homes. If a couple cannot reproduce on their own without drastic and expensive measures (and maybe even if they can), they should adopt.

When (or if) I get pregnant, it will be with the full responsibility of taking care of that child myself. If the father wishes to share that responsibility, that is fine. I certainly hope he will. Otherwise, I will take care of that child on my own.

:rolleyes:
Wow what an insightfull comment ... you must work hard to be so thoughtfull (let me also use it sense you put so much thought into it):rolleyes:

because the most important consideration in abortion is the woman's right to determine whether or not she carries a pregnency, the male unequivocally has no standing whatsoever.

I am pretty sure that if a prebirth proto-human male could articulate and enunciate a single thought, he'd say, "thats only YOUR opinion lady."

It was a fine statement of your feelings, but next time, try to add a little thing called convincing arguement, okay?

But fetus' are kinda like little tumours. I certainly wouldnt want one.

Why would the right of the child takes precedence over the right of the father (financially) but not of the woman (abortion).
It doesnt.
In the case of a father, they have an obligation to provide for their children, no person has a right to be free from supporting a child they are obliged to support. In the case of abortion there is no child so again no one's rights are being breached.

Who decided that particular order of priorities?
Lots of folk.

If you say that the man forfeit his way of living because the care of the child takes precedent, I would ask why would the woman has a free ride on abortion if the man's hand are tied.
No one is getting a free ride. There are consequences to pregnancy and nothing we can possibly do will make those consequences identical for all parties involved.

What goes for the goose goes for the gander. Bear in mind that we are talking about the case where the man didn't want to have the baby but was either lied to or the precautions taken failed. If the woman is aware of that fact and still wants to have the baby, she should face the financial consequences alone.
Regardless of what the women ought (in your opinion) to face, a third party is involved once a child is born (and legally becomes a right bearing citizen). What should happen if this women cannot by herself support the child? Breach the UN convention on the child by removing it from it's parent? Let it starve, make the tax payer pick up the tab? Neither of the first two solutions are acceptable and the last is only acceptable as a last resort. While a child has a parent that is not contributing to it's financial keep, it is not yet a last resort. Before tax payers are held accountable for something they had no part in, it seems both fair and pragmatic to look to the child's father. Why the heck should fathers who pay for thier own children also have to pay for the children of fathers who cant be bothered paying for their own children?

What you are advocating is as much slavery as when the pro-choice lobby wants to force the woman to bear the child to term. Whittier had a point, even if it was lost in the empty rhetoric of patriotism.
No it is responsibility. If a child is born and it is not adopted from the biological parents, then both parents have obligations and duties. That's as it should be. Making a parent pay for their own child even thought they didnt plan to have it, is less 'slavery' than making tax payers pay for someone elses children even though they (the taxpayer) also didnt plan on the child being born.

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?
They do have a say. They are free to control their reproductive organs, just as women should be free to control their own. Men can choose when and where they ejaculate, and thus can decide for themselves if they want to participate in a fertilization.

Once a man ejaculates on/near/in another person, he has two choices: 1) get a microscope and some tweezers and pick up every last sperm that came out of his penis, or 2) accept the fact that he has now "given" his sperm away. He has made his choice. If a fertilization occurs inside a woman's body, he does not have any say in whether or not the woman chooses to allow that conception to proceed inside her body. He may control his own reproductive organs, but he may not control hers.

Pro-lifers often try to make a similar argument about a woman's right to choose, saying that they had the choice before they had sex. While this argument may appear similar, don't be fooled. An individual's choice in a pregnancy extends for as long as their body is involved in that pregnancy; when I say that men do not have choice after they contribute the sperm, I say this because it is a biological fact. Males are not able to physically participate in a pregnancy after that point. Women, on the other hand, are, and thus a woman's choice extends for as long as her body and her reproductive organs are involved in the pregnancy.

I would just like to mention to Jocabia that there is no such thing as a "made-up right". You are born with the right to do whatever you can do physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise. You are born with the right to kill, rape, and in this case, deny support to a mother and child you are responsible for creating. Only in joining a society or government can those rights be taken away from you. i.e. In a land with no government, a man could have sex with a woman, impregnate her, and then leave and never see her again and there is nothing that anyone could do about it. He is able to do it, therefore it is his natural right. By joining a society, you lose that right, but if the society agrees to re-institute that right, that doesn't make it "made-up".

I am pretty sure that if a prebirth proto-human male could articulate and enunciate a single thought, he'd say, "thats only YOUR opinion lady."

It was a fine statement of your feelings, but next time, try to add a little thing called convincing arguement, okay?

But fetus' are kinda like little tumours. I certainly wouldnt want one.


And if we could cause gold to appear by pouring a special elixir onto granite, we wouldnt have the budget problems we do today, either. Ditto running automobiles on air.

As it stands, a fetus' interests, whatever those may be, do not limit a woman's right to decide about her pregnancy, at least not in the first trimester.

As I very clearly, convincingly stated, because the significant consideration is a woman's choice over her own body, a male (which you dont appear to have noticed refers to the male that impregnated her) has no standing in the matter.

I would just like to mention to Jocabia that there is no such thing as a "made-up right". You are born with the right to do whatever you can do physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise. You are born with the right to kill, rape, and in this case, deny support to a mother and child you are responsible for creating. Only in joining a society or government can those rights be taken away from you. i.e. In a land with no government, a man could have sex with a woman, impregnate her, and then leave and never see her again and there is nothing that anyone could do about it. He is able to do it, therefore it is his natural right. By joining a society, you lose that right, but if the society agrees to re-institute that right, that doesn't make it "made-up".

Actually, natural rights does not refer to everything you are capable of. Natural rights stem from natural law and natural law pushes to make sure our offspring are successful which in the case of humans requires our support. Outside of societal rules and requirements, it is natural for fathers to support their offspring even if they have impregnated several mothers. Not supporting your offspring, the example you gave, is rather unnatural in terms of human actions. Your definition is what you call a 'made-up definition'.

They do have a say. They are free to control their reproductive organs, just as women should be free to control their own. Men can choose when and where they ejaculate, and thus can decide for themselves if they want to participate in a fertilization.

Once a man ejaculates on/near/in another person, he has two choices: 1) get a microscope and some tweezers and pick up every last sperm that came out of his penis, or 2) accept the fact that he has now "given" his sperm away. He has made his choice. If a fertilization occurs inside a woman's body, he does not have any say in whether or not the woman chooses to allow that conception to proceed inside her body. He may control his own reproductive organs, but he may not control hers.

Pro-lifers often try to make a similar argument about a woman's right to choose, saying that they had the choice before they had sex. While this argument may appear similar, don't be fooled. An individual's choice in a pregnancy extends for as long as their body is involved in that pregnancy; when I say that men do not have choice after they contribute the sperm, I say this because it is a biological fact. Males are not able to physically participate in a pregnancy after that point. Women, on the other hand, are, and thus a woman's choice extends for as long as her body and her reproductive organs are involved in the pregnancy.

We don't agree on much, but I very much agree with this. I would edit your last two sentences.

"Males are not physically required to participate in a pregnancy after that point. Women, on the other hand, are, and thus a woman's choice extends for as long as her body and her reproductive organs are involved in the pregnancy."

The choice is equitable because men are able to control their own bodies as long as they are involved. For women it is the same. Once a child comes into the picture, if a child comes into the picture, both of their rights are abridged by their duty to the child because of their equal part in the conception and, thus, creation of the child. Once the state considers it viable, the woman no longer has complete control of her body. Once the state considers it viable, both are required to care for the child unless a surrogate agrees to take on the responsibilities of one or both of them.

Evidence, please? I've actually never met a single mom receiving child support that didn't take excellent care of her children. Could you show any evidence that women who use the money selfishly are in the majority as you imply?
And exactly how many single moms have you met?

I've met over 300 during my life who were either paying or recieving child support. Of those, 15% were using the money for their kids. The rest of the women were using the money to go clubbing while leaving their kids home alone starving and with holes in their clothes. And the state would not do anything cause in California, the woman can do what ever the hell she wants with the child support money cause its considered to be hers and not the childs. Its like the state considers it a due payment just for keeping the child around. Now if you don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.
Again, my comments do not apply to the women who are using the child support only for their kids which is what child support is supposed to be used for. But California lets women get away with murder. And I've heard the same about a lot of other states.

Now then, you mention the women you know. Just how many women do you know who recieving child support and how many of those are actually spending the money only on the children?

Have you not heard of child support. That is a case that evidences the child's right to have the non-custodial parent also pay for their care.

The case you cite is when the custodial parent, who makes decisions on behalf of the child legally, signs a contract that agrees to not receive support from the biological father. All releasing of biological parents of this responsibility in every case is done by the custodial parents with the only exception of cases where children must be removed from parents to protect them. This 'paper abortion' allows a non-custodial parent to sign away their own rights and responsibility without the permission of the person who is taking that responsibility on. You cannot find a single case of this occurring anywhere else. Even in the case where children are removed to protect them, the state takes custody and responsibility voluntarily. The state agrees to relieve the parents of their responsibility. In this case you are forcing the mother to relieve the father of this responsibility simply because she happens to incubate the child.

Read your own statement - if the mother WANTS to. You cannot name a single-case where someone is forced to be responsible for a child alone without their consent. Name a single case where anyone has replaced one or both biological parents without the consent of the person taking on the responsibility with the exception of fraud.

Men are allowed no say in abortion, women ought to have no say in a man's paper abortion. Women are not the owners of men. Men's individual rights take precedence. No woman has the right to force a man to take care of a child she chose to keep and not abort.
From your arguments I take it you are from a culture that does not reverence the rights of the individual but instead reverences heavy punitive state regulation of people's God Given Rights. Or maybe you just playing devil's advocate. Hopefully, the latter.

Have you not heard of child support. That is a case that evidences the child's right to have the non-custodial parent also pay for their care.

The case you cite is when the custodial parent, who makes decisions on behalf of the child legally, signs a contract that agrees to not receive support from the biological father. All releasing of biological parents of this responsibility in every case is done by the custodial parents with the only exception of cases where children must be removed from parents to protect them. This 'paper abortion' allows a non-custodial parent to sign away their own rights and responsibility without the permission of the person who is taking that responsibility on. You cannot find a single case of this occurring anywhere else. Even in the case where children are removed to protect them, the state takes custody and responsibility voluntarily. The state agrees to relieve the parents of their responsibility. In this case you are forcing the mother to relieve the father of this responsibility simply because she happens to incubate the child.

Read your own statement - if the mother WANTS to. You cannot name a single-case where someone is forced to be responsible for a child alone without their consent. Name a single case where anyone has replaced one or both biological parents without the consent of the person taking on the responsibility with the exception of fraud.

Men are allowed no say in abortion, women ought to have no say in a man's paper abortion. Women are not the owners of men. Men's individual rights take precedence. No woman has the right to force a man to take care of a child she chose to keep and not abort.
From your arguments I take it you are from a culture that does not reverence the rights of the individual but instead reverences heavy punitive state regulation of people's God Given Rights. Or maybe you just playing devil's advocate. Hopefully, the latter.

If the man want's the child, yet the mother wants to abort the fetus, there is a method that is in the testing stage, but would solve the problem.

It is the concept of the Artificial Womb. There has been research at a number of facitilities, including the Cornell University's Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Juntendou University and Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Harley Street, London.

These would solve the problem, as if the father wished the child, yet the mother did not, the embryo would be transfered to one of these artificial wombs to grow to development.

Thus the responsibility for proper division would fall to each parent singly(to keep or 'divorce' themselves from the fetus) rather than the woman choosing whether it comes to term and the man being force to pay for it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-05.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/student/olc2/g-bioe-17.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_wombs.htm


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/23/nbnw23.html
Popular science online also talks about the artificial womb.
As for support I prefer that the parent who wants the child is the one who agrees that he or she alone is responsible for the care of the child and if the other participates it is because it is voluntarily and not because the other parent has any power whatever to force it on them (which they don't).

A work situation, that bears relevance.

My boss said "You will be working x more hours a week." he didnt ask, he told.
My response, "No."
His reply, "you work for me, you will do what I say."
My own reply, "no, I work for me. If I worked for you, I'd be your slave. I am not. I work so that I may eat, so that I may pay my rent, so that I can enjoy the finer things in life. It just so happens that the work I do benefits you, and so you reward me with money."

Pregnancy is slavery. For three trimesters, A mother is a slave to that baby. Every thing she eats, the baby takes some. Her every action is shared with the baby. Every demand the fetus makes, she must fulfill. She is that babies slave, but biology works a little miracle, and most moms do this with pride and joy.

Make no mistake, raising a child is also slavery. When you work hard all month, and 90% of that money is spend providing for a helpless little squealer, you no longer work for you, you work for the baby.When you make 3k a month and your snot nosed punk 13 year old(No not you. Yer a good kid, I mean the other ones reading this.) needs 6 000 in dental work, you work for them(and the bank!) but again, biology works its wonders, and you head off to work each day, not for yourself, but for others.

I dont want kids. Never. I just dont have the womb!

If you dont marry that girl before you poke it in her, you better be sure what her feelings are about motherhood, tie a knot in your nut, double bag it, and pull out fast! Remember that a lady can change her feelings on a subject awful fast!


Prenuptial agreements are fairly common nowdays. I predict that Preconception agreements will follow!

(little off topic, details behind the story)
The issue had been that I owned a small vending business, and when they hired me, the agreement was that I would have friday afternoons off to deal with that. They reneged on that agreement, and in effect, were preventing me from earning 400 dollars a week. at that point the employer was paying me about 500 weekly, so i faced a choice, abandon the business, and take a 400 decrease in pay or quit, and take a 500 dollar decrease in pay, and gain 36 odd hours of free time per week. they seemed all shocked that I quit!
??
Raising a child is not slavery. Only if the state forces you to raise or support the child can you call it slavery. But if you take on the burden voluntarily, it cannot be called slavery because you chose of your own free will to do it. And that includes putting up with the downs as well as the ups.

And exactly how many single moms have you met?

I've met over 300 during my life who were either paying or recieving child support. Of those, 15% were using the money for their kids. The rest of the women were using the money to go clubbing while leaving their kids home alone starving and with holes in their clothes. And the state would not do anything cause in California, the woman can do what ever the hell she wants with the child support money cause its considered to be hers and not the childs. Its like the state considers it a due payment just for keeping the child around. Now if you don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.
Again, my comments do not apply to the women who are using the child support only for their kids which is what child support is supposed to be used for. But California lets women get away with murder. And I've heard the same about a lot of other states.

Now then, you mention the women you know. Just how many women do you know who recieving child support and how many of those are actually spending the money only on the children?

Well, I'm convinced. Anecdotal evidence is never made up and should always be considered convincing.

I know over 301 women on child support. Of those 85% use the child support for the children. You know it's true. I said it. And people on forums never make anything up.

Thanks for playing.

Men are allowed no say in abortion, women ought to have no say in a man's paper abortion. Women are not the owners of men. Men's individual rights take precedence. No woman has the right to force a man to take care of a child she chose to keep and not abort.
From your arguments I take it you are from a culture that does not reverence the rights of the individual but instead reverences heavy punitive state regulation of people's God Given Rights. Or maybe you just playing devil's advocate. Hopefully, the latter.

Women aren't the owners of men. The 'paper abortion' has nothing to do with the women OR a real abortion. In a real abortion there is NO child. In a paper abortion it never has any effect unless there IS a child. The child has to be considered. Your attempts to pretend like the child support is about the women aside, child support is for support of the child by definition. You wish for the state to remove support from the child in order to 'equalize' an inequity that does not exist.

Abortion - The man has no say it what happens to the woman's body because the woman is the only person affected by an abortion.

Paper abortion - The person to be considered is the child. The man and woman are equally responsible for the creation of that child and thus equally responsible for its care. The child can release one or both parents from that obligation. Now of course whoever is the guardian acts on behalf of the child in legal agreements so, of course, this means whoever takes on the responsibility lifted from the released parent(s). This would be the only reason either the woman or the man would have any say in such an event. And it is equitable. A woman can request that the man have sole custody and sole responsibility for care and if he agrees, it's done. The man can request the same. You would like for a man to permitted to do so without the permission of someone acting on behalf of the child which is ridiculous while you would offer no such benefit to the woman. Not only is it a violation of the woman's civil right to be treated equally under the law, but it's a violation of the child's rights as well. Your failure to understand this has no bearing on the facts. If you don't like the child support system suggest a change to it, but don't punish the child.

Jocabia, your argument is faulty, because it is infringing on the man's rights as a result of the choice of another person. If the woman is totally aware of the man's position with regard to her pregnancy i.e. he wants no part of it whatsoever, then she has the responsibility of deciding how to best care for it once it is born. She is the one who is bringing the child into the world, against the express wishes of the man. He is not choosing to have the child, she is. As such, she should bear sole responsibility for the child's upkeep. The child has no right to financial support from the father, since if he had had his way, the child would not exist. If the father expressed a desire to support the child and then withdrew it, the mother then has every right to take the bastard for everything he promised.

If the mother knows that she cannot raise the child without assistance from the father, and he is unwilling to provide it, she should abort, or failing that, place the child up for adoption.

Jocabia, your argument is faulty, because it is infringing on the man's rights as a result of the choice of another person. If the woman is totally aware of the man's position with regard to her pregnancy i.e. he wants no part of it whatsoever, then she has the responsibility of deciding how to best care for it once it is born. She is the one who is bringing the child into the world, against the express wishes of the man. He is not choosing to have the child, she is. As such, she should bear sole responsibility for the child's upkeep. The child has no right to financial support from the father, since if he had had his way, the child would not exist. If the father expressed a desire to support the child and then withdrew it, the mother then has every right to take the bastard for everything he promised.

If the mother knows that she cannot raise the child without assistance from the father, and he is unwilling to provide it, she should abort, or failing that, place the child up for adoption.


But the fact of the matter in the case you mention is that there is a baby; it needs support; and it is the father's as well as the mother's. It would not have come to be with some... input... from the father. It may have come about _specifically_ as a mistake, but that's not the baby's fault.

The law is a very, very blunt, crude instrument in dealing with complex, nuanced cases like this. Far better to err on the side of caution and find in favour of the most vulnerable member of the trio, the baby. Fathers should pay to keep alive the baby they helped create.

Elgesh']But the fact of the matter in the case you mention is that there is a baby; it needs support; and it is the father's as well as the mother's. It would not have come to be with some... input... from the father. It may have come about _specifically_ as a mistake, but that's not the baby's fault.

The law is a very, very blunt, crude instrument in dealing with complex, nuanced cases like this. Far better to err on the side of caution and find in favour of the most vulnerable member of the trio, the baby. Fathers should pay to keep alive the baby they helped create.

No, there is no baby. There is a fetus and it can be aborted.

No, there is no baby. There is a fetus and it can be aborted.

Way to miss the point.

I'm not anti-abortion at all; I just don't want the bloke in the situation to be able to put legal pressure on the woman to have/not-have an abortion. I want it so that she knows, if she should decide to have the baby, it will have legal protection, financial help from the father towards the costs of raising a child, regardless of how he feels about the mother.

Elgesh']Way to miss the point.

I'm not anti-abortion at all; I just don't want the bloke in the situation to be able to put legal pressure on the woman to have/not-have an abortion. I want it so that she knows, if she should decide to have the baby, it will have legal protection, financial help from the father towards the costs of raising a child, regardless of how he feels about the mother.

Oh, I agree that a bloke shouldn't be able to pressure the women to have/not have the abortion aswell. I just think that if men can't pressure women to have/not have, then women shouldnt be able to force the man to pay child support over a decision that was soley hers. Paper abortions are a great idea in my opinion.

As I stated however, if the father had had his way, the child in question would not exist. The mother knowingly brought the child into the world, knowing the father's position on the matter. It is the mother's responsibility to support the child. If the mother knew that the father did not want this child and brought it into the world anyway it is her responsibility. Just as a mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy or not without any reference whatsoever to the baby's father.

Oh, I agree that a bloke shouldn't be able to pressure the women to have/not have the abortion aswell. I just think that if men can't pressure women to have/not have, then women shouldnt be able to force the man to pay child support over a decision that was soley hers. Paper abortions are a great idea in my opinion.

I return to my point that the law's pretty clumsy. In the whirling possibilities and flucuating thoughts and feelings of all individuals involved in these cases, legislate in favour of the kid. It doesn't sound as though he/she's got off to a great start, don't affect his/her chances further legally...

I totally agree that morally the woman should bear in mind the man's concerns when making her decision, no problem there, but I don't think it belongs in the legal domain. Too many variables to take into account.

edit: St. Jade: I think the argument you make overestimates female duplicity, male intractibility, and underestimates what the needs and feelings of the child would be.

"My daddy aborted me? Why?"

Best to err on the side of caution.

Actually, I don't see that it does overestimate female duplicity, male intractibility. What it does provide is a way to allow a man to escape an unwanted pregnancy in the best way possible. Much the same way that abortion does for a mother.

And to be honest, plenty of kids grow up wondering why their fathers will go on the dole, take only cash-in-hand jobs etc. etc. in order to escape paying for them. Many children grow up wondering why they are so unlovable that their father has to be hunted down or would rather go to jail than pay out money for them. Many children grow up with a total lack of self-worth because their fathers will rort the system to pay the absolute minimum possible for them. How is this any different to a child saying "why did my daddy abort me?".

It would be great to allow both people to have a say but it is impossible to do so without giving one superiority.

I'd say the solution is to only sleep with women that you'd trust to take your views into consideration of they got pregnant.

Best possible solution.

No, there is no baby. There is a fetus and it can be aborted.

You cannot require women to abort. Also, no matter what you say the man had the opportunity to not participate in creating the baby (in the case a baby comes to be). It is not the baby's fault that the man is not interested in supporting nor is it the fault of the baby that the woman did not abort it. The government cannot require a woman to either undergo surgery or raise a child's alone. It ignores the fact that most women won't get an abortion for religious reasons. It ignores the child and its needs. It ignores the role the man playing in making a child. It allows men to have rights a woman does not at no cost.

Currently a woman has to undergo the physical trauma of pregnancy or undergo a surgery when she is impregnated. If she undergoes birth, she then has to get permission of the father in order to absolve herself from responsibility (offer the child up for adoption). A man currently has no choice regarding the pregnancy but also does not have to endure it. You wish to allow the man to absolve himself of responsibility at no cost to himself. Essentially you would take ALL responsibility for sex and potential pregnancy away from men. Men would have a get out of jail free card while women have no such card and never could. Meanwhile, the child gets less support than children do currently. You seek to corrent a non-existent inequity at the expense of the child. It's simply absurd.

Oh, I agree that a bloke shouldn't be able to pressure the women to have/not have the abortion aswell. I just think that if men can't pressure women to have/not have, then women shouldnt be able to force the man to pay child support over a decision that was soley hers. Paper abortions are a great idea in my opinion.

The decision is not solely hers. He has control over his body and she over hers. At the moment he gives away his sperm with the understanding of what the consequences could be, the control is no longer his. Women are granted a greater deal of control over the situation, but nature also makes the consequences of sex much greater for women. Nature has already corrected this inequity you claim. If a woman makes the 'sole' decision to have a child, she has to undergo a level of trauma a man will likely never undergo in his lifetime.

Again, when a man gets a paper abortion there is still a child to consider. When a woman gets an abortion there is no child.

You cannot require women to abort. Also, no matter what you say the man had the opportunity to not participate in creating the baby (in the case a baby comes to be). It is not the baby's fault that the man is not interested in supporting nor is it the fault of the baby that the woman did not abort it. The government cannot require a woman to either undergo surgery or raise a child's alone. It ignores the fact that most women won't get an abortion for religious reasons. It ignores the child and its needs. It ignores the role the man playing in making a child. It allows men to have rights a woman does not at no cost.

Currently a woman has to undergo the physical trauma of pregnancy or undergo a surgery when she is impregnated. If she undergoes birth, she then has to get permission of the father in order to absolve herself from responsibility (offer the child up for adoption). A man currently has no choice regarding the pregnancy but also does not have to endure it. You wish to allow the man to absolve himself of responsibility at no cost to himself. Essentially you would take ALL responsibility for sex and potential pregnancy away from men. Men would have a get out of jail free card while women have no such card and never could. Meanwhile, the child gets less support than children do currently. You seek to corrent a non-existent inequity at the expense of the child. It's simply absurd.

Well said.

This whole topic is silly and pretty much ignores the burdens, risks, and costs of pregnancy and childbirth to women.

Equating control over a man's pocketbook to control over a women's body is sickening.

You cannot require women to abort. Also, no matter what you say the man had the opportunity to not participate in creating the baby (in the case a baby comes to be). It is not the baby's fault that the man is not interested in supporting nor is it the fault of the baby that the woman did not abort it. The government cannot require a woman to either undergo surgery or raise a child's alone. It ignores the fact that most women won't get an abortion for religious reasons. It ignores the child and its needs. It ignores the role the man playing in making a child. It allows men to have rights a woman does not at no cost.

Currently a woman has to undergo the physical trauma of pregnancy or undergo a surgery when she is impregnated. If she undergoes birth, she then has to get permission of the father in order to absolve herself from responsibility (offer the child up for adoption). A man currently has no choice regarding the pregnancy but also does not have to endure it. You wish to allow the man to absolve himself of responsibility at no cost to himself. Essentially you would take ALL responsibility for sex and potential pregnancy away from men. Men would have a get out of jail free card while women have no such card and never could. Meanwhile, the child gets less support than children do currently. You seek to corrent a non-existent inequity at the expense of the child. It's simply absurd.

Sweetheart, women have exactly the same choice as men when it comes to creating a child. By having sex, a woman is accepting the remote possibility of pregnancy. Same as a man. Now, unlike men, women have the choice to do something to stop themselves from being pregnant if they want. They can get an abortion, without consulting the man. So why exactly shouldn't a man have this right? If it were up to the man, I'm sure that the child wouldn't exist. Why punish him for another's choice?

As I stated however, if the father had had his way, the child in question would not exist. The mother knowingly brought the child into the world, knowing the father's position on the matter. It is the mother's responsibility to support the child. If the mother knew that the father did not want this child and brought it into the world anyway it is her responsibility. Just as a mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy or not without any reference whatsoever to the baby's father.

So essentially you suggest that men have NO responsibility for pregnancy and that fatherhood is at the whim of men. I mean, hey screw those bastard children. It's their fault for having a mother who's willing to open her legs without being married. Ridiculous.

Essentially you blame the mother for not being willing to use abortion as birth control and the child for having that mother. Great logic, that is.

So essentially you suggest that men have NO responsibility for pregnancy and that fatherhood is at the whim of men. I mean, hey screw those bastard children. It's their fault for having a mother who's willing to open her legs without being married. Ridiculous.

Essentially you blame the mother for not being willing to use abortion as birth control and the child for having that mother. Great logic, that is.


Actually I blame the mother. Of course I don't blame the children. It ain't their fault. Just like it ain't the man's fault that the woman chose for whatever reason to keep the baby.

Sweetheart, women have exactly the same choice as men when it comes to creating a child. By having sex, a woman is accepting the remote possibility of pregnancy. Same as a man. Now, unlike men, women have the choice to do something to stop themselves from being pregnant if they want. They can get an abortion, without consulting the man. So why exactly shouldn't a man have this right? If it were up to the man, I'm sure that the child wouldn't exist. Why punish him for another's choice?

And, unlike men, in order to absolve themselves of the responsibility of the pregnancy (if there is this paper abortion) women must undergo surgery, sweetheart. Unlike men, if women want to have a child they must undergo pregnancy. The choice you think is unfair is one afforded by nature but the expense of that choice is paid in the fact that pregnancy is very traumatic to the body.

Moreover, you're absolutely ignoring the child in the scenario. The man isn't being punished, he is being expected to be responsible to the child he helped create. You compare the paper abortion to the abortion, but in the case of the abortion there is NO CHILD. In the case of the paper abortion, it only has any legal significance if there is a child. So the clear effect is that you are trying to correct an inequity that does not exist at the expense of the child.

Try pretending like you give a crap about the child, sweetheart.

Actually I blame the mother. Of course I don't blame the children. It ain't their fault. Just like it ain't the man's fault that the woman chose for whatever reason to keep the baby.

The government cannot require the woman to get an abortion. Essentially this 'paper abortion' would pressure women to use abortions as birth control or raise fatherless children. You are blaming the child. It's the old it's the woman's fault for being a whore argument. More importantly, this 'paper abortion' would by it's very nature favor those that don't have a religious objection to abortion. The current law allows only those with no religious or moral objection to engage in abortion, but this 'paper abortion' would pressure those who have a religious objection to engage in abortion which, of course, they are NOT allowed to do. Again, can you name any case where a person is allowed to put the responsibility of a child completely off of themselves and solely on others without the express consent of those others?

Actually I blame the mother. Of course I don't blame the children. It ain't their fault. Just like it ain't the man's fault that the woman chose for whatever reason to keep the baby.

So, if a man doesn't want to be a father, the woman can: have an abortion or have the child on her own.

Either way the man does little more than sign a slip of paper.

The woman then undergoes an abortion procedure and the child is killed due to the lack of responsiblity of the father.

Or, the woman goes through the physical, emotional, and financial risks and costs of childbirth and then faces raises the child alone.

Either way the child suffers at the stroke of the father's pen. It either dies or is raised without its father's support.

Either way the man is incumbered with no more than either a pen stroke or financial liability -- while the woman undergoes physical pain and risk as well as financial liability.

Some fairness.

This is the same fairness that asks a chicken and a pig to both contribute "equally" to a ham and egg sandwich.

Well said.

This whole topic is silly and pretty much ignores the burdens, risks, and costs of pregnancy and childbirth to women.

Equating control over a man's pocketbook to control over a women's body is sickening.

I'd like to believe that most adults can't be this ignorant of the rights of the child and the responsibilities of the parents to the child once a child exists. I'd like to believe that most adults can't be this ignorant of the expense of childbirth to this body of a woman. I'd like to believe that most adults understand that abortion is an option of an abortion is only considered by a small percentage of women and that for the majority of women an abortion never enters into the picture, that there is never a decision made to continue the pregnancy and that it has nothing to do with trapping a man.

It's silly to pretend like women are more responsibile to the child and it's care simply because they carry the child.

I'd like to believe that most adults can't be this ignorant of the rights of the child and the responsibilities of the parents to the child once a child exists. I'd like to believe that most adults can't be this ignorant of the expense of childbirth to this body of a woman. I'd like to believe that most adults understand that abortion is an option of an abortion is only considered by a small percentage of women and that for the majority of women an abortion never enters into the picture, that there is never a decision made to continue the pregnancy and that it has nothing to do with trapping a man.

It's silly to pretend like women are more responsibile to the child and it's care simply because they carry the child.
Most adults aren't this ignorant. This is a common argument made by a very small portion of the anti-abortion movement meant to drive a wedge into the pro-choice movement, but seeing as better than 60% of the country believes that Roe v Wade ought to remain the law of the land, it's not getting through to very many people.

Ok personally as far as abortion goeswhen the male dosent want the child the male should be informed and he will have to decide if he wants the child. If he dosen't then the female should have the option of either aborting the child and the cost divided between them or the female taking on the full responsibility legal finacial and everything else. As far as I'm concerned the whole bs religion argument is moot in america at least. Freedom of religion comes into play and even concidreing it for an argument in any way is dicriminatory for people who are religious

I just think that it is hypocritical to say that a man should be forced to take financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want for 18 years because he had sex and the condom broke. Why should a man be forced to put up with the responsibility he took precautions not to have, if a woman is not asked to do the same?

And to be really honest, I do give a shit about the child. I just don't think that a person should be forced to pay a percentage of his income because of another's choices in life. It's unfortunate that another person has to suffer,

As pro-choicers like myself are so fond of saying;

Agreeing to have sex is not agreeing to having a child. For either party. Noone should be beholden to having responsibility to a child of any kind because they agreed to have sex.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?
No

I just think that it is hypocritical to say that a man should be forced to take financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want for 18 years because he had sex and the condom broke. Why should a man be forced to put up with the responsibility he took precautions not to have, if a woman is not asked to do the same?

And to be really honest, I do give a shit about the child. I just don't think that a person should be forced to pay a percentage of his income because of another's choices in life. It's unfortunate that another person has to suffer,

As pro-choicers like myself are so fond of saying;

Agreeing to have sex is not agreeing to having a child. For either party. Noone should be beholden to having responsibility to a child of any kind because they agreed to have sex.

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

So, if a man doesn't want to be a father, the woman can: have an abortion or have the child on her own.

Either way the man does little more than sign a slip of paper.

The woman then undergoes an abortion procedure and the child is killed due to the lack of responsiblity of the father.
So abortion is child killing? Nice.

I just think that it is hypocritical to say that a man should be forced to take financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want I just don't think that a person should be forced to pay a percentage of his income because of another's choices in life. It's unfortunate that another person has to suffer,

As pro-choicers like myself are so fond of saying;

Agreeing to have sex is not agreeing to having a child. For either party. Noone should be beholden to having responsibility to a child of any kind because they agreed to have sex.

Man this hurts, but - rights and responsibilities. It's a child. Now, whether you wanted it or not, once it's _there_, once it's born and needs food, shelter, and looking after, you have a responsibility to it. It would not exist safe by your actions _even if_ it was an _unintended_ consequence of your actions.

I can't square away the fact that this paper divorce/abortion from your child leads to really screwing up its chances in life. It needs help! And as I've said, this is a complicated enough situation, dragging in the law would only make things harder on everyone concerned for the reasons I've stated:

1) becomes a bargaining chip influencing the mother's decision to keep the baby or not;
2) cannot cover all the complicated scenarios that could arise;
3) adversely affects the child from a financial point of view;
4) adversely affects the child emotionally.

You can say that the awful effects of 3 + 4 already exist, but to have them enshrined in law would be even worse - it legitimises this appalling state of affairs, and lets (condones!!!) a dispute between 2 individuals hurt - and 'cripple' is not hyperbole - the life chances of a totally innocent party. You can't tell me that's a law that serves justice.

there are more men that find ways around Child support that most of this is moot anyway, for example my ex hubby. He put his name on the birth certificate of my son, against my advice by the way, and later we broke up, now he is finacially responsible for a kid that is not his genetically. and No it cannot be changed believe me I have tried... So now my son has an absent parent he has not seen for over 6 years, (not that he misses him really) and he knows he does not pay support. This happens all the time unfortunately, he found a way to circumvent the system. No biggie, I have always taken all responsibility for my boy, but what bugs me is that if he ever got a wild hair he could have a say in what goes on with my son. Now that is a travesty of Justice.

Elgesh']Man this hurts, but - rights and responsibilities. It's a child. Now, whether you wanted it or not, once it's _there_, once it's born and needs food, shelter, and looking after, you have a responsibility to it. It would not exist safe by your actions _even if_ it was an _unintended_ consequence of your actions.


Funny, I've heard so many pro-lifers use this argument to justify banning abortion. (I know you're pro-choice). All I am saying is that a mother gets the right to decide whether or not to have a child. Why does a father not get the same?

Funny, I've heard so many pro-lifers use this argument to justify banning abortion. (I know you're pro-choice). All I am saying is that a mother gets the right to decide whether or not to have a child. Why does a father not get the same?

He gets input into the discussion concerning an abortion. Morally, the mother should bear his wishes in mind, but given the greater* part of the burden she'll be under - physical, financial, emotional - it is entirely right that _she_ has the final say.

* = (As per the boundaries of discussion, I'm assuming a situation where mum + dad aren't in any sort of a longterm relationship, and would rather not have anything to do with one another, or are in some sort of 'weak' [as it were - can't think of a better way to put it, sorry!] relationship, but have radically different views as to having a child. This is why I'm saying the mother has the greater 'finacial' burden.)

My right to self determination in my life is, rightly (:p), constrained by my _responsibility_ to any children I create, whether I wanted them or not. When a child actually _exists_, is there in the world and needs looking after, my responsibility to it takes precedence.

Elgesh']He gets input into the discussion concerning an abortion. Morally, the mother should bear his wishes in mind, but given the greater* part of the burden she'll be under - physical, financial, emotional - it is entirely right that _she_ has the final say.

* = (As per the boundaries of discussion, I'm assuming a situation where mum + dad aren't in any sort of a longterm relationship, and would rather not have anything to do with one another, or are in some sort of 'weak' [as it were - can't think of a better way to put it, sorry!] relationship, but have radically different views as to having a child. This is why I'm saying the mother has the greater 'finacial' burden.)

My right to self determination in my life is, rightly (:p), constrained by my _responsibility_ to any children I create, whether I wanted them or not. When a child actually _exists_, is there in the world and needs looking after, my responsibility to it takes precedence.

I myself am an ardent pro-choicer, for both sides. I would never expect a man who made it clear to me that he did not want a child that I was carrying to bear any responsibility for it. It is solely my choice to have this child and solely my choice to provide for it if the father has made clear his opinion. I believe this should apply across the board.

I myself am an ardent pro-choicer, for both sides. I would never expect a man who made it clear to me that he did not want a child that I was carrying to bear any responsibility for it. It is solely my choice to have this child and solely my choice to provide for it if the father has made clear his opinion. I believe this should apply across the board.

Well then, we've just got different concepts of responsibility :) I doubt we'll change one anothers' opinion anytime soon, it's too big an area! :p

But even allowing for differences of concepts, I can't see that legislation is neccessary _or_ desirable as a matter of course in difficult cases like this. If you (that's 'you' generally, not 'you-you'!) want (and are able) to come to some sort of private arrangement with the partner with whom you had a child, that's one thing - cool, good for you, hope it all works out! But it shouldn't be assumed that things can work out that neatly for everyone, and therefore should not be enacted as legislation.

I do understand where you're coming from. I am pleased that this debate hasn't degenerated like so many others I have seen. It's been fun, but since it's 1:30 am here, and I can't actually find anything to argue about I might say goodnight.

I do understand where you're coming from. I am pleased that this debate hasn't degenerated like so many others I have seen. It's been fun, but since it's 1:30 am here, and I can't actually find anything to argue about I might say goodnight.

1.30am?! Away to bed now! (can I ask where you are? W. Australia?) No, been good talking through the points with you, hope to do it again on another topic sometime :) g'night!

Elgesh']1.30am?! Away to bed now! (can I ask where you are? W. Australia?) No, been good talking through the points with you, hope to do it again on another topic sometime :) g'night!

Queensland actually, and same to you. G'night.

Ok personally as far as abortion goeswhen the male dosent want the child the male should be informed and he will have to decide if he wants the child. If he dosen't then the female should have the option of either aborting the child and the cost divided between them or the female taking on the full responsibility legal finacial and everything else. As far as I'm concerned the whole bs religion argument is moot in america at least. Freedom of religion comes into play and even concidreing it for an argument in any way is dicriminatory for people who are religious

You're putting an amazing amount of pressure on women to have abortions. That's the part that is violating the freedom of religion. In the current situation people have the option of engaging or not with NO pressure from the government to partake. It's an option to be considered based on your morals, situation and religious beliefs. When you make the suggestion you just made you are saying that government punish the vast majority of women who find it morally and religiously reprehensible to have an abortion because a small percentage of women consider it an option. And basically men need not take ANY responsibility for sex whatsoever. A woman at the very least in the event of conception has to undergo a traumatic surgery. Men, you want to give them the option of putting pen to paper and being done with it.

And, of course, there's the child to consider, which you didn't. But hey, the state only has to consider men's wants and selfish needs. Screw the children, right?

You violate the rights of the woman and the rights of the child with your crazy suggestions.

I just think that it is hypocritical to say that a man should be forced to take financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want for 18 years because he had sex and the condom broke. Why should a man be forced to put up with the responsibility he took precautions not to have, if a woman is not asked to do the same?

And to be really honest, I do give a shit about the child. I just don't think that a person should be forced to pay a percentage of his income because of another's choices in life. It's unfortunate that another person has to suffer,

As pro-choicers like myself are so fond of saying;

Agreeing to have sex is not agreeing to having a child. For either party. Noone should be beholden to having responsibility to a child of any kind because they agreed to have sex.

Because in order for a woman to practice 'birth control' as you treat it they must undergo surgery which a man NEVER has to consider. The government cannot put pressure on a woman to have surgery because men don't want to live up to their responsibilities. Many women can never consider abortion as a form of birth control (a discussion a man should have with her ahead of time if he doesn't want to be 'trapped' as you infer). You are requiring them to either engage in a surgery or do a disservice to their child by denying them the support of a father. Simply ridiculous.

Again, you're not considering the child's needs and you're not considering the actual physical cost of an abortion or a pregnancy. A woman has to weigh those costs. A man does not. The current system is absolutely equitable.

Funny, I've heard so many pro-lifers use this argument to justify banning abortion. (I know you're pro-choice). All I am saying is that a mother gets the right to decide whether or not to have a child. Why does a father not get the same?

Because in the mother's choice there is no child and in the father's it only takes effect when there is a child. The child MUST be considered. Also, the mother's choice requires a traumatic medical procedure (either an abortion or a pregnancy and birth). The father's 'choice' requires him to put a pen on a piece of paper. Hardly equitable. In fact, it's not even an attempt at being equitable. The only reason a woman gets a later choice is because her body is going through an event that she as a human being is permitted to control so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of any other human being. In the case of abortion, only the woman is involved. There is no father because there is no child. In the case of a 'paper abortion' there are three human beings involved and only one of them gets a choice. Again, hardly equitable.

Elgesh']Man this hurts, but - rights and responsibilities. It's a child. Now, whether you wanted it or not, once it's _there_, once it's born and needs food, shelter, and looking after, you have a responsibility to it. It would not exist safe by your actions _even if_ it was an _unintended_ consequence of your actions.

I can't square away the fact that this paper divorce/abortion from your child leads to really screwing up its chances in life. It needs help! And as I've said, this is a complicated enough situation, dragging in the law would only make things harder on everyone concerned for the reasons I've stated:

1) becomes a bargaining chip influencing the mother's decision to keep the baby or not;
2) cannot cover all the complicated scenarios that could arise;
3) adversely affects the child from a financial point of view;
4) adversely affects the child emotionally.

You can say that the awful effects of 3 + 4 already exist, but to have them enshrined in law would be even worse - it legitimises this appalling state of affairs, and lets (condones!!!) a dispute between 2 individuals hurt - and 'cripple' is not hyperbole - the life chances of a totally innocent party. You can't tell me that's a law that serves justice.

Excellent argument. This 'paper abortion' condones irresponsibility on the part of the father. Many make that argument about an actual abortion, but in the case of the actual abortion there is no other person to be responsible to (in the eyes of the state). In the paper abortion there is most certainly a child or the paper abortion has no effect. It is only necessary when a child is born and it actually is the state giving the power to men AND ONLY MEN to be able to walk away from their responsibilities to another human being.

Yes, both men and women agree to be responsible for a child should one come to exist when they have sex. BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. In the case of abortion, no child comes to exist. In the paper abortion, one does. And both parents must be responsible to the child when a child exists.

Well, I'm convinced. Anecdotal evidence is never made up and should always be considered convincing.

I know over 301 women on child support. Of those 85% use the child support for the children. You know it's true. I said it. And people on forums never make anything up.

Thanks for playing.

The difference being in credentials which I have.
Do you have any?

Women aren't the owners of men. The 'paper abortion' has nothing to do with the women OR a real abortion. In a real abortion there is NO child. In a paper abortion it never has any effect unless there IS a child. The child has to be considered. Your attempts to pretend like the child support is about the women aside, child support is for support of the child by definition. You wish for the state to remove support from the child in order to 'equalize' an inequity that does not exist.

Abortion - The man has no say it what happens to the woman's body because the woman is the only person affected by an abortion.

Paper abortion - The person to be considered is the child. The man and woman are equally responsible for the creation of that child and thus equally responsible for its care. The child can release one or both parents from that obligation. Now of course whoever is the guardian acts on behalf of the child in legal agreements so, of course, this means whoever takes on the responsibility lifted from the released parent(s). This would be the only reason either the woman or the man would have any say in such an event. And it is equitable. A woman can request that the man have sole custody and sole responsibility for care and if he agrees, it's done. The man can request the same. You would like for a man to permitted to do so without the permission of someone acting on behalf of the child which is ridiculous while you would offer no such benefit to the woman. Not only is it a violation of the woman's civil right to be treated equally under the law, but it's a violation of the child's rights as well. Your failure to understand this has no bearing on the facts. If you don't like the child support system suggest a change to it, but don't punish the child.
Spare me the semantics.
It is not up to the woman whether the man sticks around. You are advocating the men be the slaves of women which is unacceptable. No woman has any say on what any man can or cannot do.
The way it is supposed to work is that if the man agrees to pay child support, he also gets an equal say in legal matters relating to the child. Not just the mother. Otherwise, you do not have equality. You have men being dominated by women as slaves.

Spare me the semantics.
It is not up to the woman whether the man sticks around. You are advocating the men be the slaves of women which is unacceptable. No woman has any say on what any man can or cannot do.
The way it is supposed to work is that if the man agrees to pay child support, he also gets an equal say in legal matters relating to the child. Not just the mother. Otherwise, you do not have equality. You have men being dominated by women as slaves.
Turnabout is fair play? Men have held women as slaves to their reproductive systems for what, ten thousand years now? And still do. You can hardly call forcing men to pay up for having helped put a child on earth slavery, certainly not when the alternative is forcing a woman to either have an abortion or have a child. Face it--women are disporportionately affected by human reproduction, and so should have a disproportionate amount of say in how that takes place, or if it takes place at all.

You cannot require women to abort. Also, no matter what you say the man had the opportunity to not participate in creating the baby (in the case a baby comes to be). It is not the baby's fault that the man is not interested in supporting nor is it the fault of the baby that the woman did not abort it. The government cannot require a woman to either undergo surgery or raise a child's alone. It ignores the fact that most women won't get an abortion for religious reasons. It ignores the child and its needs. It ignores the role the man playing in making a child. It allows men to have rights a woman does not at no cost.

Currently a woman has to undergo the physical trauma of pregnancy or undergo a surgery when she is impregnated. If she undergoes birth, she then has to get permission of the father in order to absolve herself from responsibility (offer the child up for adoption). A man currently has no choice regarding the pregnancy but also does not have to endure it. You wish to allow the man to absolve himself of responsibility at no cost to himself. Essentially you would take ALL responsibility for sex and potential pregnancy away from men. Men would have a get out of jail free card while women have no such card and never could. Meanwhile, the child gets less support than children do currently. You seek to corrent a non-existent inequity at the expense of the child. It's simply absurd.
Do you hate men or something cause it sure seems like you continue to banter on bout how evil men are.

Spare me the semantics.
It is not up to the woman whether the man sticks around. You are advocating the men be the slaves of women which is unacceptable. No woman has any say on what any man can or cannot do.
The way it is supposed to work is that if the man agrees to pay child support, he also gets an equal say in legal matters relating to the child. Not just the mother. Otherwise, you do not have equality. You have men being dominated by women as slaves.

Who's advocating slavery? You're right it's not up to the woman. It's up to the child. The child is what we are considering here. And yes, if a man is required to pay child support he should allowed equal custody unless this is either 1) impossible due to distance, work schedule, etc. or 2) unsafe for the child (the home life of one of the parents is not conducive to the child). In the case that the man is caring for his child he does get equal say in legal matters. He gets equal say in an adoption decision in nearly every state (and it should be EVERY state). He gets an equal say in medical decisions. He gets an equal say in all decisions. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

And that's not just how it's 'supposed' to work, it's how it does work in most cases. Sure there are cases of abuse of the system, but the solution is not to make the situation even more ripe for abuse and making the case where the child is not only likely to lose out in the process but it is condoned by the government.

Also, you should look up the word semantics. Semantics would mean I was making an argument based on your wording rather than on the actually substance of the issue. When someone mentions the actual legal necessities of the situation, mentions the child, mentions the effect of these decisions, that's not semantics, that's the substance of the issue.

Do you hate men or something cause it sure seems like you continue to banter on bout how evil men are.

Who said they were evil? Quote me.

I said that men should not be allowed, no condoned, in walking away from their responsibilities to the child, you know that little creature you keep pretending doesn't exist and doesn't need care.

I think what you're missing is that I'm advocating responsibility by both parties. Once a child exist, both men and women have the exact same level of responsibility to that child. You call that slavery. I call that parenthood.