NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, this is certainly...something to think about. I think it is an argument with a lot of holes, IMHO, and it's doubtful this would be declared law. Isn't it just making it even easier to be a deadbeat dad? Or is it giving men a level playing feild in this issue?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

Well, this is certainly...something to think about. I think it is an argument with a lot of holes, IMHO, and it's doubtful this would be declared law. Isn't it just making it even easier to be a deadbeat dad? Or is it giving men a level playing feild in this issue?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

Its only fair to prevent money-grubbing women from ruining an ex-boyfriends life. It should be made law today!

Its only fair to prevent money-grubbing women from ruining an ex-boyfriends life. It should be made law today!


Why should the woman be the only one to have to make sacrifices when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? What if both the man and woman neither wanted a child and the birth control methods they were using failed (it happens). If the woman decides to have the baby, why should he be allowed to forfeit contibuting to the welfare of the child?

Why should the woman be the only one to have to make sacrifices when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? What if both the man and woman neither wanted a child and the birth control methods they were using failed (it happens). If the woman decides to have the baby, why should he be allowed to forfeit contibuting to the welfare of the child?

If both didn't want the child, why should she keep it in the first place and the man have to pay?

If both didn't want the child, why should she keep it in the first place and the man have to pay?


"Should" doesnt apply here. When you become pregnant or get someone pregnant, it is an extremely emotional time. People are allowed to change their minds.....that's why it's called a "choice". Anytime two heterosexuals engage in sex, they both know that there is a chance (no matter how small) of a pregnancy resulting. You can use any method of BC out there, aside from a hysterectomy, but they may not always work. The chance is still there that it could happen. She knew that-he knew that, so if a decision is made to have the child, I believe they should both make a contribution.

If both didn't want the child, why should she keep it in the first place and the man have to pay?

He should have to pay because he knew that this might happen when he put his dick inside her.

He should have to pay because he knew that this might happen when he put his dick inside her.

What if they used condoms?

If a man can be held financially responsible, then doesn't he also have the right to seek an abortion. If only the woman can make the final descision on whether or not to have a child, then I fail to see how the man should be held responsible.

What if they used condoms?

Condoms do not ensure 100% no pregnancy. Neither does the pill or an IUD, foams,gels,injections, etc.

What if they used condoms?

Again: He should have to pay because he knew this might happen when he put her dick inside her. It doesn't matter if he's stupid enough to think condoms are 100% effective.

Condoms do not ensure 100% no pregnancy. Neither does the pill or an IUD, foams,gels,injections, etc.

So why do it at all?

If a man can be held financially responsible, then doesn't he also have the right to seek an abortion. If only the woman can make the final descision on whether or not to have a child, then I fail to see how the man should be held responsible.

No because its not his body. He who will be carrying another person inside them for 9 months, feeling ill, missing work, going through severe pain. A man cant "seek to have an abortion" if the woman is unwilling to have one. What would you suggest? A law that forces women to have an abortion just because the man she slept with doesnt want to pay money?

So why do it at all?
It greatly reduces the risk. Not completely eradicates, but reduces.

So why do it at all?

Do what.....have sex? That is each individuals choice as well.


Edit: And if you meant why wear a condom at all.....they arent just for reducing pregnancy. They are also meant to help reduce the chances of contracting STD's.

This is nothing more then an attention ploy from a bunch of whiners.

Taken from their site:

"Sexist grooming and dress codes deny to men the creative freedom all women take for granted... circumcision represents an actual and symbolic assault on male sexuality... anti-male sexism is rampant in academia, in the media and in the criminal justice system... the false accusation has become a legally acceptable way for a woman to destroy the life of an innocent man... In many ways women receive special privilege and protection while male pain and suffering are trivialized or ignored by our society. Men and women who dare to speak out for fairness and equality are often ridiculed or censored into silence"

Wah wah wah wah I am an oppressed male! wah!

Best thing to do is to ignore them.

So why do it at all?

Exactly. Heterosexual sex is inferior in the sense that it bears the risk of pregnancy. Once you engage in it, you basically find that risk acceptable, hence you deal with the consequences should there be such. One such consequence is paying for raising the child you know might be a result of your heterosexual intercourse.

He should have to pay because he knew that this might happen when he put his dick inside her.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Bingo! We have a winner!


Hey I said that before Fass.:p

We can split the prize.

Do what.....have sex? That is each individuals choice as well.


Edit: And if you meant why wear a condom at all.....they arent just for reducing pregnancy. They are also meant to help reduce the chances of contracting STD's.

The first bit was right. They might as well not have sex at all unless they want a family. Unless they've paid attention to her periods.

Hey I said that before Fass.:p

We can split the prize.

But I said it so much more succinctly. Sharing is caring.

This can never be "Roe v. Wade" for men, because the issue is completely different. We aren't talking about an invasion of the man's right to make medical decisions for himself, but about a situation in which another person's decision affects him financially, and most likely emotionally as well. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue that needs discussion - but it is hardly an issue on the scale of Roe v. Wade.

Personally, I don't think that any human being should be forced to take on responsibility for a child without consenting to it. Without consent, we have no reason to believe that they will comply, that they will care for the child, or that their presence is what is best for the child. In fact, if the child is unwanted by either parent, that is most likely a bad situation for the child. I don't buy the whole, "It is more unfair for society to pay..." line, as I think the welfare of every child is the responsibility of all of society.

If such a thing were put into law, I wouldn't fight it. And I would be happy to pay any tax increase that I could actually trace back to helping take care of children. I can say, however, that I would most likely have little to no respect for guys who took this option. I don't agree with abortion, but at least in that case, there is no child to look after. This type of arrangement could be (depending on whether or not the mother carries to term) actual abandonment of a child that the man had a role in creating. Doing so is the height of irresponsibility. The only reason I would support such a thing is that a man that irresponsible is unlikely to be responsible enough to take care of the child anyways - even if his only role is financial.

Hey I said that before Fass.:p

We can split the prize.

HEY! You trying to oppress me! Maybe that group is right! :p

No worries! I don't shirk my responsibilities! ;)

The first bit was right. They might as well not have sex at all unless they want a family. Unless they've paid attention to her periods.

Keeping track of periods is a very unsafe method in and of itself. They should have sex because they want to have sex. They should just know what sex might lead to.

This is nothing more then an attention ploy from a bunch of whiners.

Taken from their site:

"Sexist grooming and dress codes deny to men the creative freedom all women take for granted... circumcision represents an actual and symbolic assault on male sexuality... anti-male sexism is rampant in academia, in the media and in the criminal justice system... the false accusation has become a legally acceptable way for a woman to destroy the life of an innocent man... In many ways women receive special privilege and protection while male pain and suffering are trivialized or ignored by our society. Men and women who dare to speak out for fairness and equality are often ridiculed or censored into silence"

The majority of this, of course, is bullshit.

But I said it so much more succinctly. Sharing is caring.

Indeed you did. I think we are splitting a box of Trojans.....

They could have at least given us that link to the Military men that we were searching for a few weeks back. *looks away*

The first bit was right. They might as well not have sex at all unless they want a family. Unless they've paid attention to her periods.

Oh nope nope nope bad idea.

Keep in mind that Catholic Church teaches that so that alone suggests it's bad.

i dont believe that its in the public interest to do anything that encourages more abortions or puts more children into poverty.

a child has 2 parents and both parents should be required to take responsibility for that child.

The first bit was right. They might as well not have sex at all unless they want a family. Unless they've paid attention to her periods.

Its more complex then that. READ THE ARTICLE.

The woman said she couldn't get pregnant do to physical conditions, they both used prevention and BOTH didn't want a child. Now the ex-girlfriend has a child (is a single mother now) and is taking $500 a week from her boyfriend for a kid they both didn't want.

$500 is ALOT of cash. That's $2000 a month and $24000 a year that is coming from this man. This means he's essentially paying for all the food, work, housing and all her costs when he can't do anything about it?

Is that fair!? If your ex-girlfriend walks up to you and shows you a baby, and says, "Oh honey? Look I guess my pill didn't work...and your condom didn't work, and I know I didn't want a kid and neither did you, but give me money to raise the baby because I changed my mind. Or I'll send you to jail for being a deadbeat dad."

Personally...I'd rip the bitches throat out if they did that to me or someone I knew. Scary thing is THIS DOES HAPPEN. Women will sometimes do or hide a pregnacy just to get back at their ex-boyfriend or do it for whatever reason. This puts women 100% in control of men in the baby process, dispite any past agreements or actions to prevent it. Is that fair?

eewwwww nice hair! (thats the director of the center)

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page1/upper-right3.jpg

Indeed you did. I think we are splitting a box of Trojans.....

Hey, you can never have too many, even if I believe that their regular size is a bit too tight for me. *ahem*

They could have at least given us that link to the Military men that we were searching for a few weeks back. *looks away*

That would have been sweet, but as I wrote there, Eastern European military men are hotter, and, well, we have those in abundance.

eewwwww nice hair! (thats the director of the center)

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page1/upper-right3.jpg

Ugh. What a loser. I guess that's to be expected.

Its more complex then that. READ THE ARTICLE.

The woman said she couldn't get pregnant do to physical conditions, they both used prevention and BOTH didn't want a child. Now the ex-girlfriend has a child (is a single mother now) and is taking $500 a week from her boyfriend for a kid they both didn't want.

$500 is ALOT of cash. That's $2000 a month and $24000 a year that is coming from this man. This means he's essentially paying for all the food, work, housing and all her costs when he can't do anything about it?

Is that fair!? If your ex-girlfriend walks up to you and shows you a baby, and says, "Oh honey? Look I guess my pill didn't work...and your condom didn't work, and I know I didn't want a kid and neither did you, but give me money to raise the baby because I changed my mind. Or I'll send you to jail for being a deadbeat dad."

Personally...I'd rip the bitches throat out if they did that to me or someone I knew. Scary thing is THIS DOES HAPPEN. Women will sometimes do or hide a pregnacy just to get back at their ex-boyfriend or do it for whatever reason. This puts women 100% in control of men in the baby process, dispite any past agreements or actions to prevent it. Is that fair?


No it says $500 per month. And so what if she told him that she couldnt have children. Perhaps the doctors told her she couldnt have children. They told my mom the same thing and at 40, she had me.

I*snip* Women will sometimes do or hide a pregnacy just to get back at their ex-boyfriend or do it for whatever reason. This puts women 100% in control of men in the baby process, despite any past agreements or actions to prevent it. Is that fair?

It's simple really. Don't have sex unless you are going to deal with the consequences.

You can get a simple procedure done to greatly reduce the possibility. Considering what you said; you might want to look into it.

This puts women 100% in control of men in the baby process, dispite any past agreements or actions to prevent it. Is that fair?

Women are 100% in control of the baby process because the process takes place inside their bodies. If men could get pregnant, they could be in control of that process.

Women are never "100% in control of men."

eewwwww nice hair! (thats the director of the center)

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page1/upper-right3.jpg

For the love of Pete....someone cut those dead ends off. Ick.

Ugh. What a loser. I guess that's to be expected.

What the glasses don't do it for you? :p

What the glasses don't do it for you? :p

Yeah, you'd think the auburn beard with the bald guy ponytail would have made me stiffer than a board, but then I got sight of the glasses, and they were what deflated my tumescence...

No because its not his body. He who will be carrying another person inside them for 9 months, feeling ill, missing work, going through severe pain. A man cant "seek to have an abortion" if the woman is unwilling to have one. What would you suggest? A law that forces women to have an abortion just because the man she slept with doesnt want to pay money?

Of course not. You don't force the woman to have an abortion, you allow the man to seek a 'paper abortion'. Basically he would give up all responsibility and relation to the child. Despite the fact that it shares his DNA, it would no longer be considered his child, and he wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.

As a woman, I support paper abortions for men. It isn't fair for a man to have to pay for a child that he didn't want just because his lover decided to keep it. Especially in cases where a man is tricked into fathering a child. I've heard of cases of girls punching holes in their boyfriends' condoms so they'll get pregnant and they can stay together. Some women might lie about being on contraceptives. But anyway you put it, I don't think that a person should be forcefully held responsible for a child they don't consider to be their own.

Some people blame the man because it's his fault for sticking it in the woman. If you're the same people who support abortion for woman and get on the cases of people who blame women for their being pregnant because they had sex you should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that it takes two to tango goes both ways, it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault.

The fact that it takes two to tango goes both ways, it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault.


Which is exactly why the man shouldnt be allowed to simply walk away. There are some instances in which the partners agree to this "paper abortion", having the man sign over his rights as a parent.Some women are ok with this because then they dont have to worry about visitation rights or taking into consideration what the male parent may want for the child. Thats fine if they are in agreement of that.

Of course not. You don't force the woman to have an abortion, you allow the man to seek a 'paper abortion'. Basically he would give up all responsibility and relation to the child. Despite the fact that it shares his DNA, it would no longer be considered his child, and he wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.

As a woman, I support paper abortions for men. It isn't fair for a man to have to pay for a child that he didn't want just because his lover decided to keep it. Especially in cases where a man is tricked into fathering a child. I've heard of cases of girls punching holes in their boyfriends' condoms so they'll get pregnant and they can stay together. Some women might lie about being on contraceptives. But anyway you put it, I don't think that a person should be forcefully held responsible for a child they don't consider to be their own.

Some people blame the man because it's his fault for sticking it in the woman. If you're the same people who support abortion for woman and get on the cases of people who blame women for their being pregnant because they had sex you should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that it takes two to tango goes both ways, it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault.

Oh...500 a month...still $6000 a year which is a huge chunk of money.

Oh yes..I do believe I heard about the condom one....but I really don't see how he'd not notice if its still in the wrapper....

The thing is, when a woman says she doesn't want a child and the man says he doesn't want a child and enter into a formal agreement about it, if a woman gets pregnant and changes her mind she shouldn't be able to force a man to pay. Espically if its a grudge or something. If she wants a child she should have said so in the beginning and let her man know that, they can settle that differently.

This is specifically for men who enter into a situation that they don't want a child and the girl doesn't either, and yet has the baby anyways. If a man wants a child and a girl doesn't, she can choose to have the baby or not. Though why not when they both don't want a child, and she has one, how come he has to pay for it? That doesn't make any sense.

Of course not. You don't force the woman to have an abortion, you allow the man to seek a 'paper abortion'. Basically he would give up all responsibility and relation to the child. Despite the fact that it shares his DNA, it would no longer be considered his child, and he wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.

As a woman, I support paper abortions for men. It isn't fair for a man to have to pay for a child that he didn't want just because his lover decided to keep it. Especially in cases where a man is tricked into fathering a child. I've heard of cases of girls punching holes in their boyfriends' condoms so they'll get pregnant and they can stay together. Some women might lie about being on contraceptives. But anyway you put it, I don't think that a person should be forcefully held responsible for a child they don't consider to be their own.

Some people blame the man because it's his fault for sticking it in the woman. If you're the same people who support abortion for woman and get on the cases of people who blame women for their being pregnant because they had sex you should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that it takes two to tango goes both ways, it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault.


I have to say that I agree with this standpoint. I know a couple of guys who've been on the receiving end of stuff like this. While I'm not a huge fan of promiscuity, the whole "accepting the risks" thing is a BS argument IMO. Show me ten guys that turned down sex in the heat of the moment, and I'll show you ten guys that are really, REALLY, bad in the sack.

An unwanted child does no one any good, especially the child. And, a resentful and unwilling father, forced to pay for a child he never wanted, does even less good for said child.

Who wins? No one.

Oh...500 a month...still $6000 a year which is a huge chunk of money.

Oh yes..I do believe I heard about the condom one....but I really don't see how he'd not notice if its still in the wrapper....

The thing is, when a woman says she doesn't want a child and the man says he doesn't want a child and enter into a formal agreement about it, if a woman gets pregnant and changes her mind she shouldn't be able to force a man to pay. Espically if its a grudge or something. If she wants a child she should have said so in the beginning and let her man know that, they can settle that differently.

This is specifically for men who enter into a situation that they don't want a child and the girl doesn't either, and yet has the baby anyways. If a man wants a child and a girl doesn't, she can choose to have the baby or not. Though why not when they both don't want a child, and she has one, how come he has to pay for it? That doesn't make any sense.

Repeat after me!

Vasectomy!

Oh...500 a month...still $6000 a year which is a huge chunk of money.

Oh yes..I do believe I heard about the condom one....but I really don't see how he'd not notice if its still in the wrapper....

The thing is, when a woman says she doesn't want a child and the man says he doesn't want a child and enter into a formal agreement about it, if a woman gets pregnant and changes her mind she shouldn't be able to force a man to pay. Espically if its a grudge or something. If she wants a child she should have said so in the beginning and let her man know that, they can settle that differently.

This is specifically for men who enter into a situation that they don't want a child and the girl doesn't either, and yet has the baby anyways. If a man wants a child and a girl doesn't, she can choose to have the baby or not. Though why not when they both don't want a child, and she has one, how come he has to pay for it? That doesn't make any sense.

Formal agreement? Have you ever had a relationship that even involves sex? This isnt the blame game. Things happen, thats life.

And women are not the only ones who have been guilty of sabotaging birth control. Men have been known to hide BC pills, or say they've had a vasectomy when in fact they did not. Some men do that to trap the women. So lets not make designate that little trick as a female only tactic.

Show me ten guys that turned down sex in the heat of the moment, and I'll show you ten guys that are really, REALLY, bad in the sack.


Can a rapist/date rapist make that claim?

Can a rapist/date rapist make that claim?

Unfortunately that's not within the scope of this debate.

Repeat after me!

Vasectomy!

I'm not sure how it goes for men, but I've heard of a lot of young people going through a lot of shit trying to get themselves sterilized. Seems that people are certain that they'll change their mind and want biological children in the future. Then again, some of those men might want biological children in the future, just not at the moment, just like how some women who have abortions now may have children later.

Formal agreement? Have you ever had a relationship that even involves sex? This isnt the blame game. Things happen, thats life.

And women are not the only ones who have been guilty of sabotaging birth control. Men have been known to hide BC pills, or say they've had a vasectomy when in fact they did not. Some men do that to trap the women. So lets not make designate that little trick as a female only tactic.

However, those women have access to abortions.

I have to say that I agree with this standpoint. I know a couple of guys who've been on the receiving end of stuff like this. While I'm not a huge fan of promiscuity, the whole "accepting the risks" thing is a BS argument IMO. Show me ten guys that turned down sex in the heat of the moment, and I'll show you ten guys that are really, REALLY, bad in the sack.

An unwanted child does no one any good, especially the child. And, a resentful and unwilling father, forced to pay for a child he never wanted, does even less good for said child.

Who wins? No one.

If he doesnt want the child then he doesnt have to come around, but he should contribute financially because the mother most certainly will. Anyone who thinks $500 a month is a lot in comparison to raising a child, does NOT have children. And if a man is so worried about not getting a woman pregnant before and after things heat up, then he should exercise a bit more self control during the heat of the moment.

Women should also exercise self control and not be so ready to give it up. The fact remains that both people are responsible for not getting pregnant. Not just one.

I have absolutely no intention of getting into this situation, as I would consider it immoral, and if I knew that I were the father, I would support the child. But the question here is, "Should the government MAKE the man support the child?" (racks libertarian brain) The man agreed to have sex with the woman, not to father a child. The woman has the option to do any number of things, from abortion to adoption. The man does not. IMO if the responsibility of care can be forfeited by the mother, then likewise for the father. Just my opinion.

All in all, it's a very bad situation, and the best action is to just be responsible.

If he doesnt want the child then he doesnt have to come around, but he should contribute financially because the mother most certainly will. Anyone who thinks $500 a month is a lot in comparison to raising a child, does NOT have children. And if a man is so worried about not getting a woman pregnant before and after things heat up, then he should exercise a bit more self control during the heat of the moment.

Women should also exercise self control and not be so ready to give it up. The fact remains that both people are responsible for not getting pregnant. Not just one.

Thank you for making the point for me. Though I'm sure it was unintentional

He should have to pay because he knew that this might happen when he put his dick inside her.

That sounds very similar to the argument of an anti-abortionist.

Well, this is certainly...something to think about. I think it is an argument with a lot of holes, IMHO, and it's doubtful this would be declared law. Isn't it just making it even easier to be a deadbeat dad? Or is it giving men a level playing feild in this issue?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

I support paper abortions as long as the father makes his intentions known well ahead of time.

If he doesnt want the child then he doesnt have to come around, but he should contribute financially because the mother most certainly will. Anyone who thinks $500 a month is a lot in comparison to raising a child, does NOT have children. And if a man is so worried about not getting a woman pregnant before and after things heat up, then he should exercise a bit more self control during the heat of the moment.

Women should also exercise self control and not be so ready to give it up. The fact remains that both people are responsible for not getting pregnant. Not just one.

Women can have abortions or put their kid up for adoption and be free of the responsibility of raising it.

Couples can put their kids up for adoption and be free of the responsibility of raising them.

So why can't men be allowed to do the same?

I'm not sure how it goes for men, but I've heard of a lot of young people going through a lot of shit trying to get themselves sterilized. Seems that people are certain that they'll change their mind and want biological children in the future. Then again, some of those men might want biological children in the future, just not at the moment, just like how some women who have abortions now may have children later.

It's much easier to reverse it for the male. Women getting their tubes tied is harder is harder on their bodies.

Oh and speaking of changing one's mind, sometimes men will tell you anything you want to hear if it means getting some action on a regular basis. I have a friend who was with her bf for 4 years. The entire time, she was the one who was insistent that they should not think about children until they had good jobs and were finished with school. He agreed for a year or so but then one day he started telling her that "having a child wouldnt be so hard." When he would see kids in the park , he would nudge her and say...."See, wouldnt that be great?" SHe maintained her stance about waiting and he would just get pissy when she would say that.Then low and behold,one day, she found out she was pregnant. She was upset, but did not agree with abortion so she decided to have it. Guess who changed his mind 3 weeks after she informed him? He split and said good luck.

The thing about making this kind of law is that it creates an almost "no responsibility" factor for the men. That just isnt right, no matter how you slice it.

I support paper abortions as long as the father makes his intentions known well ahead of time.

Ooh. That's sensible. Perhaps a concession can be made that paper abortions are only available up until the point that physical abortions are available. Hm... though, maybe not. Even if a woman doesn't abort, she can still give up the child for adoption... However, if a guy waits until a month before the birth before saying he won't have anything to do with the kid, it seems rather... uh... rude. Something like that, I can't think of a better word right now. However! If there was a rule like that, a woman could always keep her pregnancy a secret until after it's born or so...

Ah! I don't know!

If a man can be held financially responsible, then doesn't he also have the right to seek an abortion. If only the woman can make the final descision on whether or not to have a child, then I fail to see how the man should be held responsible.
I have to agree with this statement. If it's her body, her choice, then it's her responsibility. It's not right to hold the man financially accountable for her decision to have the child. If her decision-making in carrying the child to term dictates his actions because he helped conceive it, then doesn't he get a say in the abortion as well following that same logic?

Oh and speaking of changing one's mind, sometimes men will tell you anything you want to hear if it means getting some action on a regular basis. I have a friend who was with her bf for 4 years. The entire time, she was the one who was insistent that they should not think about children until they had good jobs and were finished with school. He agreed for a year or so but then one day he started telling her that "having a child wouldnt be so hard." When he would see kids in the park , he would nudge her and say...."See, wouldnt that be great?" SHe maintained her stance about waiting and he would just get pissy when she would say that.Then low and behold,one day, she found out she was pregnant. She was upset, but did not agree with abortion so she decided to have it. Guess who changed his mind 3 weeks after she informed him? He split and said good luck.

The thing about making this kind of law is that it creates an almost "no responsibility" factor for the men. That just isnt right, no matter how you slice it.

Don't worry peech! I will still respect you in the morning!


:p

I support paper abortions as long as the father makes his intentions known well ahead of time.

How do you get around he said she said situations?

It's much easier to reverse it for the male. Women getting their tubes tied is harder is harder on their bodies.

This is true. Especially since even vasectomies can fail sometimes. I don't really know that much about the processes involved in getting a vasectomy. I do know that it's near impossible for a woman to get her tubes tied at a yound age.

It's much easier to reverse it for the male. Women getting their tubes tied is harder is harder on their bodies.

Actually it isn't, and is more reversable then a male's. When a man gets cut, its permanent.

Oh and speaking of changing one's mind, sometimes men will tell you anything you want to hear if it means getting some action on a regular basis. I have a friend who was with her bf for 4 years. The entire time, she was the one who was insistent that they should not think about children until they had good jobs and were finished with school. He agreed for a year or so but then one day he started telling her that "having a child wouldnt be so hard." When he would see kids in the park , he would nudge her and say...."See, wouldnt that be great?" SHe maintained her stance about waiting and he would just get pissy when she would say that.Then low and behold,one day, she found out she was pregnant. She was upset, but did not agree with abortion so she decided to have it. Guess who changed his mind 3 weeks after she informed him? He split and said good luck.

The thing about making this kind of law is that it creates an almost "no responsibility" factor for the men. That just isnt right, no matter how you slice it.

Just because he was an asshole doesn't change the fact that she decided to keep the kid, before and after birth. Ultimately it was her decision to take responsibility of the child.

I support paper abortions as long as the father makes his intentions known well ahead of time.


Kind of like a pre nump. I'd say only if he provided documentation before they became sexually active and the female would have to sign an affidavit saying she is aware of his paper. He couldnt just pull one out after they've been doing it for months and then say "oh btw...if you get preggo, I'm not going to help you one damn bit....more champagne?"

They should make wallet sized papers as well so he can pull it out at the clubs before getting a phone number.

I'm not sure he'd be very popular with the ladies though.

Actually it isn't, and is more reversable then a male's. When a man gets cut, its permanent.

No it isn't. Sometimes they even repair themselves, which is really bloody bizarre if you think about it, though true.

Just because he was an asshole doesn't change the fact that she decided to keep the kid, before and after birth. Ultimately it was her decision to take responsibility of the child.


Only if she got herself pregnant.

Oh and speaking of changing one's mind, sometimes men will tell you anything you want to hear if it means getting some action on a regular basis. I have a friend who was with her bf for 4 years. The entire time, she was the one who was insistent that they should not think about children until they had good jobs and were finished with school. He agreed for a year or so but then one day he started telling her that "having a child wouldnt be so hard." When he would see kids in the park , he would nudge her and say...."See, wouldnt that be great?" SHe maintained her stance about waiting and he would just get pissy when she would say that.Then low and behold,one day, she found out she was pregnant. She was upset, but did not agree with abortion so she decided to have it. Guess who changed his mind 3 weeks after she informed him? He split and said good luck.

The thing about making this kind of law is that it creates an almost "no responsibility" factor for the men. That just isnt right, no matter how you slice it.

I would say that in all situations, the female should have the responsibility of informing the man of her intentions of having a child within the first few weeks, after that the man can let his intentions known within another short period of time. Reasonable actions between both will allow them to reach a conclusion.

With time being of the essence, the man can either announce his willingness to support the child or his refusal to support the child. The woman can then make her decision. After that, the man is legally obligated to financially support the woman throughout the pregnancy, whether ended through abortion or through delivery.

He then has no further obligations.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but wouldn't it be logical to have the man sign some sort of official document declaring his intent to or to not financially support the child sometime before the child's birth? That way, there would be no mind-changing allowed.

Don't worry peech! I will still respect you in the morning!


:p

LOL....you better.

Only if she got herself pregnant.

Nope. Like I said, she had the opportunity to have an abortion before the birth and to put the child up for adoption after the birth. By doing neither, she accepted responsibility of the child.

Actually it isn't, and is more reversible then a male's. When a man gets cut, its permanent.

You might want to look it up again. It's only determinant if they cut sections away and even there there was a 1 in a billion case of it still failing.

Of the two procedures the male is less invasive then the females.

But I will defer to our resident Doc......

Its more complex then that. READ THE ARTICLE.

The woman said she couldn't get pregnant do to physical conditions, they both used prevention and BOTH didn't want a child. Now the ex-girlfriend has a child (is a single mother now) and is taking $500 a week from her boyfriend for a kid they both didn't want.

$500 is ALOT of cash. That's $2000 a month and $24000 a year that is coming from this man. This means he's essentially paying for all the food, work, housing and all her costs when he can't do anything about it?

Is that fair!? If your ex-girlfriend walks up to you and shows you a baby, and says, "Oh honey? Look I guess my pill didn't work...and your condom didn't work, and I know I didn't want a kid and neither did you, but give me money to raise the baby because I changed my mind. Or I'll send you to jail for being a deadbeat dad."

Personally...I'd rip the bitches throat out if they did that to me or someone I knew. Scary thing is THIS DOES HAPPEN. Women will sometimes do or hide a pregnacy just to get back at their ex-boyfriend or do it for whatever reason. This puts women 100% in control of men in the baby process, dispite any past agreements or actions to prevent it. Is that fair?


Simple solution. DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a dad.
After all, how is it her fault if you have superheroic sperm that can impregnate against all odds? ;)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but wouldn't it be logical to have the man sign some sort of official document declaring his intent to or to not financially support the child sometime before the child's birth? That way, there would be no mind-changing allowed.


You could but I can almost guarantee that the guy would never get laid.

Talk about a mood killer.

"Here hunny! You need to sign this first!"

:D

How do you get around he said she said situations?

The way one gets around any contractual agreement, legal documents.

The woman provides proof of notifying her partner, the partner shows proof of response.

It will obviously not be a perfect system, there never is, but we always have the People's Court as a last resort.

Simple solution. DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a dad.
After all, how is it her fault if you have superheroic sperm that can impregnate against all odds? ;)

And one argument of the 'pro-life' side is "Simple solution. DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a mom."

Nope. Like I said, she had the opportunity to have an abortion before the birth and to put the child up for adoption after the birth. By doing neither, she accepted responsibility of the child.

You act as if every female on earth is pro-abortion. Some women are adamantly against it. Just because something is a choice, doesnt mean its an option.

Simple solution. DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a dad.

DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a mom.

For some reason you probably don't consider that a compelling argument against abortion.

Oh...500 a month...still $6000 a year which is a huge chunk of money.

Oh yes..I do believe I heard about the condom one....but I really don't see how he'd not notice if its still in the wrapper....

The thing is, when a woman says she doesn't want a child and the man says he doesn't want a child and enter into a formal agreement about it, if a woman gets pregnant and changes her mind she shouldn't be able to force a man to pay. Espically if its a grudge or something. If she wants a child she should have said so in the beginning and let her man know that, they can settle that differently.

This is specifically for men who enter into a situation that they don't want a child and the girl doesn't either, and yet has the baby anyways. If a man wants a child and a girl doesn't, she can choose to have the baby or not. Though why not when they both don't want a child, and she has one, how come he has to pay for it? That doesn't make any sense.


Perhaps she does not believe in abortion as many people consider that to be 'murder'.

Simple solution. DON'T have sex if you DON'T want to be a dad.
After all, how is it her fault if you have superheroic sperm that can impregnate against all odds? ;)

Like I said earlier, show me enough people who would actually do that. Sex is an instinct, and feels REALLY good, for a reason. People have an overwhelming urge to do it. It surpasses logic, it overpowers reason.

There should be equal protection under the law for mishaps.

I'm in favour of paper abortions, provided that the woman then has a chance to do the real thing (meaning, the woman has a real, legal clinic available to her at the time) and the man knows it is permanent.
In such a situation, if the woman doesn't want to be a single mother, she has the tools available to fix that.

You act as if every female on earth is pro-abortion. Some women are adamantly against it. Just because something is a choice, doesnt mean its an option.

It's always an option. Abortion, adoption, raise a baby. Three choices. If she's adamantly against it, that's still her choice. It was ultimately her decision to keep and raise her child. Nobody forced her into it, except maybe herself.

While I'm not a huge fan of promiscuity, the whole "accepting the risks" thing is a BS argument IMO. Show me ten guys that turned down sex in the heat of the moment, and I'll show you ten guys that are really, REALLY, bad in the sack.

:rolleyes:

You do just realize that you have impliedthat men are merely animals acting out of instinct, as they apparently are unable to use their superior brainpower to turn down sex unless they cannot perform.

If I were a guy, I'd be pretty insulted.

The way one gets around any contractual agreement, legal documents.

The woman provides proof of notifying her partner, the partner shows proof of response.

It will obviously not be a perfect system, there never is, but we always have the People's Court as a last resort.

I thought that's what you meant.

Just wanted a clarification. ;)

Women can have abortions or put their kid up for adoption and be free of the responsibility of raising it.

Couples can put their kids up for adoption and be free of the responsibility of raising them.

So why can't men be allowed to do the same?

Actually, a woman cannot officially (legally, anyways) put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father. If either of them wants to keep it, both are legally responsible.

The problem with this comes in the enforcement. A woman can always say she doesn't know who the father of her child is, fail to inform him of anything, and thus effectively cut him out of the loop. A father isn't even going to have possession of the child unless he is informed, so he can't really do the same thing.

And, as of right now, there is no legal way for a man or woman to essentially put the child up for adoption to the other parent. If either want to give up their rights and responsibilities, most places will not allow it unless there is a third parent (ie. stepparent) in the picture to take over for the parent doing it.

:rolleyes:

You do just realize that you have impliedthat men are merely animals acting out of instinct, as they apparently are unable to use their superior brainpower to turn down sex unless they cannot perform.

If I were a guy, I'd be pretty insulted.

Superior brain power?

Which head are we talking about?

:rolleyes:

You do just realize that you have impliedthat men are merely animals acting out of instinct, as they apparently are unable to use their superior brainpower to turn down sex unless they cannot perform.

If I were a guy, I'd be pretty insulted.

I wouldn't know anything about 'heat of the moment' type moods, but chances are it runs both way. When people are seriously aroused and filled with lust, I can't see them as being reasonable, male or female.

Women should also exercise self control and not be so ready to give it up. The fact remains that both people are responsible for not getting pregnant. Not just one.

Agreed -- I was responding, however, to the "Why should the guy pay?" argument.

It's always an option. Abortion, adoption, raise a baby. Three choices. If she's adamantly against it, that's still her choice. It was ultimately her decision to keep and raise her child. Nobody forced her into it, except maybe herself.


Nooo..its not an option if you are against abortion. If you use birth control methods responsibly and end up getting pregnant, then you make the decision to have the child. It's that simple. It's the same for someone who knows without a doubt they would have an abortion....having the child would not be an option.

This is nothing more then an attention ploy from a bunch of whiners.

Taken from their site:

"Sexist grooming and dress codes deny to men the creative freedom all women take for granted... circumcision represents an actual and symbolic assault on male sexuality... anti-male sexism is rampant in academia, in the media and in the criminal justice system... the false accusation has become a legally acceptable way for a woman to destroy the life of an innocent man... In many ways women receive special privilege and protection while male pain and suffering are trivialized or ignored by our society. Men and women who dare to speak out for fairness and equality are often ridiculed or censored into silence"

Wah wah wah wah I am an oppressed male! wah!

Best thing to do is to ignore them.
You realise you're trying to ridicule them into silence there?

Actually, a woman cannot officially (legally, anyways) put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father. If either of them wants to keep it, both are legally responsible.

The problem with this comes in the enforcement. A woman can always say she doesn't know who the father of her child is, fail to inform him of anything, and thus effectively cut him out of the loop. A father isn't even going to have possession of the child unless he is informed, so he can't really do the same thing.

And, as of right now, there is no legal way for a man or woman to essentially put the child up for adoption to the other parent. If either want to give up their rights and responsibilities, most places will not allow it unless there is a third parent (ie. stepparent) in the picture to take over for the parent doing it.

Well, in the case in point, the father didn't seem to want anything to do with the child... However, maybe people should be allowed to waive their rights and responsibilities that come with parenthood when they want to, provided it's permanent. A situation with parents with children they don't want makes no-one involved happy.

You do just realize that you have impliedthat men are merely animals acting out of instinct, as they apparently are unable to use their superior brainpower to turn down sex unless they cannot perform.
The same thing is implied about teenagers and sex, teenagers and drugs, teenagers and booze, teenagers and . . . just about anything really.
If I were a guy, I'd be pretty insulted.
Oh, I'm not. You see, for that to bother me, I'd also have to be insulted by most stand-up comedians, most sit-coms, every sex-comedy ever written, and I would fly into a fit of blind rage whenever we went to a commercial break.

This should be a law. Equal protection is in the constitution.

Nooo..its not an option if you are against abortion. If you use birth control methods responsibly and end up getting pregnant, then you make the decision to have the child. It's that simple. It's the same for someone who knows without a doubt they would have an abortion....having the child would not be an option.

It's a person's choice whether or not to cross out an option. Besides, abortion and child-raising aren't the only two choices.

However, I have to go to bed now, bye bye!

Perhaps she does not believe in abortion as many people consider that to be 'murder'.

I still don't see why an obviously unwanted child that would be fathered by a parent who does not want the child and wants no part in it when the relationship was clearly to not have a child until both were ready.

This should be a law. Equal protection is in the constitution.


If the woman dies during child birth or during an abortion, can her family sue the man for wrongful death? Provided she was using birth control responsibly and the guy just had super man sperm? I mean while we are making laws....

Well, in the case in point, the father didn't seem to want anything to do with the child... However, maybe people should be allowed to waive their rights and responsibilities that come with parenthood when they want to, provided it's permanent. A situation with parents with children they don't want makes no-one involved happy.

I agree - I was just pointing out that, legally, in the adoption arena, men and women have equal rights - and they both need the permission of the other.

The *only* decision a woman has available currently that a man does not have is whether or not to continue a pregnancy - and that is because she can get pregnant, while a man cannot.

But, like I said earlier, I don't think forcing parenthood on someone is a good option. It's basically society saying, "We don't give a shit about the child so long as we don't have to pay for it. You made it, you pay for it," without really trying to figure out if that is in the best interest of the child involved.

This should be a law. Equal protection is in the constitution.

This isn't a case of "equal protection". It may be a case of an inequity - but it is more of a biological one than a legal one. A man can get an abortion - as soon as he can get pregnant. The law is not unequal on that count.

Amazing.

So people are actually saying it is impossible for a man to turn down sex, even though he knows a child might result, and that because that eventuality is inconvenient to him, he should be able to just walk away from the consequences of his choice.

If the woman dies during child birth or during an abortion, can her family sue the man for wrongful death? Provided she was using birth control responsibly and the guy just had super man sperm? I mean while we are making laws....

No. That is an inherent risk of life. Thats similar to suing your parents because they gave you a genetic disease. That WILL NOT happen. I garuntee it.

I still don't see why an obviously unwanted child that would be fathered by a parent who does not want the child and wants no part in it when the relationship was clearly to not have a child until both were ready.

Don't have have sex until you are ready or get a vasectomy.

This isn't a case of "equal protection". It may be a case of an inequity - but it is more of a biological one than a legal one. A man can get an abortion - as soon as he can get pregnant. The law is not unequal on that count.

The law isn't about forcing a woman to get an abortion, it is about paying child support.

I still don't see why an obviously unwanted child that would be fathered by a parent who does not want the child and wants no part in it when the relationship was clearly to not have a child until both were ready.

You've forgotten something somewhere; your sentence makes no sense.

Ok, let's say you get into a car. You experience a moment of inattentiveness, and ram into the back of the car in front of you at a red light. You never intended to have a car accident -- and neither did the person sitting at the light.

Are you responsible for the consequences?

The law isn't about forcing a woman to get an abortion, it is about paying child support.

And, under the law, either biological parent who does not have custody of the child must pay child support.

Amazing.

So people are actually saying it is impossible for a man to turn down sex, even though he knows a child might result, and that because that eventuality is inconvenient to him, he should be able to just walk away from the consequences of his choice.

*coughs*

Yes I can say no to a beautiful naked woman!

*hopes she doesn't see the fingers crossed*

;)

And, under the law, either biological parent who does not have custody of the child must pay child support.

Um, yeah, that is what they are trying to change about the law . :p

So people are actually saying it is impossible for a man to turn down sex, even though he knows a child might result, and that because that eventuality is inconvenient to him, he should be able to just walk away from the consequences of his choice.
A woman can walk away from sex, yet abortions are a legally protected right. Hmm . . .

Um, yeah, that is what they are trying to change about the law . :p

You realize that if the mother is the non-custodial parent, SHE pays child support too, yes?

Um, yeah, that is what they are trying to change about the law . :p

Then you can't invoke "equal protection". Equal protection is already met.

It's funny reading all these comments about how unfair it is for "men."

Hate to tell you a "man" does not complain about his responsibilities.

Nowhere has it ever been declared that life is fair. An unexpected child even an expected child does make things harder.

If you want to call yourself a "man" then you step up and provide for your CHILD!

I can tell you from experience that even when you want the child, you don't have much money. It's a hard job and there are days you really wish you can sell the little monster.

Nobody asked for their spouse to die but you deal with it. Nobody asked for a parent or a spouse to be incapacitated and dependent on you but you deal with it.

You may not have wanted or planned for a child; you deal with it.

If you want to be a boy then by all means complain about it being unfair.

A woman can walk away from sex, yet abortions are a legally protected right. Hmm . . .

Not if you live in South Dakota.

It's funny reading all these comments about how unfair it is for "men."

Hate to tell you a "man" does not complain about his responsibilities.

Nowhere has it ever been declared that life is fair. An unexpected child even an expected child does make things harder.

If you want to call yourself a "man" then you step up and provide for your CHILD!

I can tell you from experience that even when you want the child, you don't have much money. It's a hard job and there are days you really wish you can sell the little monster.

Nobody asked for their spouse to die but you deal with it. Nobody asked for a parent or a spouse to be incapacitated and dependent on you but you deal with it.

You may not have wanted or planned for a child; you deal with it.

If you want to be a boy then by all means complain about it being unfair.

Well said BF.

Not if you live in South Dakota.
South Dakota doesn't count. Any state thats sole claim to fame is: "Hey guys, we're not as frozen and crappy as North Dakota!" doesn't belong in the Union. We should just sell both states to Canada.
And, as I said earlier, a man-abortion should only be legal if the woman could legally get an abortion. If it is passed a deadline or if they are in the wrong state, then the man has to stick with the brat just like the woman.

-snip-
It's funny reading all these comments about how unfair it is for "women."

Hate to tell you a "woman" does not complain about her responsibilities.

Nowhere has it ever been declared that life is fair. An unexpected child even an expected child does make things harder.

If you want to call yourself a "woman" then you step up and provide for your child.

That child is the sole reason for your existence, and to not center your life around it is a crime against nature's ordained way. To abandon your child and husband, even in an abusive relationship, would violate that way as well.

And always remember, tradition, nature and God have ordained my honor code and my definitions. They are the only way, and you WILL follow it.

It's funny reading all these comments about how unfair it is for "women."

Hate to tell you a "woman" does not complain about her responsibilities.

Nowhere has it ever been declared that life is fair. An unexpected child even an expected child does make things harder.

If you want to call yourself a "woman" then you step up and provide for your child.

That child is the sole reason for your existence, and to not center your life around it is a crime against nature's ordained way. To abandon your child and husband, even in an abusive relationship, would violate that way as well.

And always remember, tradition, nature and God have ordained my honor code and my definitions. They are the only way, and you WILL follow it.

I should have known that you know what it's like to be a woman. You know, there are a lot more single mothers than fathers. More women stepping up I guess.

In any case, being a single parent is hard. It's terrifying sometimes. It's tough to play the role of both mother and father.

I fully support this 'Paper abortion.' It's a matter of making the law as fair as possible within the confines of biology. Because it's the woman's body, a man can't force a woman to have an abortion - but both partners should have options in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

A woman has abortion, adoption or keeping the child. A man has... keeping the child. If the law recognizes that a woman has a right to have a way to opt out of the consequences of an unwanted child, then under the very principle enshrined in our Liberal Democracy of Equality under the Law, a man MUST have comprable options avaliable. The paper abortion is just that, and its time has come.

*blinks* The equal protection clause does not apply. For that to work, a male would have to get pregnant by a woman. The equal protection clause does not mean equal rights for everyone.

Amazing.

So people are actually saying it is impossible for a man to turn down sex, even though he knows a child might result, and that because that eventuality is inconvenient to him, he should be able to just walk away from the consequences of his choice.

On the contrary, just a LOT more against a man's nature. Evidence: the average lesbian has under 10 partners in her life. The average gay man has around 50.

And the argument that men should be able to legally separate themselves isn't that absurd. Women have the choice of adoption and abortion.

However, for it to be exactly equal, it must be considered that women go through more even if they abort or send the kid away. Therefore, I've held the opinion that a man should be able to opt out of PART of child support during the timespan of pregnancy, and thus pay for less time... I've always thought something like 2-4 years.

[QUOTE=Ravenshrike For that to work, a male would have to get pregnant by a woman. [/QUOTE]


I hope Science can make that happen one day.

A woman has abortion, adoption or keeping the child. A man has... keeping the child. If the law recognizes that a woman has a right to have a way to opt out of the consequences of an unwanted child, then under the very principle enshrined in our Liberal Democracy of Equality under the Law, a man MUST have comprable options avaliable. The paper abortion is just that, and its time has come.

For the record, from a legal perspective, the man has the same option of adoption that the woman does - neither parent can legally put a child up for adoption without the other doing the same. Neither can give up custody rights to the other without another parent there to take up the slack. And, as soon as a man can get pregnant, he will have the right to an abortion.

You cannot invoke the equal protection clause here - the laws are completely equal. If a man got pregnant, he would have the right to abort.

I should have known that you know what it's like to be a woman.
Up until now, I had always assumed that both sexes were equal in all respects, though biologically different. That must just be leftists propaganda, though, as women are apparently weeping sacks of loose nerves who can't take the responsibility that a man can.
Good thing we had the sense not to put one in the White House while we thought otherwise, isn't it?
You know, there are a lot more single mothers than fathers. More women stepping up I guess.
Or it is harder for the woman to run away and easier for a man to fuck up, get shot and be forced out of the family.
In any case, being a single parent is hard. It's terrifying sometimes. It's tough to play the role of both mother and father.
So? A lot of things are hard, but if you want to carry them for the benefit of a wad of meat and bone who will set about abandoning you and outgrowing you as soon as they drop out from between your legs, then you have to take the bitter with the equation.

Up until now, I had always assumed that both sexes were equal in all respects, though biologically different. That must just be leftists propaganda, though, as women are apparently weeping sacks of loose nerves who can't take the responsibility that a man can.
Good thing we had the sense not to put one in the White House while we thought otherwise, isn't it?

Until you start having babies, then no we arent equal in all respects.

So? A lot of things are hard, but if you want to carry them for the benefit of a wad of meat and bone who will set about abandoning you and outgrowing you as soon as they drop out from between your legs, then you have to take the bitter with the equation.

Easy there, you speak about things you know little (or nothing) about. Choose your battles FiddleBottoms.

For the record, from a legal perspective, the man has the same option of adoption that the woman does - neither parent can legally put a child up for adoption without the other doing the same. Neither can give up custody rights to the other without another parent there to take up the slack. And, as soon as a man can get pregnant, he will have the right to an abortion.

You cannot invoke the equal protection clause here - the laws are completely equal. If a man got pregnant, he would have the right to abort.

But seeing as a man cannot biologically get pregnant, the spirit of the right to equal protection under the law is not fulfilled.

You're arguing that they have the right because if they met the prerequistes for the right... they'd have it. It's like saying Segregation doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause, because if Blacks were White, they too would get to sit in the front of the bus and drink from the nice water fountains. It doesn't, or at the very least shouldn't work that way.

Clearly all men are sluts and should keep their damn legs shut. They know that pregnancy is a risk when engaging in sex.

I've seen this argument before.

But seeing as a man cannot biologically get pregnant, the spirit of the right to equal protection under the law is not fulfilled.

Actually, it is perfectly fulfilled. The laws apply equally to all.

This is like saying, "Unless a woman can get a vasectomy, equal protection under the law is not fulfilled." There are basic biological differences between men and women, they cannot be legislated away.

You're arguing that they have the right because if they met the prerequistes for the right... they'd have it.

No. They do have it. They just don't have a chance to need to exercise it. I have the right to walk to the store. Someone without the use of their legs has this right as well, but cannot walk. It doesn't change the fact that they have the right.

It's like saying Segregation doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause, because if Blacks were White, they too would get to sit in the front of the bus and drink from the nice water fountains. It doesn't, or at the very least shouldn't work that way.

This is hardly comparable.

This is hardly comparable.

I call BS on that one. It's eminantly comparable. just because it's unapealing in the modern political era doesn't invalidate the accuracy of the comparison

Explain how you think it isn't in the same ballpark.

Actually, it is perfectly fulfilled. The laws apply equally to all.

This is like saying, "Unless a woman can get a vasectomy, equal protection under the law is not fulfilled." There are basic biological differences between men and women, they cannot be legislated away.



I have the right to walk to the store. Someone without the use of their legs has this right as well, but cannot walk. It doesn't change the fact that they have the right.


If you interpret abortion as a right to not be forced into raising a child you don't want, rather than simply the act of voiding a pregnancy, then it's very much comparable.

No. They do have it. They just don't have a chance to need to exercise it. I have the right to walk to the store. Someone without the use of their legs has this right as well, but cannot walk. It doesn't change the fact that they have the right.

And here we have the anti-gay marriage argument. "Gays have as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as straights."

Actually, it is perfectly fulfilled. The laws apply equally to all.

Technically fulfilling that, when a situation makes the law by default be unappliable to a large portion of people, can require a change in law to make things more truly fair.

This is like saying, "Unless a woman can get a vasectomy, equal protection under the law is not fulfilled." There are basic biological differences between men and women, they cannot be legislated away.

No one's trying to legislate away biological differences, or deny them in any way, just to make the law more fair. As such women get the real abortion option, men get the paper abortion option.

EDIT - I'm not saying men have the LITERAL right to an abortion, but just as the female version of a vasectomy - getting the tubes tied - is legal at the same time as a vasectomy is legal, a paper abortion should be legal alongside an abortion.

No. They do have it. They just don't have a chance to need to exercise it. I have the right to walk to the store. Someone without the use of their legs has this right as well, but cannot walk. It doesn't change the fact that they have the right.

No, but they still have the right to GO to the store - hence laws requiring handicapped ramps and whatnot. An example of all I'm asking for - that rights and the law be as equal as possible.

What is so horrible about having a metaphorical 'handicap ramp' for men with regards to having children?

This is hardly comparable.

I highly disagree. Segregation was much more horrific, and as such perhaps it's a slightly hyperbolic comparison on my part, but still comparable.

Clearly all men are sluts and should keep their damn legs shut. They know that pregnancy is a risk when engaging in sex.

I've seen this argument before.

And here we have the anti-gay marriage argument. "Gays have as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as straights."

Very nice responses. Very nice indeed.:)

And here we have the anti-gay marriage argument. "Gays have as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as straights."

I just shuddered at that one. I hadn't thought of the similarity, but yeah... it's there.

Very nice responses. Very nice indeed.:)

Yep....that's amazingly clear lol..

It's funny reading all these comments about how unfair it is for "men."

1)Hate to tell you a "man" does not complain about his responsibilities.

2)Nowhere has it ever been declared that life is fair. An unexpected child even an expected child does make things harder.

3)If you want to call yourself a "man" then you step up and provide for your CHILD!

4)I can tell you from experience that even when you want the child, you don't have much money. It's a hard job and there are days you really wish you can sell the little monster.

5)You may not have wanted or planned for a child; you deal with it.

6)If you want to be a boy then by all means complain about it being unfair.

None of these points are valid.

1) Hate to tell you, but you are not in the position to define what a "man" is.

2) No one is stating that life must be fair, only that the law must be fair and equal to everyone.

3) Fatherhood is not determined by biology only. Furthermore, it would seem hypocritical for you declare a man's obligation to a CHILD when referring to a pregnancy. Would not the woman have the same obligations?

4) This doesn't have any bearing whatsoever.

5) And you can deal with it by responsibly letting the woman know of your stance with enough time for the woman to make a decision for herself. You deal with it by helping resolve the pregnancy.

6) How about this for a ridiculous gender label:
If you want to be a lady keep your legs closed.

Quit telling everyone what it takes to be a "man"

Yep....that's amazingly clear lol..

You're saying I'm not clear? I liked the way he responded. It was skillful and insightful, and IMHO effective. Clearer?:)

You're saying I'm not clear? I liked the way he responded. It was skillful and insightful, and IMHO effective. Clearer?:)

Very nice response! :)

Actually, it is perfectly fulfilled. The laws apply equally to all.

Would you say that men do not have equal ability to become a parent?

If a woman has a legal right to refuse to become a parent, would not a man have that same right?

I have said that the man should be responsible for resolving the pregnancy to the woman's wishes, but he should have no obligation to raising the child if he expresses that intention reasonably and responsibly.

Clearly all men are sluts and should keep their damn legs shut. They know that pregnancy is a risk when engaging in sex.

I've seen this argument before.
There needs to be some contractual protection for men from either incompetent or spiteful women. Child support needs to be alot more strictly enforced, which it will never be because police are too understaffed to do everything that is their job, but all men who "have" children should not always be held responsible for those children. All cases are not all the same.

Very nice response! :)

Har har har.:p

I am SO going to send this legal team money. Even if the lawsuit fails, it may someday lead to a change that may benefit men in my position.

I pay $704 a month in child support. For one child. I am not a millionaire, and that amounts to about half of my take home pay a month. I have a graduate degree and two jobs, yet I can't afford an apartment. I am 29 years old and had to move back in with my freaking parents.

This was four years ago. The mother and I were not married, and had only been dating for four months. We initially used condoms, but after getting tested, we decided they weren't necessary since she told me that she was on birth control. Unfortunately for me, she lied. She became pregnant, and I freaked. However, I offered to pay for an abortion. She said that she would, as long as I didn't break up with her because of it. I wasn't going to anyways, I just have never wanted to be a parent, and had told her that before we started getting "serious". I also have Crohn's Disease, which is hereditary, and have no desire to risk passing it on.

A month later, after talking with her mother, she decided that for religious reasons, she could not have an abortion. There was nothing I could do. Unless I wanted to flee the country, or go to another state and be a "dead beat dad" and hope I'm not tracked down.

So I say "go team!"

(By the way, I italicised religious above in an unsuccessful attempt to display all the hatred and derision I have towards religion. I was a quiet atheist before. Now I want to lead a secular jihad against religion, I'm just short on followers)

Why should the woman be the only one to have to make sacrifices when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? What if both the man and woman neither wanted a child and the birth control methods they were using failed (it happens). If the woman decides to have the baby, why should he be allowed to forfeit contibuting to the welfare of the child?
If she didn’t want it, should have had a fucking abortion!
Why does only the woman get a say in an event that involved both and could ruin both lives?

If a woman can void responsibly unilaterally, than a man should be able to as well, especially when the bitch lies and says she can’t get pregnant.

I am SO going to send this legal team money. Even if the lawsuit fails, it may someday lead to a change that may benefit men in my position.

I pay $704 a month in child support. For one child. I am not a millionaire, and that amounts to about half of my take home pay a month. I have a graduate degree and two jobs, yet I can't afford an apartment. I am 29 years old and had to move back in with my freaking parents.

This was four years ago. The mother and I were not married, and had only been dating for four months. We initially used condoms, but after getting tested, we decided they weren't necessary since she told me that she was on birth control. Unfortunately for me, she lied. She became pregnant, and I freaked. However, I offered to pay for an abortion. She said that she would, as long as I didn't break up with her because of it. I wasn't going to anyways, I just have never wanted to be a parent, and had told her that before we started getting "serious". I also have Crohn's Disease, which is hereditary, and have no desire to risk passing it on.

A month later, after talking with her mother, she decided that for religious reasons, she could not have an abortion. There was nothing I could do. Unless I wanted to flee the country, or go to another state and be a "dead beat dad" and hope I'm not tracked down.

So I say "go team!"

(By the way, I italicised religious above in an unsuccessful attempt to display all the hatred and derision I have towards religion. I was a quiet atheist before. Now I want to lead a secular jihad against religion, I'm just short on followers)


I'm with you on the war against religion, brother! And, like I've mentioned earlier in this very thread, I know a couple of guys in very similar shoes to your own.

A month later, after talking with her mother, she decided that for religious reasons, she could not have an abortion.
That bitch. You aren't religious, why should you have to provide for her dumb assery and lies?
(By the way, I italicised religious above in an unsuccessful attempt to display all the hatred and derision I have towards religion. I was a quiet atheist before. Now I want to lead a secular jihad against religion, I'm just short on followers)
Where are the Stalinists when you need them?

If she didn’t want it, should have had a fucking abortion!
Why does only the woman get a say in an event that involved both and could ruin both lives?

If a woman can void responsibly unilaterally, than a man should be able to as well, especially when the bitch lies and says she can’t get pregnant.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is something you will probably never have to worry about.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is something you will probably never have to worry about.
It's all victim culture.

Oh no, we are meek and vulnerable womens, give us moneys and pity us!

It's asinine. All situations are not the same, blanket rules should not apply to all. And child and spousal support is doled out practically as punishment for the husband. Then you just prove the victim culture idea by insulting some one for questioning the situation and getting emotional at the causes.

It's all victim culture.

Oh no, we are meek and vulnerable womens, give us moneys and pity us!

It's asinine. All situations are not the same, blanket rules should not apply to all. And child and spousal support is doled out practically as punishment for the husband. Then you just prove the victim culture idea by insulting some one for questioning the situation and getting emotional at the causes.


So then if blanket rules should not apply to all, do you feel this law would be a bad idea?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is something you will probably never have to worry about.
You're probably right about that. Fortunately, I couldn’t care less.

Well it seems that this law would be good only after everyone see what happens to men and women who are affected by it.

Score 1 for human rights.

So then if blanket rules should not apply to all, do you feel this law would be a bad idea?
Even if this were allowed to go anywhere in a victim culture like ours, it would never be a blanket rule.

Not this again. Every couple of months we get a new crop of posters with the same flawed logic. Child support has bullocks to do with the mother. It is a right of the child. Abortion prevents a birth like anything else that prevents a birth. This document simply allows men to abandon children.

Abortion - no child

This document - child

There is no comparison.

If she didn’t want it, should have had a fucking abortion!
Why does only the woman get a say in an event that involved both and could ruin both lives?

If a woman can void responsibly unilaterally, than a man should be able to as well, especially when the bitch lies and says she can’t get pregnant.

You compare apples and oranges. In an abortion, there is no third party to consider. With this document, a third party is present and has rights and this document does not allow anyone to protect the rights of that party, the child.

When you find a way that a man can die during childbirth then you'll have an argument for why it's not fair that men have no say in abortion. Until then, sit down and accept the laws of nature.

Until you start having babies, then no we arent equal in all respects.
In legal respects? Yes, we're supposed to be equal. Under the current system the mother has final say on the child, whether to keep it or dispose of it.
Why, then, should the father be bound to her desicion? You're trying to define the line of responsibility at one point for the woman, and then 9 months earlier for the man.
Easy there, you speak about things you know little (or nothing) about. Choose your battles FiddleBottoms.
Thankfully, the parties I'm in interested in lack fertility (among other things) so I've no concern about kids. However, my point was that, should you want the benefits of parenthood, you have to suffer the costs of parenthood, it is common sense.
I may enjoy jogging, and find it personally up-lifting, but I have to acknowledge the ooportunity cost of jogging and I've got no right to force a jogging partner into a long-term commitment.

If a man can be held financially responsible, then doesn't he also have the right to seek an abortion. If only the woman can make the final descision on whether or not to have a child, then I fail to see how the man should be held responsible.
If anyone has a right to an abortion, then everyone does. I fully support the right of males to choose to have an abortion, I'm just not convinced many men will have much use for such a right given their astonishing rates of non-pregnancy. If I didnt know better, I might even conclude that men's biggest barrier to abortions is their failure to fall pregnant!:eek:

Of course not. You don't force the woman to have an abortion, you allow the man to seek a 'paper abortion'.
Aha, and the child can go get stuffed, as can the UN with their silliness about Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention.
Basically he would give up all responsibility and relation to the child. Despite the fact that it shares his DNA, it would no longer be considered his child, and he wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.
And a child would be one parent short before they even started life, and along with that up to 2 grandparents short, how many uncles, cousins, etc short, but none of that matters as long as adult men (many of whom had two parents) dont have to face the possible consequences of their own choices.

As a woman, I support paper abortions for men. It isn't fair for a man to have to pay for a child that he didn't want just because his lover decided to keep it.
It is however absolutely fair to take away a child's rights to their own parents. Whyever grown men should have to face the consequences of their own choices to save children from having to deal with the consequences of someone elses (their 'aborted x-parent') choices, I dont know. It's definately more fair to make children pay for the consequences of grown-ups choices than it is to make grown-ups pay the consequences for their own choices.

Especially in cases where a man is tricked into fathering a child. I've heard of cases of girls punching holes in their boyfriends' condoms so they'll get pregnant and they can stay together. Some women might lie about being on contraceptives. But anyway you put it, I don't think that a person should be forcefully held responsible for a child they don't consider to be their own.
Wow, and if I dont consider my fist to be my own should I be held responsible when it bashes someone in the head?

Some people blame the man because it's his fault for sticking it in the woman. If you're the same people who support abortion for woman and get on the cases of people who blame women for their being pregnant because they had sex you should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact that it takes two to tango goes both ways, it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault
Yes, because it is always about blame and never about trying to get the best end result from an unfortunate set of circumstances.

The fact is there are consequences to choices, an unwanted pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, but for men an abortion is not. It is not unusual that there are different consequences for different people. That's just how life is. A child should not be deprived of their right to have 2 legally responsible parents. If anything we should be doing what we can to get irresponsible parents to play a more productive role in their childrens' lives, not to throw up their hands and declaim any responsibility whatsoever!

This should be a law. Equal protection is in the constitution.
And so...who is deprived of equal protection and in what respect?

I fully support this 'Paper abortion.' It's a matter of making the law as fair as possible within the confines of biology.
Of course, because making a child pay for the choices of adults is certainly much fairer than making adults pay for their own choices....
Because it's the woman's body, a man can't force a woman to have an abortion - but both partners should have options in the case of unwanted pregnancy.
Because it's a man's body a woman cant force him to have an abortion, or a vasectomy (or stop him from having one) or sex....
Evidently both parents do have options. Denying a child their most basic of rights just doesnt happen to be one of them.

A woman has abortion, adoption or keeping the child. A man has... keeping the child.
No, both parents have the choice of adoption, neither can choose to adopt out if they other objects. A man can choice an abortion if he gets pregnant, it really isnt the laws fault if he cant get pregnant. As for keeping the child, that is a matter for the parents to decide and in the absence of mutual consent, one that the courts (on application) will step in and mediate and if necessary decide for them. Neither parent has automatic exclusive custodial rights as a matter of law.

If the law recognizes that a woman has a right to have a way to opt out of the consequences of an unwanted child, then under the very principle enshrined in our Liberal Democracy of Equality under the Law, a man MUST have comprable options avaliable. The paper abortion is just that, and its time has come.
The law doesnt make such a recognition. You are misinformed if you believe that it does.
And thank you Jocabia for pointing out who's rights this law actually most effects. Amazing how you can get through this many pages of 'men xyz' and 'women xyz' rights, and fairness and la di da da, without a single mention of the children who's rights child support laws uphold.

No because its not his body. He who will be carrying another person inside them for 9 months, feeling ill, missing work, going through severe pain. A man cant "seek to have an abortion" if the woman is unwilling to have one. What would you suggest? A law that forces women to have an abortion just because the man she slept with doesnt want to pay money?

No, you don't force her to do anything, you just say he's officially unconnected to the pregnancy.

And a child would be one parent short before they even started life, and along with that up to 2 grandparents short, how many uncles, cousins, etc short, but none of that matters as long as adult men (many of whom had two parents) dont have to face the possible consequences of their own choices.
And a man will be at least 18 years of his life short, and that is assuming he can get out cleanly as soon as the brat becomes an adult.
Wow, and if I dont consider my fist to be my own should I be held responsible when it bashes someone in the head?
Well, that depends. Does your fist have a will of its own? Have you made a concentrated effort to remove your fist?
Somehow, I doubt it, and I doubt your analogy. You fail.
Yes, because it is always about blame and never about trying to get the best end result from an unfortunate set of circumstances.

The fact is there are consequences to choices, an unwanted pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, but for men an abortion is not. It is not unusual that there are different consequences for different people. That's just how life is. A child should not be deprived of their right to have 2 legally responsible parents. If anything we should be doing what we can to get irresponsible parents to play a more productive role in their childrens' lives, not to throw up their hands and declaim any responsibility whatsoever!
Or maybe we should realize that forcing people to do with children that they didn't want, don't want, and won't want is a cause of absentee parenting? Maybe if society weren't so concerned with demanding that the token gestures are made, there would be more effort shown.
And so...who is deprived of equal protection and in what respect?
The right to own one's body. A woman has the right to shuck a kid if the pregnancy/raising will cause her unwanted. The man should then have a right to shuck the kid if the 18 years of government-backed extortion will cause him unwanted distress.
Of course, because making a child pay for the choices of adults is certainly much fairer than making adults pay for their own choices....

Because it's a man's body a woman cant force him to have an abortion, or a vasectomy (or stop him from having one) or sex....
Evidently both parents do have options. Denying a child their most basic of rights just doesnt happen to be one of them.
But the right to control their body is. When a father paying child support goes to work, a certain portion of his wages are taken from him each day, this amounts to taking X amount of hours from him each day that he will never see again for 18 years.

And a man will be at least 18 years of his life short, and that is assuming he can get out cleanly as soon as the brat becomes an adult.
No parent so far as I know looses 18 years by virtue of being a parent.

Well, that depends. Does your fist have a will of its own? Have you made a concentrated effort to remove your fist?
Somehow, I doubt it, and I doubt your analogy. You fail.
Will had nothing to do with my analogy, I have no idea what you mean by 'concentrated effort to remove'. Either way it has nothing to do with my analogy. The point is we dont make a rule to cater for everything everyone 'considers'.

Or maybe we should realize that forcing people to do with children that they didn't want, don't want, and won't want is a cause of absentee parenting?
We could but then we'd be idiots. Forcing someone to not be absent is not a cause of absence. In fact so far as I can tell forcing someone to not be absent is probably a cause of non-absence.

Maybe if society weren't so concerned with demanding that the token gestures are made, there would be more effort shown.
Maybe if it rained pink elephants people will all live forever.

The right to own one's body.
Is not unequal. Both men and women have the right to opt in or out of medical treatment.

A woman has the right to shuck a kid if the pregnancy/raising will cause her unwanted. The man should then have a right to shuck the kid if the 18 years of government-backed extortion will cause him unwanted distress.No, women do not have such a right. You are mistaken.

But the right to control their body is. When a father paying child support goes to work, a certain portion of his wages are taken from him each day, this amounts to taking X amount of hours from him each day that he will never see again for 18 years.
Neither party has more or less rights to control their body. A female parent is equally responsible for providing financial support to a father who has custodial care of their child.

I may enjoy jogging, and find it personally up-lifting, but I have to acknowledge the ooportunity cost of jogging and I've got no right to force a jogging partner into a long-term commitment.

The parachute of your analogy has snagged on the ever-shrinking firt of my comprehension.

None of these points are valid.

1) Hate to tell you, but you are not in the position to define what a "man" is.

Ahh but you are?


2) No one is stating that life must be fair, only that the law must be fair and equal to everyone.

Law? Life? spin it any way you want. It doesn't change the point.


3) Fatherhood is not determined by biology only. Furthermore, it would seem hypocritical for you declare a man's obligation to a CHILD when referring to a pregnancy. Would not the woman have the same obligations?

Biology is a major factor of the equation. Nice attempt to marginalize the aspect of it.

Never mind the fact that this thread is about how unfair it is for men to provide for children they help create.


4) This doesn't have any bearing whatsoever.

Try reading the thread before commenting. Some of the complaints were about money.


5) And you can deal with it by responsibly letting the woman know of your stance with enough time for the woman to make a decision for herself. You deal with it by helping resolve the pregnancy.

He can also avoid problems by using his hand.

You still have the problem of he said she said. You can talk about legal documents which is fine. However, I really doubt you will get laid much if you really think it will work.


6) How about this for a ridiculous gender label:
If you want to be a lady keep your legs closed.

Nice attempt of a dismisal. Fact remains. A man takes responcibility. Boys complain about it and try to run from it.

Quit telling everyone what it takes to be a "man"

Hmmmm? Nope. Sorry.

You can shut me up when "men" start taking responcibility for their actions.

You can shut me up when "men" start taking responcibility [sic] for their actions.

Either men know how to spell (and you aren't one), or they are by nature idiots.



Funny how everyone seemed to miss my proposal of a pre-emptive shortening of the timespan of payments, rather than simply abandonment, and also the note that the "right to abortion" is not a right to the surgery itself, but the right of control of one's own reproduction. When interpreted in that (more broad, and perfectly valid) sense, then women have that right after sex but before birth, whereas men don't.

This is an pretty old debate. At least 7 + years old. When I took Ethics in college this was my paper for the class. I wish I still had it I could post it, but in a nutshell here goes.

If I give you seeds to eat and instead you plant them and try to sell the fruit/vegetables and no one wants to buy. You shouldn't be able to make me buy them just cause you decided to grow them.

There was another using a factory motif...but I like this one. The above is a paraphrase from someone else 7+ years ago.

I call BS on that one. It's eminantly comparable. just because it's unapealing in the modern political era doesn't invalidate the accuracy of the comparison

Explain how you think it isn't in the same ballpark.

It isn't in the same ballpark because, in one case, we are talking about a basic biological difference that has an effect on what someone can do. A better analogy was the one I used - that a person without the use of their legs cannot walk, but still has the right to do so. Ethnic issues are based on perceived differences that are not biological - thus not comparable.

It's like saying, "It is discrimination against men to have different fitness tests for women." It isn't discrimination at all - because a fit woman will have different measures than a fit man. Now, if you said, "Black men have to meet one criteria and white men have to meet another," that would be discrimination as there is no basic biological difference that would create such a distinction.

If you interpret abortion as a right to not be forced into raising a child you don't want, rather than simply the act of voiding a pregnancy, then it's very much comparable.

Using that interpretation, however, is legally incorrect. There is no "right not to be forced into raising a child." There is, however, a right to make one's own medical decisions. The right to have an abortion stems from the right to control one's own body and end a pregnancy, not from some nebulous right to not have children.

And here we have the anti-gay marriage argument. "Gays have as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as straights."

Once again, hardly comparable. In one case, we are talking about something which a person is incapable of. I am incapable of running a 5K race. However, I still have the right to do it. The fact that I am incapable is irrelevant. In the issue of same-sex marriage, both parties are perfectly capable of, together, being in the situation for which marriage was derived.

Men have a right to make their own medical decisions. If it were possible for them to get pregnant, abortion would be one of those options.

Technically fulfilling that, when a situation makes the law by default be unappliable to a large portion of people, can require a change in law to make things more truly fair.

It might, but you cannot invoke "equal protection" in doing so. You just have to say, "This biological difference makes things unfair, so I want to make them more fair through the law." Trying to invoke the equal protection clause is what you are doing wrong here.

Of course, if the "paper abortion" were available, it would have to be available to both parents. Thus, a woman, even before a child was born, would be able to give up all of her rights and responsibilities to the father.

No one's trying to legislate away biological differences, or deny them in any way, just to make the law more fair. As such women get the real abortion option, men get the paper abortion option.

...which still doesn't invoke the equal protection clause.

Would you say that men do not have equal ability to become a parent?

Of course. But that isn't a product of the law. It is the product of a basic biological difference.

If a woman has a legal right to refuse to become a parent, would not a man have that same right?

Currently, both men and women have the exact same "legal right to refuse to become a parent." They can both give a child up for adoption - so long as the other does so as well, or the other has a significant other willing to take on the burden.

Abortion is not a "legal right to refuse to become a parent." It is a legal right to decide what your body will and will not be used for. The effect of not becoming a parent is a byproduct of this right.

I have said that the man should be responsible for resolving the pregnancy to the woman's wishes, but he should have no obligation to raising the child if he expresses that intention reasonably and responsibly.

There is no way to "responsibly" give up your responsibilities to a child. But, if a man is so irresponsible that he would wish to do this, I think the child will be much better with the man out of his life. I don't think anyone should ever be forced into parenthood by law - it should be a voluntary choice. However, you can't expect me to think that a decision not to do so when you have fathered or carried a child is responsible or reasonable.

Once again, hardly comparable. In one case, we are talking about something which a person is incapable of. I am incapable of running a 5K race. However, I still have the right to do it. The fact that I am incapable is irrelevant. In the issue of same-sex marriage, both parties are perfectly capable of, together, being in the situation for which marriage was derived.

Men have a right to make their own medical decisions. If it were possible for them to get pregnant, abortion would be one of those options.

Entirely comparable. Gay people have the every much the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as a straight person. Just because they're incapable of wanting to wed a member of the opposite sex does not mean that they do not possess the right to do so. We make concessions for handicapped people. Handicapped people have every right to enter a building as a person capable of walking. Just because they can't use the stairs doesn't mean they don't possess the right.

I don't even support this law, but at least it is a consistent argument. Man doesn't want child; man expresses this to woman. Woman and man agree not to have child. Woman gets pregnant; decides to have child anyway. Man is left without any recourse and is now stuck in a situation he clearly expressed intent not to end up in. It hardly seems fair, unless we're into the whole punishing people for having sex thing.

Of course, if the "paper abortion" were available, it would have to be available to both parents. Thus, a woman, even before a child was born, would be able to give up all of her rights and responsibilities to the father.

Including the responsibilities of gestation. That way, the man would be forced to find another way to have the child brought to term if he wanted it. Just because the father wants the child does not mean the mother should be forced to carry it for nine months.

This whole damned thing irritates the crap outta me! WTF is wrong with people on this issue? If you don't want a child, then don't have sex without some form of pregnancy prevention! DUH!

And what about the child? He or she didn't ask to be brought into this world. He or she is the ultimate innocent third party; they had no say whatsoever, yet they are the one to suffer for either of the other party's lack of responsibility.

The hell with BOTH men and women if they don't accept responsibility for the little person they both brought into the world! Bastids. :mad:

2) No one is stating that life must be fair, only that the law must be fair and equal to everyone.

There has never been a requirement that the law be "fair", especially when it comes to basic biological differences - one of the few areas in which the courts have held that the government can posit a compelling interest for differential treatment.

And, currently, the law *is* equal to everyone. Everyone has control of their own bodies, every parent has the same legal options to adoption and taking custody of a child.

You may argue that the law should be changed to include this option, but you cannot logically argue that your reason for doing so is to get "equal" treatment.

3) Fatherhood is not determined by biology only. Furthermore, it would seem hypocritical for you declare a man's obligation to a CHILD when referring to a pregnancy. Would not the woman have the same obligations?

The obligation attributed to the father to a child assumes that one has been born - that a pregnancy has been (or is being and thus there will be a child) carried to term. When it comes down to it, a father currently has no legal obligation to anything concerning a pregnancy - as he is not pregnant. His legal obligations are to a child that is born - and they are the same obligations as the woman involved.

5) And you can deal with it by responsibly letting the woman know of your stance with enough time for the woman to make a decision for herself. You deal with it by helping resolve the pregnancy.

There is nothing responsible about not taking care of a child that is yours. And, that is essentially what a man would be doing by using this document - as, if a child is never born, the document is irrelevant. You may argue that it should be allowed, but to argue that it is responsible is like saying, "It's responsible for me to drink until I can't see straight and then go in to work the next morning hungover." It may be legally allowed - but it sure as hell isn't responsible.

Entirely comparable. Gay people have the every much the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as a straight person.

...which is not the same as the right to marry.

On the other hand, all citizens of this country have the right to determine what to do with their own bodies - to make their own medical decisions. Because of basic biological differences between men and women, this means that some choices are available to men and some to women - but this is not a *legal* distinction. It is a biological one. Men can have vasectomies, women cannot. Women can have tubal ligations, men cannot. Men get their prostates examined more often than women during regular checkups. Women need a yearly pap to be on birth control pills (which they can get, and men cannot), while men do not. None of these are legal distinctions - they are medical and biological ones - while the distinction you are bringing up is a legal one.

Hence, not comparable.

I don't even support this law, but at least it is a consistent argument. Man doesn't want child; man expresses this to woman. Woman and man agree not to have child. Woman gets pregnant; decides to have child anyway. Man is left without any recourse and is now stuck in a situation he clearly expressed intent not to end up in. It hardly seems fair, unless we're into the whole punishing people for having sex thing.

The thing is that it "isn't fair", not because of a legal distinction - but because of a biological difference. I'm not saying that one cannot make an argument in favor of this law - but trying to invoke equal protection is ludicrous, unless of course you are going to make a "paper pap" for men as well. And maybe a "paper pregnancy". And maybe we should make a "paper male pattern baldness" for women.


Including the responsibilities of gestation. That way, the man would be forced to find another way to have the child brought to term if he wanted it. Just because the father wants the child does not mean the mother should be forced to carry it for nine months.

Apparently, you were reading an entirely different post from the one you quoted. I never said that anyone should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy. However, if the father can give up all rights and responsibilities to the child and leave it all on the mother, the mother must have the same right - equal protection and al. Thus, a woman could carry a pregnancy to term, but never have any rights or responsibilities to the child once it is born. Those would go to the father, or, if both parents had signed such a document - to the state.

...which is not the same as the right to marry.

On the other hand, all citizens of this country have the right to determine what to do with their own bodies - to make their own medical decisions. Because of basic biological differences between men and women, this means that some choices are available to men and some to women - but this is not a *legal* distinction. It is a biological one. Men can have vasectomies, women cannot. Women can have tubal ligations, men cannot. Men get their prostates examined more often than women during regular checkups. Women need a yearly pap to be on birth control pills (which they can get, and men cannot), while men do not. None of these are legal distinctions - they are medical and biological ones - while the distinction you are bringing up is a legal one.

Hence, not comparable.

You know, just saying "not comparable" at the end of a paragraph unrelated to what we're talking about doesn't make it so.

The anti-gay marriage crowd frequently states that we are attempting to redefine the right so that it fits what we want. Specifically, that we are attempting to redefine the right to wed as it currently exists as man-woman into the right to wed whomever we wish, regardless of gender. That is what is happening here. The right that these men are seeking is the right to not be a parent if you do not want to. Currently, a woman has abortion as an option if she does not want to be a parent. However, a man has no options if he does not want to be a parent, especially if the woman involved does. He is forced against his will to be something he never agreed to.

We see the "consent to have sex does not equal consent to have a child" argument frequently in the abortion debates. It appears from this thread that those people only believe that holds true for the women involved. For men, it appears that consent to have sex equals consent to all the potential consequences. Just because a man is agreeing to have sex with a woman does not mean he's agreeing to have a child with her.



The thing is that it "isn't fair", not because of a legal distinction - but because of a biological difference. I'm not saying that one cannot make an argument in favor of this law - but trying to invoke equal protection is ludicrous, unless of course you are going to make a "paper pap" for men as well. And maybe a "paper pregnancy". And maybe we should make a "paper male pattern baldness" for women.

This isn't about equal medical treatment for all. It's about the right to choose not to be a parent. Changing what we are arguing about to suit your goals is not helpful. These people are not arguing for equal medical procedures for all, regardless of gender. They are arguing for equal rights in the decision making process in regards to becoming a parent. What you say, it is reminiscent of the anti-gay marriage crowd.



Apparently, you were reading an entirely different post from the one you quoted. I never said that anyone should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy. However, if the father can give up all rights and responsibilities to the child and leave it all on the mother, the mother must have the same right - equal protection and al. Thus, a woman could carry a pregnancy to term, but never have any rights or responsibilities to the child once it is born. Those would go to the father, or, if both parents had signed such a document - to the state.

No, I was reading your post quite well, thank you. You stated that "Thus, a woman, even before a child was born, would be able to give up all of her rights and responsibilities to the father." That is, if a woman gets pregnant and does not want to have the child, she can forfeit all the rights and responsibilities of the child to the father. I would assume that would include childbirth. Meaning that, if the woman does not want the child but the man does, he can have it, and find a way to bring it to term.

Entirely comparable. Gay people have the every much the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as a straight person. Just because they're incapable of wanting to wed a member of the opposite sex does not mean that they do not possess the right to do so. We make concessions for handicapped people. Handicapped people have every right to enter a building as a person capable of walking. Just because they can't use the stairs doesn't mean they don't possess the right.

I don't even support this law, but at least it is a consistent argument. Man doesn't want child; man expresses this to woman. Woman and man agree not to have child. Woman gets pregnant; decides to have child anyway. Man is left without any recourse and is now stuck in a situation he clearly expressed intent not to end up in. It hardly seems fair, unless we're into the whole punishing people for having sex thing.

The true flaw here is that if we put in a handicap ramp, the building is denied support. In abortion there is no child and thus no issue of support. The law requires the EXACT same thing of women and men once a child becomes a part of the picture.

You know, just saying "not comparable" at the end of a paragraph unrelated to what we're talking about doesn't make it so.

Unrelated? It is the *entire* basis of what we are talking about.

The anti-gay marriage crowd frequently states that we are attempting to redefine the right so that it fits what we want. Specifically, that we are attempting to redefine the right to wed as it currently exists as man-woman into the right to wed whomever we wish, regardless of gender. That is what is happening here. The right that these men are seeking is the right to not be a parent if you do not want to.

...a right that *no one* currently has. A woman has a right to control her own body - which may end up meaning that she does not become a parent. But she has no right "not to be a parent if she doesn't want to." If a child is in the picture, and she is the parent, she has legal responsibilities to that child - same as the man.

We see the "consent to have sex does not equal consent to have a child" argument frequently in the abortion debates. It appears from this thread that those people only believe that holds true for the women involved. For men, it appears that consent to have sex equals consent to all the potential consequences. Just because a man is agreeing to have sex with a woman does not mean he's agreeing to have a child with her.

Of course it doesn't. But a man has no physical means of getting rid of a child - and has no more responsibilities to a child that is born than the woman does. Once again, this is a basic biological difference, not a legal one.

This isn't about equal medical treatment for all. It's about the right to choose not to be a parent.

Abortion is about medical treatment and the right to choose it for yourself. There is not, and has never been, "A right to choose not to be a parent." The effect of an abortion is that no one is a parent, but that has nothing to do witht he legal reason for a right to have one.

Changing what we are arguing about to suit your goals is not helpful.

I'm not changing what we are arguing about. If you are talking about the right to have an abortion, you are not talking about some "right to choose not to be a parent." You are talking about the right to control your own body and what medical procedures you have carried out.

These people are not arguing for equal medical procedures for all, regardless of gender. They are arguing for equal rights in the decision making process in regards to becoming a parent.

There really is no way to have such equal rights, as the woman can become physically pregnant, and the man cannot. Thus, the woman will always have more decision making possibilites than the man. Once again, this is not a legal distincition, but a biological one. Your argument is exactly like saying, "I want equal rights in the vasectomy decision making process." I can't have such rights, because I don't have a penis. It isn't that the law denies me such rights - it is that it is impossible for me to have them, based on my own biology.

What they are arguing for is that a man be able to give up his rights and responsibilities to a child that may or may not be born - which is logically not the same as the right to have an abortion - which stems from ownership of one's body. Like I said before, I don't think anyone, male or female, should be legally forced into parenthood because I think that doing so is not in the best interest of the child being parented. I am simply pointing out the fact that "equal protection" cannot be used here without twisting the law to say something it does not and never has.

What you say, it is reminiscent of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Once again, this is not comparable. You are trying to make up a new right that has never been a part of law - the "right to not be a parent." Abortion has nothing to do with such a right - but has to do with the right to determine the medical treatment of your own body. Thus, the paper abortion and the medical abortion are not legally comparable. And, if the paper abortion was allowed, both parents would have to have equal access to it.

No, I was reading your post quite well, thank you. You stated that "Thus, a woman, even before a child was born, would be able to give up all of her rights and responsibilities to the father." That is, if a woman gets pregnant and does not want to have the child, she can forfeit all the rights and responsibilities of the child to the father. I would assume that would include childbirth.
Meaning that, if the woman does not want the child but the man does, he can have it, and find a way to bring it to term.

Your assumption would be idiotic. There is not responsibility of childbirth to a child - because a child does not exist until after a pregnancy is over. I am talking about a woman who will carry to term, but will give up all rights to the child that *will* exist.

Ahh but you are?

Of course not, but I am not the one saying what it takes to be a "man."

Law? Life? spin it any way you want. It doesn't change the point.

So the law does not afford the same benefits and protections to everyone equally?

Biology is a major factor of the equation. Nice attempt to marginalize the aspect of it.

I said biology is not the only factor. Adoption would not be valid if it weren't. I've known men who found out the child wasn't theirs 20 years down the line. They still considered themselves the father.

Never mind the fact that this thread is about how unfair it is for men to provide for children they help create.

Once again, the man didn't create the child, he created a pregnancy. You would not call the fetus a child in a debate about abortion.

The man is responsible to the resolution of the pregnancy. He has a responsibility to let the woman know his intentions regarding the results of the pregnancy, and the responsibility to support the woman through the pregnancy.

Try reading the thread before commenting. Some of the complaints were about money.

It has no relevancy because this thread is about whether a man can choose to deny responsibility for the child, not how much it costs.

He can also avoid problems by using his hand.

So can a woman, outlaw abortions.

You still have the problem of he said she said. You can talk about legal documents which is fine. However, I really doubt you will get laid much if you really think it will work.

The legal process will occur after the pregnancy is confirmed.

Nice attempt of a dismisal. Fact remains. A man takes responcibility. Boys complain about it and try to run from it.

Once again, science has brought us to a point where sex only causes a pregnancy, not a child.

If you want to argue that sex creates a child, then the woman has the same responsibilities as the man. Don't have sex, or raise a child.

I would support this... with certain limits.

The case in which a man should have an ABSOLUTE right to "opt out" is when he is not married to his partner, and he and his partner have previously discussed the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy, and have agreed to either abort or put the child up for adoption. If, in good faith, he believed that these were his partner's intentions, he should not have to pay child support if she changes her mind.

On the other hand, if said partners had a contrary understanding to the effect that they would keep a child if an accident were to happen, the man should have no right to opt out. In my opinion, this should include cases in which there was no explicit agreement, but the man knew that the woman was pro-life, or a member of a religious/cultural group that he could reasonably expect to be pro-life. (Yes, adoption is still technically an option, but I think that unless the couple has an explicit understanding that a child would be put up for adoption, he should assume the risk.)

In other words, if he knows what he's getting into, then his "opt-out" right should be severely constrained.

Many of these issues may be difficult to prove--but so are many other legal questions. Moreover, it's not much help when it comes to one-night stands... but then, perhaps we should be discouraging those anyway.

EDIT: Actually, both to discourage risky behavior, and to maintain what I believe is an appropriate presumption of responsibility, I think that in the case of the one-night stand or casual sexual encounter, the man should assume the risk.

The burden of proof should lie with the father to show that he sincerely believed that his partner had no intention of keeping an accidental pregancy.

In the case at hand, I think he should have to pay. According to the CNN.com article, the man's ex-girlfriend never assured him that she would not keep a child resulting from an accidental pregnancy... she only assured him that, because of a medical condition, "she could not get pregnant."

We all know medicine is rarely 100%, and there are enough stories out there of infertile men/women "miraculously" having a child, that what we have here is a case in which he assumed (with some justification) a very low risk of pregnancy... and chose to take that risk.

His gamble did not pay off.

So the law does not afford the same benefits and protections to everyone equally?

Of course it does - for the most part. But, where there are basic biological differences, there will be differences in the application of the law. Do you know why we are allowed to have sex-segregated bathrooms? Do you know why it is ok for a job requiring a fitness test to have different end requirements for men and for women? Do you know why women have to get a pap smear for certain types of medications to be prescribed, but men do not?

Once again, the man didn't create the child, he created a pregnancy. You would not call the fetus a child in a debate about abortion.

What part of "helped create" are you missing? If the fetus develops into a child, then the man helped create a child. He only had input at the beginning, but he was a part of the process.

To compare the whimperings of a bunch of deadbeats to the struggle of women who wish to have control over their own bodies is pathetic. The only thing that disgusts me more than these men is the fact that there are women pathetic enough to have sex with them.

To compare the whimperings of a bunch of deadbeats to the struggle of women who wish to have control over their own bodies is pathetic. The only thing that disgusts me more than these men is the fact that there are women pathetic enough to have sex with them.
LOL! Get irritated much? :D

What part of "helped create" are you missing? If the fetus develops into a child, then the man helped create a child. He only had input at the beginning, but he was a part of the process.
I think Vito's phrasing is more apt, though. A man may help to create a pregnancy, but a woman's body (and ONLY her body) makes a pregnancy turn into a child. The man's body does NOT directly help to create a child.

LOL! Get irritated much? :D
Meh. Lots of stupid people in the world, and lots more who are (for some reason) eager to shag the stupid. What's a Bottle to do?

Meh. Lots of stupid people in the world, and lots more who are (for some reason) eager to shag the stupid. What's a Bottle to do?
Um ... put a cork in it? :D

Um ... put a cork in it? :D
Oooh, zing! :)

In a sense, though, that's exactly what I do...I tend to shut up about most irritants in the real world, and instead get to vent a bit around here. Letting off some steam at the stupidity of the human animal is what allows me to keep the "cork" in place on a day-to-day basis. ;)

I think Vito's phrasing is more apt, though. A man may help to create a pregnancy, but a woman's body (and ONLY her body) makes a pregnancy turn into a child. The man's body does NOT directly help to create a child.
Uh ... [ gives Bottle "the Lecture" about birds and bees ] :D

Oooh, zing! :)

In a sense, though, that's exactly what I do...I tend to shut up about most irritants in the real world, and instead get to vent a bit around here. Letting off some steam at the stupidity of the human animal is what allows me to keep the "cork" in place on a day-to-day basis. ;)
Well, just don't allow yourself to get too cynical. Cynicism can make you bitter and bitterness can make you dead! :fluffle:

Of course. But that isn't a product of the law. It is the product of a basic biological difference.

Parenthood is based far more in the legal realm then the biological realm. Abortion and adoption have created a situation where all the biology in the world cannot guarantee you a child.

Currently, both men and women have the exact same "legal right to refuse to become a parent." They can both give a child up for adoption - so long as the other does so as well, or the other has a significant other willing to take on the burden.

Abortion is not a "legal right to refuse to become a parent." It is a legal right to decide what your body will and will not be used for. The effect of not becoming a parent is a byproduct of this right.

This is a valid point.

However, for me abortion has always been the ability to decide whether one wants a child or not.

I am certainly not disagreeing with a woman's right to her own body, I just think abortion goes farther than that.

There is no way to "responsibly" give up your responsibilities to a child. But, if a man is so irresponsible that he would wish to do this, I think the child will be much better with the man out of his life. I don't think anyone should ever be forced into parenthood by law - it should be a voluntary choice. However, you can't expect me to think that a decision not to do so when you have fathered or carried a child is responsible or reasonable.

The thing is that the man would be giving up responsibility while there is no child, it is merely a pregnancy.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I want to constrain this "right" even further.

The father's burden of proof should be three-fold:

1) His partner expressed a commitment to avoiding pregnancy and aborting any accidental pregnancies; she MUST have expressed this on more than one occasion.

2) He believed her, in good faith.

3) He would not have had sex with her otherwise.

Honestly, I doubt many of the sex-crazed buffoons out there would actually give up sex with a willing woman if she were not completely committed to avoiding a pregnancy that might cost him money. Men are not known for thinking with their heads.

Also, this is difficult to prove, assuming the woman might be willing to perjure herself. They would probably both call friends to testify to the what had been mentioned in various discussions, or to testify to each partner's previous beliefs on abortion.

But, this suits my purpose better. I think that men should have some right to avoid child support when a partner lies, or when a woman changes her express opinion/promise to abort. Meanwhile, it maintains the essential presumption of male responsibility that I think is important to women's rights.

Uh ... [ gives Bottle "the Lecture" about birds and bees ] :D
Erm, who needs the lecture here? The male body does not directly contribute to the making of a baby from a fertilized egg. It contributes DNA to an egg, but it doesn't even contribute the necessary machinery for making that DNA into the actual cellular proteins that it encodes.

It's sort of like if you were making cookies, and a friend gave you a bag of chocolate chips. You provided all the other ingredients, you used your kitchen and all your cooking tools, you did all the mixing, all the baking, and all the clean up. At the end of the process, they did contribute to the cookies, but they did not in any way contribute to making the cookies. It would be dishonest of them to tell people that they "helped make the cookies" simply because they contributed the chocolate chips.

Well, just don't allow yourself to get too cynical. Cynicism can make you bitter and bitterness can make you dead! :fluffle:
What makes you think I'm not a zombie already?

Mwa ha ha ha....

Erm, who needs the lecture here? The male body does not directly contribute to the making of a baby from a fertilized egg. It contributes DNA to an egg, but it doesn't even contribute the necessary machinery for making that DNA into the actual cellular proteins that it encodes.

It's sort of like if you were making cookies, and a friend gave you a bag of chocolate chips. You provided all the other ingredients, you used your kitchen and all your cooking tools, you did all the mixing, all the baking, and all the clean up. At the end of the process, they did contribute to the cookies, but they did not in any way contribute to making the cookies. It would be dishonest of them to tell people that they "helped make the cookies" simply because they contributed the chocolate chips.
I'd love to see someone make "chocolate chip cookies" without the chocolate chips. Actually, a better analogy would be making bread without the yeast. :p

What makes you think I'm not a zombie already?

Mwa ha ha ha....
:eek:

Parenthood is based far more in the legal realm then the biological realm. Abortion and adoption have created a situation where all the biology in the world cannot guarantee you a child.



This is a valid point.

However, for me abortion has always been the ability to decide whether one wants a child or not.

I am certainly not disagreeing with a woman's right to her own body, I just think abortion goes farther than that.



The thing is that the man would be giving up responsibility while there is no child, it is merely a pregnancy.

In law, it is very important to consider when the agreement goes into effect. It does not have any effect if there is an abortion as he would not have had to pay anything anyway. It is only effective when a birth occurs and a child is in the picture. Thus your argument is flawed. This document denies the rights of a child only when a child exists. In an abortion, inevitably there will be no child, EVER. They cannot be compared. There is no way for the law to grant this type of privelege to a father where it would not be taking a right away from the child.

In every other legal document that involves a child the child's interests are represented. In this document the interests of the child are not represented at all. Look at adoption, there is a party that is taking responsibility for the child that represents the child's interests in the transaction. Look at a underaged person that enters the military (of which I was one), the parents must represent the interests of the child even though the child seems to be expressing his/her interests.

You are trying to create a legal inequality where none currently exists.

This is a valid point.

However, for me abortion has always been the ability to decide whether one wants a child or not.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think your view is entirely reasonable. A great many women who have abortions are already parents. A great many women who have abortions want very much to be parents, but do not feel they can be for one of many reasons.


The thing is that the man would be giving up responsibility while there is no child, it is merely a pregnancy.
If a woman's right to choose were not restricted, I would probably agree that a man should have the right to "opt out" before the birth of a child. But women are not free to choose. I guess men can consider this a good reason to fight for women's rights!

It's sort of like if you were making cookies, and a friend gave you a bag of chocolate chips. You provided all the other ingredients, you used your kitchen and all your cooking tools, you did all the mixing, all the baking, and all the clean up. At the end of the process, they did contribute to the cookies, but they did not in any way contribute to making the cookies. It would be dishonest of them to tell people that they "helped make the cookies" simply because they contributed the chocolate chips.

Well, at the moment I don't feel like reading all the previous posts, so I am jumping into this debate rather late (and I'm not even really sure what it's about), but I would like to point out that I don't find this analogy particularly convincing.

After all, if your friend never gave you the chocolate chips, you could still make cookies... just not chocolate chip cookies.

On the other hand, if a man never "did his part" in the pregnancy, you would not be baking a "cookie" at all.

:p

*snip*

I am beginning to agree with this more than my original stance. It does put the woman in an difficult position to make your decision known post-conception.

I just hate to see a man suffer the next 20 years through financial hardship because of the decision of a sexual partner. Especially one that may have been dishonest or vengeful.

In law, it is very important to consider when the agreement goes into effect. It does not have any effect if there is an abortion as he would not have had to pay anything anyway. It is only effective when a birth occurs and a child is in the picture. Thus your argument is flawed. This document denies the rights of a child only when a child exists. In an abortion, inevitably there will be no child, EVER. They cannot be compared. There is no way for the law to grant this type of privelege to a father where it would not be taking a right away from the child.

In every other legal document that involves a child the child's interests are represented. In this document the interests of the child are not represented at all. Look at adoption, there is a party that is taking responsibility for the child that represents the child's interests in the transaction. Look at a underaged person that enters the military (of which I was one), the parents must represent the interests of the child even though the child seems to be expressing his/her interests.

You are trying to create a legal inequality where none currently exists.

Once again, science has taken man completely out of the child making process. A man's input can be completely taken out, and a woman can have a child completely free and clear of a man's input.

Together they create a pregnancy, but the woman creates the child.

And I would never support the ability of a man to give away his responsibility post birth, so he would only be denying said responsibilities when there is no child.

Or maybe we should realize that forcing people to do with children that they didn't want, don't want, and won't want is a cause of absentee parenting? Maybe if society weren't so concerned with demanding that the token gestures are made, there would be more effort shown.

Here's an idea, quit fucking so much. Problem solved. Anytime you engage in vaginal intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. Period, end of matter. Well, unless you're fucking someone whose gone through menopause or someone who has yet to hit puberty. If the latter you need to be taken out back and shot. As such, having sex can be considered as an informal but binding contract to accept any and all fallout from the sexual encounter. Unless you were raised in a cage, you damn well know the possible consequences of your actions.

Well, at the moment I don't feel like reading all the previous posts, so I am jumping into this debate rather late (and I'm not even really sure what it's about), but I would like to point out that I don't find this analogy particularly convincing.

After all, if your friend never gave you the chocolate chips, you could still make cookies... just not chocolate chip cookies.

Right, and I'm not at all debating that. A father's DNA obviously has a huge impact on the kind of "cookies" that the mother can produce. :) But it still would be dishonest of him to claim that he "helped make the cookies," when what he really did was contribute one key ingredient.


On the other hand, if a man never "did his part" in the pregnancy, you would not be baking a "cookie" at all.
:p
Well, sort of.

I'm shitty at baking, so I probably shouldn't have picked the cookie analogy. Chocolate chips are, as you say, not as essential an ingredient as a sperm is to a pregnancy, so what about...butter? Is that essential for cookies? Whatever, think of an essential ingredient. Yes, you couldn't make cookies without the butter, but the point still stands: somebody who simply gives you butter for your cookies should not claim they "helped make the cookies." They contributed an essential ingredient, but they didn't help make the cookies.

I'm not saying this stuff to knock men. If it was up to me, human couples would be able to decide which one of them wanted to carry a pregnancy, and they'd be able to pass the pregnancy back and forth when one of them got tired of it. The unfair reality is that biology is not equal. Women's bodies make babies, men's bodies don't.

I think the measure of a father (and a real man, for that matter) is taken after his child is born. You don't have to biologically contribute to be a wonderful father, and biological contribution doesn't automatically make you a real Daddy. I freaking LOVE my Dad, and I would never suggest that men should stay out of parenting. I'm just saying that everybody should be honest about the biological process that leads to a baby entering the world. Men shouldn't feel bad about biological inequalities that they cannot control...instead, they should focus on the things they can control, like how to be a strong, loving, positive force in their child's life.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think your view is entirely reasonable. A great many women who have abortions are already parents. A great many women who have abortions want very much to be parents, but do not feel they can be for one of many reasons.

I don't understand how that makes my point unreasonable. Yes women can have abortions for biological reasons, but certainly "I don't want a(nother) child" would be enough justification for abortion.

If a woman's right to choose were not restricted, I would probably agree that a man should have the right to "opt out" before the birth of a child. But women are not free to choose. I guess men can consider this a good reason to fight for women's rights!

I do support full-term abortion, based solely on the decision of the woman without any outside input except the doctor.

I also would not support my current position without full freedom of reproductive rights for women.

Right, and I'm not at all debating that. A father's DNA obviously has a huge impact on the kind of "cookies" that the mother can produce. :) But it still would be dishonest of him to claim that he "helped make the cookies," when what he really did was contribute one key ingredient.

When all he did was hand his wife the chocolate chips and then walk away while she did all the work?

I don't understand how that makes my point unreasonable. Yes women can have abortions for biological reasons, but certainly "I don't want a(nother) child" would be enough justification for abortion.

Oh, sure, I agree on that. Of course, I think ANY reason is sufficient reason to have an abortion :).

But there are women who want to have a baby but don't want to be pregnant, that's my point. For instance, a woman who very much wants a child, but who has a medical condition that would result in her dying if she went through with a pregnancy. Or a woman with a genetic disease she does not want to pass on.

I guess I just misunderstood what you were saying.



I do support full-term abortion, based solely on the decision of the woman without any outside input except the doctor.

I also would not support my current position without full freedom of reproductive rights for women.
Well crap, we agree. What fun is that?! I don't even know how to interact without argument!!!!

Quick, somebody insult somebody's Mama!

Erm, who needs the lecture here? The male body does not directly contribute to the making of a baby from a fertilized egg. It contributes DNA to an egg, but it doesn't even contribute the necessary machinery for making that DNA into the actual cellular proteins that it encodes.

It's sort of like if you were making cookies, and a friend gave you a bag of chocolate chips. You provided all the other ingredients, you used your kitchen and all your cooking tools, you did all the mixing, all the baking, and all the clean up. At the end of the process, they did contribute to the cookies, but they did not in any way contribute to making the cookies. It would be dishonest of them to tell people that they "helped make the cookies" simply because they contributed the chocolate chips.

Especially if doctors give you complete control over the oven.

Once again, science has taken man completely out of the child making process. A man's input can be completely taken out, and a woman can have a child completely free and clear of a man's input.

Together they create a pregnancy, but the woman creates the child.

And I would never support the ability of a man to give away his responsibility post birth, so he would only be denying said responsibilities when there is no child.

When there is no child there are no responsibilities so your claim is false. It would be like you signing a document that says your child can be sold as a slave or denied the right to free speech and saying it's not a violation of the child's rights because you did it before you'd even gotten anyone pregnant. It doesn't work that way. Legally the document 'occurs' at the time it becomes effective, which is birth. The document has no effect on whether an abortion does or does not occur and thus has no bearing on the existence of the child and only has any effect at all when a child exists.

Especially if doctors give you complete control over the oven.

Really? I wasn't aware that doctors gave that to women. Prior to doctors men gave birth? I wasn't aware. Or perhaps, you're completely wrong.

But it still would be dishonest of him to claim that he "helped make the cookies," when what he really did was contribute one key ingredient.
That's true. I guess whether this is a meaningful distinction depends on what the point of the argument was. Without knowing why "we" care who "helps," I'm afraid it appears purely semantic to me. (This is admittedly my own fault for not reading the rest of the thread.)

When all he did was hand his wife the chocolate chips and then walk away while she did all the work?
Well, biologically speaking, that is pretty much what happens. But it's not like all guys are deliberately choosing to "walk away," it's just that they physically have no choice in the matter.

When there is no child there are no responsibilities so your claim is false. It would be like you signing a document that says your child can be sold as a slave or denied the right to free speech and saying it's not a violation of the child's rights because you did it before you'd even gotten anyone pregnant. It doesn't work that way. Legally the document 'occurs' at the time it becomes effective, which is birth. The document has no effect on whether an abortion does or does not occur and thus has no bearing on the existence of the child and only has any effect at all when a child exists.

Should there be an option for adoption then?

Really? I wasn't aware that doctors gave that to women. Prior to doctors men gave birth? I wasn't aware. Or perhaps, you're completely wrong.
I think you know what he means. Modern medicine gives women a level of control over their reproductive systems that they would not be able to enjoy otherwise. Doctors do not bestow the ability to become pregnant, but they do provide the means by which to increase or decrease the likelihood that pregnancy will occur or continue.

Really? I wasn't aware that doctors gave that to women. Prior to doctors men gave birth? I wasn't aware. Or perhaps, you're completely wrong.

Doctors should give women full reproductive rights.

Men did indeed have a good deal of control over a woman's body in the past. We have reached a point scientifically and morally where women can (or should be able to) exercise control over their own body.

Should there be an option for adoption then?

In adoption, there is a party representing the interests of the child in the transaction. Try again. I can give my child up for adoption at any stage in their life. It does not deny them their rights.

In adoption, there is a party representing the interests of the child in the transaction. Try again.

Just like the woman chooses to represent the interests of the child by following through with the pregnancy.

There has never been a legal requirement for a woman to provide a father before a child is born. So saying that a child has a legal right to a father is untrue.

I think you know what he means. Modern medicine gives women a level of control over their reproductive systems that they would not be able to enjoy otherwise. Doctors do not bestow the ability to become pregnant, but they do provide the means by which to increase or decrease the likelihood that pregnancy will occur or continue.

Modern medicine did no such thing. Induced abortion has existed for millenia. Modern medicine made it safer.

Just like the woman chooses to represent the interests of the child by following through with the pregnancy.

There has never been a legal requirement for a woman to provide a father before a child is born. So saying that a child has a legal right to a father is untrue.

In that case the caretaker is representing the interests of the child.

It's like this - if I give my child up for adoption it is the future caretaker that is representing the interests of the child going forward and thus responsible for okaying the transaction. It is not the parents giving the child up for adoption that are representing the child's future interests (the interests of the child when the document goes into effect).

See that. When a woman does not give up the name of the father she is representing the future interests of the child because is the caretaker at the time when the action becomes effective. In the case of this document, unless the woman agrees to sign it (which is already legal), there is no one representing the future interests of the child because the only party to the document is the person who has no involvement in the future interests of the child. This is the flaw in your argument and is without legal precedent (unless you're going to count slavery).

Either men know how to spell (and you aren't one), or they are by nature idiots.


Spelling and grammer hardly define intelligence. Try look at a few physicists.....


Funny how everyone seemed to miss my proposal of a pre-emptive shortening of the timespan of payments, rather than simply abandonment,


Ok so you delay abandonment for awhile.

Child support does have a timespan. But you knew that right?

and also the note that the "right to abortion" is not a right to the surgery itself, but the right of control of one's own reproduction. When interpreted in that (more broad, and perfectly valid) sense, then women have that right after sex but before birth, whereas men don't.

Sure men do. They don't have to have sex.

Sending some money hardly compares to the effort involved with raising a child.

It's like this - if I give my child up for adoption it is the future caretaker that is representing the interests of the child going forward and thus responsible for okaying the transaction. It is not the parents giving the child up for adoption that are representing the child's future interests (the interests of the child when the document goes into effect).

By agreeing to have the child the woman agrees to fully represent the child's interests. The father passes his responsibility on to her. Just like when biological parents pass their responsibilities on to the adopting parents (or the state, which is far more likely).

To compare the whimperings of a bunch of deadbeats to the struggle of women who wish to have control over their own bodies is pathetic. The only thing that disgusts me more than these men is the fact that there are women pathetic enough to have sex with them.

Simple and too the point!

:D

I think Vito's phrasing is more apt, though. A man may help to create a pregnancy, but a woman's body (and ONLY her body) makes a pregnancy turn into a child. The man's body does NOT directly help to create a child.

Technically. Correct. However, fact remains. No man; no child.

By agreeing to have the child the woman agrees to fully represent the child's interests. The father passes his responsibility on to her. Just like when biological parents pass their responsibilities on to the adopting parents (or the state, which is far more likely).

Um, no, she doesn't. Again, you are creating an inequality that instead of representing all interests equally suddenly makes it so the only one responsible to the child is the mother. If what you say is true then women should have full say as what happens to the child throughout its life and the father should have NONE. Is this really the road you want to go down? The argument that because women get last touch on the child that they are solely responsibile for it?

By agreeing to have the child the woman agrees to fully represent the child's interests. The father passes his responsibility on to her. Just like when biological parents pass their responsibilities on to the adopting parents (or the state, which is far more likely).

All I can saw is wow!

The deadbeats of this land would LOVE you!

For all your talk about personal responcibility.....right....

All I can saw is wow!

The deadbeats of this land would LOVE you!

For all your talk about personal responcibility.....right....

The man is still responsible for the pregnancy, providing for all medical bills caused by that.

But due to the fact that he only caused a pregnancy and not a child, he should be allowed to decide whether he accepts the child or not.

Its only fair to prevent money-grubbing women from ruining an ex-boyfriends life. It should be made law today!
Absolutely right! Especially here, where the ex-gf maliciously cheated the man, he shouldn't have to pay anything for her! :mad:

The man is still responsible for the pregnancy, providing for all medical bills caused by that.

But due to the fact that he only caused a pregnancy and not a child, he should be allowed to decide whether he accepts the child or not.
And your idea of personal responsibility is very limited. Most people accept that last touch doesn't eliminate all the responsibility of prior touches particularly when people knew their ability to control the situation was ended at their touch and knew the possible outcomes.

All I can saw is wow!

The deadbeats of this land would LOVE you!

For all your talk about personal responcibility.....right....
All cases are not the same.

A problem with heated, knee-jerk debates is people can't differentiate between two things that are similar but not the same.

Absolutely right! Especially here, where the ex-gf maliciously cheated the man, he shouldn't have to pay anything for her! :mad:
Where does the article say she "maliciously cheated" him?

Spelling and grammer hardly define intelligence. Try look at a few physicists.....
So your God now, right? Suddenly, it all makes sense, everything is the way it is because you say so! Cats are only felines provided that you give them permission, and you control the gates of masculinity!
Tell me, then, now that manhood has been defined, what constitutes a true Scotsman?
Sure men do. They don't have to have sex.
Neither do women, and I hardly see how the child's interests are served by their existence being cancelled.
Sending some money hardly compares to the effort involved with raising a child.
So? Getting shot in the foot is better than getting shot in the head.
Why does either one have to happen? Well, so that I can feel better about myself and insure that my particular honor system (all real men have bullet holes and illegitimate children) is maintained. We must think about the doctors here, people, they need their commissions from those surgeries.

So your God now, right? Suddenly, it all makes sense, everything is the way it is because you say so! Cats are only felines provided that you give them permission, and you control the gates of masculinity!

It's about time you accepted it!


Tell me, then, now that manhood has been defined, what constitutes a true Scotsman?


Look under his kilt.

This is a pretty difficult decision but in the end I'm going to have to oppose the new law. If it came in women might feel pressured into getting abortions, it would make it easier for deadbeats to avoid paying for their children and it would actually set back the cause of men's rights. Currently men have an unqualified right to see their child unless there is a pressing reason why they shouldn't (history of violence, etc.); if this law came into force it would compromise that unqualified right and weaken the legal position of the father.

Personally I'd say the best solution is to only sleep with women who you trust to take your views into account if a pregnancy occurs.

So your God now, right? Suddenly, it all makes sense, everything is the way it is because you say so! Cats are only felines provided that you give them permission, and you control the gates of masculinity!
Tell me, then, now that manhood has been defined, what constitutes a true Scotsman?

Neither do women, and I hardly see how the child's interests are served by their existence being cancelled.

So? Getting shot in the foot is better than getting shot in the head.
Why does either one have to happen? Well, so that I can feel better about myself and insure that my particular honor system (all real men have bullet holes and illegitimate children) is maintained. We must think about the doctors here, people, they need their commissions from those surgeries.

There is no child. It has no interests.

Parenthood is based far more in the legal realm then the biological realm. Abortion and adoption have created a situation where all the biology in the world cannot guarantee you a child.

Abortion and adoption were always options - although less based in legality and more based in social structure. A woman has always been able to try to abort a pregnancy - she simply has safer methods of doing so now than at other times in history. Parents could always give their children up if they could find someone else to take care of them (or just abandon them), but now there are legal means to do so.

This is a valid point.

However, for me abortion has always been the ability to decide whether one wants a child or not.

I am certainly not disagreeing with a woman's right to her own body, I just think abortion goes farther than that.

That is one way to look at it. But your personal viewpoint on the subject is not the same as the law on the subject - which is why "equal protection" cannot be invoked in the legal sense for this issue. One can try to argue for it from other angles, but invoking equal protection simply doesn't work.

The thing is that the man would be giving up responsibility while there is no child, it is merely a pregnancy.

Yes, but his decision would not have any direct impact on whether or not there was a child. A woman's decision to abort, in the end, means that there is no child - period. No one has to take care of a child. A man's decision to "paper abort" would be entirely different - as there might still be a child that needs support. This is the reason that, were a man allowed a "paper abortion", it would legally have to be allowed to a woman as well. A "paper abortion" only has any effect if there is a child.

It sounds like a good idea. If the woman is using birth control, it fails, and only the woman wants the child, the man should not have to pay.

Using that interpretation, however, is legally incorrect. There is no "right not to be forced into raising a child." There is, however, a right to make one's own medical decisions. The right to have an abortion stems from the right to control one's own body and end a pregnancy, not from some nebulous right to not have children.

Well in this case you could argue that a mans right to control his own body is violated as he must now work extra in order to pay for the child. Basically because of a womens choice he is forced into servitude for 18 years. Hardly seems fair.

Well, at the moment I don't feel like reading all the previous posts, so I am jumping into this debate rather late (and I'm not even really sure what it's about), but I would like to point out that I don't find this analogy particularly convincing.

After all, if your friend never gave you the chocolate chips, you could still make cookies... just not chocolate chip cookies.

On the other hand, if a man never "did his part" in the pregnancy, you would not be baking a "cookie" at all.

:p
actually if you really wanted to you could use to egg cells to fertelize each other...probably expensive as heck but I bet someone can do it.

Let me see if I can get this straight. Essentially what this argument boils down to is this:

The advocates for this law say that since the woman made the decision not to have an abortion, they should have to live with the results.

People opposing this law are essentially saying that since the woman decided to have the child, the child now needs to have the support of a second parent--via funding if nothing else.


If we simply edit the law slightly to state that the opting out father must pay all costs normally associated with pregnancy, along with the maximum reasonable cost for an abortion, it seems that we solve the issue. The advocates of the law get their slightly modified law (which should still be fair from their perspective, since if the woman wanted an abortion unilaterally they would have to pay a similar cost). Meanwhile the opponents to this law should note that this gives the mother the following choices:

--get an abortion, and pocket the leftover cash that the father paid as part of the costs of pregnancy, since the pregnancy won't be brought to term (this cash being the recompense for the physical and psychological pains associated with an aborted pregnancy)
--bring the child to term and then put the child up for adoption (the father having already waived his parental rights, the mother can do this on their own) (the cash from the cost of an abortion can be considered a recompense for the pains of childbirth)
--bring the child to term and try to raise it herself (the cash from the cost of an abortion being the only child support the mother will ever get, the mother can make this decision if she is sufficiently wealthy to support the child on her own (at which point why would she have deserved child support from the father anyway))

Clearly, in all three circumstances, the needs of the child have been looked out for; in the first the child never exists as its own being, in the second the child has been placed in the care of the state (both parents having opted out of raising the child), in the third either the mother is sufficiently financially stable to not need any involvement from the father aside from covering costs during pregnancy, or neither parent was properly looking out for the interests of the child and care for it properly belonged to the state to begin with.

Let me see if I can get this straight. Essentially what this argument boils down to is this:

The advocates for this law say that since the woman made the decision not to have an abortion, they should have to live with the results.

People opposing this law are essentially saying that since the woman decided to have the child, the child now needs to have the support of a second parent--via funding if nothing else.


If we simply edit the law slightly to state that the opting out father must pay all costs normally associated with pregnancy, along with the maximum reasonable cost for an abortion, it seems that we solve the issue. The advocates of the law get their slightly modified law (which should still be fair from their perspective, since if the woman wanted an abortion unilaterally they would have to pay a similar cost). Meanwhile the opponents to this law should note that this gives the mother the following choices:

--get an abortion, and pocket the leftover cash that the father paid as part of the costs of pregnancy, since the pregnancy won't be brought to term (this cash being the recompense for the physical and psychological pains associated with an aborted pregnancy)
--bring the child to term and then put the child up for adoption (the father having already waived his parental rights, the mother can do this on their own) (the cash from the cost of an abortion can be considered a recompense for the pains of childbirth)
--bring the child to term and try to raise it herself (the cash from the cost of an abortion being the only child support the mother will ever get, the mother can make this decision if she is sufficiently wealthy to support the child on her own (at which point why would she have deserved child support from the father anyway))

Clearly, in all three circumstances, the needs of the child have been looked out for; in the first the child never exists as its own being, in the second the child has been placed in the care of the state (both parents having opted out of raising the child), in the third either the mother is sufficiently financially stable to not need any involvement from the father aside from covering costs during pregnancy, or neither parent was properly looking out for the interests of the child and care for it properly belonged to the state to begin with.
That seems about as fair as you can get. How long did it take you to come up with that? I thought it was well thought out.

Why should the woman be the only one to have to make sacrifices when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? What if both the man and woman neither wanted a child and the birth control methods they were using failed (it happens). If the woman decides to have the baby, why should he be allowed to forfeit contibuting to the welfare of the child?

Abortion. If you don't want the child don't have it. Simple.

About as long as it took me to read through 15 pages of people posting the same arguments over and over again.

To compare the whimperings of a bunch of deadbeats to the struggle of women who wish to have control over their own bodies is pathetic. The only thing that disgusts me more than these men is the fact that there are women pathetic enough to have sex with them.

Ouch Bottle, that hurts. So I assume you lump me into the "deadbeats" category, even though I have always been a full supporter of women's rights? ( I think my post is on page 10)

::snip::

Interesting approach but I feel that if you bring a flat sum of money into the mix you will get unscrupulous women purposely getting pregnant for the extra cash after abortion. By no means am I saying most women or anything like that but when money comes into play some people will try to take advantage. If you could address that issue somehow I could see that working more effectively. Afterall there are people who would sell live children into prostitution for a few extra bucks I don't think it is a strech to rope dumbasses and perverts into paying out a little cash for a pregnancy.

Well in this case you could argue that a mans right to control his own body is violated as he must now work extra in order to pay for the child. Basically because of a womens choice he is forced into servitude for 18 years. Hardly seems fair.

No, you couldn't argue that, any more than you could argue that a man who has to pay a mortgage or taxes is "forced into servitude." And it is highly unlikely that he actually has to "work extra." He simply might have to give up on a luxury or two.

actually if you really wanted to you could use to egg cells to fertelize each other...probably expensive as heck but I bet someone can do it.

You would lose your bet. Currently, that isn't possible in any higher order mammals, much less human beings. It might eventually be, but as of yet it is not.

Um, no, she doesn't. Again, you are creating an inequality that instead of representing all interests equally suddenly makes it so the only one responsible to the child is the mother. If what you say is true then women should have full say as what happens to the child throughout its life and the father should have NONE. Is this really the road you want to go down? The argument that because women get last touch on the child that they are solely responsibile for it?

I think you are missing his point. The father does not want the child but has no option to abort it or set it up for adoption. If this is stated than the father has pretty much aborted it to the the furthest extent he can. If the women chooses to keep it after this it is just hers. She could just as easily abort it or put it up for adoption herself. That has nothing to do with actual fathers and their say in a child's life. (Although they actually dont' have much say anyways according to law so that road has already been traveled pretty much to the end)

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the whole issue I think there are too many loopholes and human lives are not as simple as all this. I can definately see the point and I think it is a fair one to raise. Women have exclusive right to have or not have a child and men are forced to handle the consequences. Granted the man engaged in sex just like the woman but it is unfair that he loses all control after the fact and the woman doesn't. This is undoubtedly unfair to the man. I don't see any valid argument otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't think there is really a fair way to fix this. It is a byproduct of human reproduction and the alternatives being discussed make it even more extreme and unfair for the woman so they really dont' serve as a solution. I think being careful is the best protection a man can hope for at this point.

Interesting approach but I feel that if you bring a flat sum of money into the mix you will get unscrupulous women purposely getting pregnant for the extra cash after abortion. By no means am I saying most women or anything like that but when money comes into play some people will try to take advantage. If you could address that issue somehow I could see that working more effectively. Afterall there are people who would sell live children into prostitution for a few extra bucks I don't think it is a strech to rope dumbasses and perverts into paying out a little cash for a pregnancy.

I would have gladly paid for an abortion and all prenatal care to have been relieved of the government mandated poverty I am currently in. Five hundred bucks, maybe a grand, compared to half my take home pay for 21 years? Conservatively thats what, a quarter million?

What do you think she does with the 7 bills a month she gets from me, spend it on diapers? Hell no, the bitch is at Wall Mart buying CD's. And there's not a damn thing I can do about it. If anything, this would be a protection against such "unscrupulous women".

Interesting approach but I feel that if you bring a flat sum of money into the mix you will get unscrupulous women purposely getting pregnant for the extra cash after abortion. By no means am I saying most women or anything like that but when money comes into play some people will try to take advantage. If you could address that issue somehow I could see that working more effectively. Afterall there are people who would sell live children into prostitution for a few extra bucks I don't think it is a strech to rope dumbasses and perverts into paying out a little cash for a pregnancy.


There are three reasons why I doubt this would be much of an issue.

First, abortions are not fun physical processes. Even early term abortions often cause the woman to become very sick for several days. While some people are perfectly willing make other people suffer for money, it is usually a very different story for those same people when they are the ones who have to do the suffering.

Second, such a woman would be taking the risk that the man might want to keep the child, at which point the woman would have to pay for the abortion and other costs herself.

Third, since we are talking about a legal document (since you would need one to verify that the man actually did pay the woman), presumably a list could be kept of such things and extreme repeat offenders (of either gender) could be properly fined for wasting the time of so many notaries.

No, you couldn't argue that, any more than you could argue that a man who has to pay a mortgage or taxes is "forced into servitude." And it is highly unlikely that he actually has to "work extra." He simply might have to give up on a luxury or two.
Child support payments arn't "a luxury or two," unless you are buying a TV or expensive computer parts every, single month. They are inavoidable payments that average, in my state, $200 a month, per child. And child support is a dynamic calculation, the more money earns, the more money paid.

No, you couldn't argue that, any more than you could argue that a man who has to pay a mortgage or taxes is "forced into servitude." And it is highly unlikely that he actually has to "work extra." He simply might have to give up on a luxury or two.

WRONG. Luxury my ass. Try "unless he is wealthy he will have to move back in with his parents." I have to work two jobs just to pay car insurance and eat. And guess what? I work overtime- she gets more money. I work another job- she gets a bigger cut. Keep that "just giving up a luxury or two" bullshit for the tourists.

And they are completely different things. A person voluntarily takes out a mortgage. I never wanted a child, and made that perfectly clear.

Child support payments arn't "a luxury or two." They are inavoidable payments that average, in my state, $200 a month. That is probably a bottom rate.

WAY low rate.

I make about 45k a year before taxes. (so I am not rich, and I work two jobs) She gets $704 a month, for one child. (I'm in Florida) I also have to pay for its insurance.

There are three reasons why I doubt this would be much of an issue.

First, abortions are not fun physical processes. Even early term abortions often cause the woman to become very sick for several days. While some people are perfectly willing make other people suffer for money, it is usually a very different story for those same people when they are the ones who have to do the suffering.

Second, such a woman would be taking the risk that the man might want to keep the child, at which point the woman would have to pay for the abortion and other costs herself.

Third, since we are talking about a legal document (since you would need one to verify that the man actually did pay the woman), presumably a list could be kept of such things and extreme repeat offenders (of either gender) could be properly fined for wasting the time of so many notaries.

You have a much more positive and, excuse me for saying so, slightly naive outlook on humanity. Early term abortions are not very fun, this is true, but a good old fasioned heroin addiction has made people go through thousands times worse. In India there are certain criminals who buy human organs from poor people who simply have no choice. How do you think that experience is? There is no doubt some people would take the discomfort (street prostitution isn't really pleasant either). I won't even get started on people who hurt themselves in order to sue people, it does happen.
The type of women who would do something like this would probably not be one that any sane man would want to have a child with. In addition to this I haven't really heard of any women being forced to pay for a child that the father takes. (correct me if I'm wrong but the mother could just dump the child with him if he wants it and get the free ride while pregnant).

It is true that the government could catch on to repeat offenders but that is a little late isn't it? Also child services and such agencies are not really known for being able to keep on top of such things. We already have foster parents who use children as extra sources of income and practical servants.

No, I think the flaws are too great with your current setup.

I think you are missing his point. The father does not want the child but has no option to abort it

Of course not. He can't get pregnant. Plus, one cannot abort a child - only a pregnancy.

or set it up for adoption.

He has the same rights to do this that the mother does - at least legally.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the whole issue I think there are too many loopholes and human lives are not as simple as all this. I can definately see the point and I think it is a fair one to raise.

The issue is a fair one to raise - although I don't agree with your reasoning. However, many people in this thread are trying to use the equal protection clause as their reasoning - and that simply doesn't work.

Women have exclusive right to have or not have a child and men are forced to handle the consequences. Granted the man engaged in sex just like the woman but it is unfair that he loses all control after the fact and the woman doesn't. This is undoubtedly unfair to the man. I don't see any valid argument otherwise.

Of course it is unfair. It is also unfair that, should a couple decide together to have children, the mother must bear the entire physical brunt of that decision. It is unfair that I have to go for a yearly pap smear to stay on birth control, but my fiance never has to have a pap smear. It is unfair that I, as a woman, have to work harder than most men to keep my body fat down. It is unfair that, after sex, I have to deal with some pretty gross after-products, while he can just roll over and go to sleep.

When a difference is based on biology, we can whine that it isn't fair, but we can't really change it. A man loses control after a pregnancy begins because the pregnancy only directly involves the woman.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is really a fair way to fix this. It is a byproduct of human reproduction and the alternatives being discussed make it even more extreme and unfair for the woman so they really dont' serve as a solution. I think being careful is the best protection a man can hope for at this point.

Exactly.

But I don't see this type of bill - albeit most likely in a different form, as being protection for the man - or the woman. I want to make sure that any children born are in good hands. And if a person doesn't take on parenthood - even only financially - willingly, then the child isn't in good hands - there is no reason to rely upon that person for the child's welfare.


Ouch Bottle, that hurts. So I assume you lump me into the "deadbeats" category, even though I have always been a full supporter of women's rights? ( I think my post is on page 10)

Considering that you obviously care more for money than the child you fathered, I would absolutely place you there.


Child support payments arn't "a luxury or two." They are inavoidable payments that average, in my state, $200 a month. That is probably a bottom rate.

And most people can give up $200 a month by giving up a few extra meals out, or by going out drinking less, or by talking on the phone less and giving up cable or something. In other words - by giving up a few luxuries.


WRONG. Luxury my ass. Try "unless he is wealthy he will have to move back in with his parents." I have to work two jobs just to pay car insurance and eat. And guess what? I work overtime- she gets more money. I work another job- she gets a bigger cut. Keep that "just giving up a luxury or two" bullshit for the tourists.

You live in an unusual state then - or you are trying to live outside your means. When my father was supposed to pay child support, he was looking at something like $400 a month - flat, with no changes for any reason.

And they are completely different things. A person voluntarily takes out a mortgage. I never wanted a child, and made that perfectly clear.

And yet you have one, and won't take any voluntary responsibility for that. Forgive me if I'm not going to cry for you.

To compare the whimperings of a bunch of deadbeats to the struggle of women who wish to have control over their own bodies is pathetic. The only thing that disgusts me more than these men is the fact that there are women pathetic enough to have sex with them.

I take it you are also against adoption. Letting those whimpering deadbeat mothers give there children up without taking any moral or financial responsibility for there children.

And most people can give up $200 a month by giving up a few extra meals out, or by going out drinking less, or by talking on the phone less and giving up cable or something. In other words - by giving up a few luxuries.
Yes, because it isn't possible that person is already strapped for cash and doesn't go out drinking, or go out to eat, or any other of your bullshit assumed luxuries. We didn't have even cable television for 10 years.

No matter how many times I say it, no one listens. Every single case is not the same; however, since we live in a victim culture, it doesn't matter. Women are meek individuals who need to be taken care of by men who must follow their cultural responsibilities, but women are allowed to shirk historical, cultural responsibilities because they are now liberated and should be able to control their own destiny, but if a man tries to avoid historical, cultural responsibility for any reason at all, they are villainized. Which is what you are doing, finding any reason at all to villainize these men, regardless of circumstance.

WAY low rate.

I make about 45k a year before taxes. (so I am not rich, and I work two jobs) She gets $704 a month, for one child. (I'm in Florida) I also have to pay for its insurance.

"Its" insurance? Are you going to tell me now that you have a child out there and you don't even know if it is a boy or a girl?

In addition to this I haven't really heard of any women being forced to pay for a child that the father takes. (correct me if I'm wrong but the mother could just dump the child with him if he wants it and get the free ride while pregnant).

You actually are wrong here. If one parent has custody of the child, the other is required to pay child support, regardless of sex. The mother is simply usually the one with custody, and thus the father is usually the one paying child support.

I take it you are also against adoption. Letting those whimpering deadbeat mothers give there children up without taking any moral or financial responsibility for there children.

I know you think you are going to reveal a hypocrisy in Bottle here - but actually, I've seen her go off just as strongly on any woman who would bring a child into the world with the purpose of giving it up for adoption. I tend to agree with her. No person can give up the responsibility of raising a child they have parented and consider themselves responsible. In some cases, it might be the least irresponsible choice, but it is hardly responsible.

[QUOTE=AllCoolNamesAreTaken]WRONG. Luxury my ass. Try "unless he is wealthy he will have to move back in with his parents." I have to work two jobs just to pay car insurance and eat. And guess what? I work overtime- she gets more money. I work another job- she gets a bigger cut. Keep that "just giving up a luxury or two" bullshit for the tourists.

And they are completely different things. A person voluntarily takes out a mortgage. I never wanted a child, and made that perfectly clear.[/QUOTE

Sounds like you need a modification of child support or if you get 50/50 custody you will not have to pay any child support. The more you see your child the less you have to pay in support. Unless you do not want to see your child (that is your right and I am not judging you). But those are just some ideas on how to lower your child support. If you pay child support you might as well have a relationship with the child.

"Its" insurance? Are you going to tell me now that you have a child out there and you don't even know if it is a boy or a girl?
Why would he have to know? He can be charged child support without of even the knowledge that the child came into existance.

Women are sometimes required to pay child support, although this is rare since most often women want (and successfully manage to get) access to the children. And you could keep an online database of this sort of thing so that you wouldn't need to have a significant amount of government effort in tracking down repeat offenders (since if this database exists and is reasonably well known than either partner can check the other partner's listings when doing the paperwork).

Of course, then you run into the privacy issue with having such a database.

Maybe you can only check the database when filing this sort of paperwork, and even then only for your partner.


Also, if the government does catch repeat offenders, after fining them they will know who to give the money back to, since they will have a record of all people involved.

Yes, because it isn't possible that person is already strapped for cash and doesn't go out drinking, or go out to eat, or any other of your bullshit assumed luxuries. We didn't have even cable television for 10 years.

Of course it is *possible*. It is simply highly unlikely. There are also usually methods by which a person who is that "strapped for cash" can legally get out of making payments.

No matter how many times I say it, no one listens. Every single case is not the same; however, since we live in a victim culture, it doesn't matter. Women are meek individuals who need to be taken care of by men who must follow their cultural responsibilities, but women are allowed to shirk historical, cultural responsibilities because they are now liberated and should be able to control their own destiny, but if a man tries to avoid historical, cultural responsibility for any reason at all, they are villainized. Which is what you are doing, finding any reason at all to villainize these men, regardless of circumstance.

I "villanize" these men because they don't give a shit about their own children. Period. I would do the same for any woman who felt the same way.

Meanwhile, I have never argued in favor of any woman shirking any responsibility - and I'd be interested to see you point out anywhere that you think I have.


Why would he have to know? He can be charged child support without of even the knowledge that the child came into existance.

How would that work? The government comes to your house and says, "We're taking $200 now." "Why?" you say. "That's classified," says government man.

You cannot be charged child support without knowing what you are paying. The state doesn't go to garnishing wages unless you have already forfeited on payments.

"
I know you think you are going to reveal a hypocrisy in Bottle here - but actually, I've seen her go off just as strongly on any woman who would bring a child into the world with the purpose of giving it up for adoption. I tend to agree with her. No person can give up the responsibility of raising a child they have parented and consider themselves responsible. In some cases, it might be the least irresponsible choice, but it is hardly responsible.

Adoption is one of the most responsible decisions a person can make. If you are to young and/or unable to take care of child for whatever reasons. Giving your child to people who want it and have the means to take care of child and give it a good life is one of the best decisions you can make.

--get an abortion, and pocket the leftover cash that the father paid as part of the costs of pregnancy, since the pregnancy won't be brought to term (this cash being the recompense for the physical and psychological pains associated with an aborted pregnancy)

And a whole new profession opens up.

Given the high cost of pregnancy, I would assume that the payout from the man would be rather significant. A woman could conceivably (sorry, it’s a bad pun I know) get a few abortions a year to greatly supplement her income.