NationStates Jolt Archive

It is constantly brought up that men have no say in abortion and that it is, thus, unfair. I totally agree it is unfair so I have come up with a plan to make it fair.

A father will get full say in whether an abortion occurs. If both partners do not agree to terminate the pregnancy the pregnancy is carried out.

In addition there will be a couple of measures taken to equate the burden of men to the burden of women.

- If a couple agrees to terminate the pregnancy, both people in the couple will undergo a surgery with risks similar to an abortion at that stage of pregnancy. The man will be subjected to the exact same risks of infaction and complications as the woman.

If pregnancy continues the man will be put on a roster of fathers. These fathers will be randomly selected for:

- the exact same number of men on the list will be required to die every year from complications of pregnancy as pregnant women that year. Every time a pregnant women dies a drawing will be held that no man wants to win.

- Men will be assigned a diet that is similar to that of a typical pregnant woman. They will have to undergo the same body image difficulties a woman does.

- Men will be forced to wear those fake pregnancy bellies and deal with the inconvenience of such a thing.

- Through surgical means the bodies of men will be subjected to the same ravages as a pregnant woman goes through including possible permanent incontinence, damage to internal organs, stretching of the skin to the point of cosmetic issues, etc.

- Men will be randomly selected to have a small incision made on the tip of the penis. The number of men to be subjected to this will be equal to the number of women who are.

- Outside of the group above some men will be chosen to simply have the hold in the tip of their penis torn in direct proportion to the number of women who deal with such a thing.

- Men will be injected with hormones to make them feel like they are going through some bastardized form of puberty only with added vomiting and body issues.

Now, I expect that all these men that are in other threads claiming that we need paper 'abortions' and that abortion is unfair will be climbing over each other to support this proposition. Who'll be the first to sign up?

EDIT: DO NOT ARGUE THE LEGALITY OF ABORTION IN THIS THREAD. THERE ARE OTHER THREADS TO DISCUSS THAT ISSUE. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF ABORTION IS UNFAIR.

It would be an absolutely perfect solution, if you accept that a pregnancy is all to do with the womans body and nothing at all to do with the creation of a new life for which both parents are responsible.

Anyone who thinks it's not all to do with a woman's body (except conception) is a dork.

You don't have to pay attention to the above post. It's just a BK is extra bitchy today and can't think of something more eloquent.

The men's side still sounds pretty unfair......but I had two difficult pregnancies.

Maybe we could add in some Gastroinestinal stuff, and you know psychological drugs, so that they will have the brain fog and everything....


it's not a very realistic plan though ;) also, I would be worried about the mother's that have to deal with the random death of their life partner just because some woman they don't know died. :(

Sorry, but I think your plan sucks. Violating an individual's right to control their own body is wrong, and you don't make it better by deciding to violate ANOTHER person in a warped attempt to "balance" the situation.

Anyone who thinks it's not all to do with a woman's body (except conception) is a dork.
I would say it's more to do with equality of parenting and responsibility.

You don't have to pay attention to the above post. It's just a BK is extra bitchy today and can't think of something more eloquent.
I've been called worse. :D

I would say it's more to do with equality of parenting and responsibility.


I've been called worse. :D

Thankyou for understanding my PMS. Now if you can persuade the rest of NS to do so.

Thankyou for understanding my PMS. Now if you can persuade the rest of NS to do so.
I will ignore yours if you ignore mine ;) I seriously have decided not to reply to some stuff today out of fear of my hormones getting me in trouble. ;)

It would be an absolutely perfect solution, if you accept that a pregnancy is all to do with the womans body and nothing at all to do with the creation of a new life for which both parents are responsible.

In this case both parents are responsible. This isn't a thread about whether abortion is legal. If you wish to argue that go to one of the other millions of threads about it.

A man has no right to intrude on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Her body, her decision, no legal process can erase that.

The men's side still sounds pretty unfair......but I had two difficult pregnancies.

Maybe we could add in some Gastroinestinal stuff, and you know psychological drugs, so that they will have the brain fog and everything....


it's not a very realistic plan though ;) also, I would be worried about the mother's that have to deal with the random death of their life partner just because some woman they don't know died. :(

Well, this is the same as the random death of the mother in childbirth. We could take out that father but that wouldn't really be fair to the children so I figured we'd have to spread it out.

As far as the other effects, those are included in the bill but I just didn't want to list them all. I also meant to include post-pardum and various other maladies that come after the birth.

A man has no right to intrude on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Her body, her decision, no legal process can erase that.

This will make it so men's body are thrust into the mix. I mean we want to make it fair, right? Weren't you just arguing about a legal process to resolve the inequality. This one actually does make it completely equal. Men must be burdened with pregnancy just like women. Everyone should be ecstatic, no?

In this case both parents are responsible. This isn't a thread about whether abortion is legal. If you wish to argue that go to one of the other millions of threads about it.
Well, no, I wasn't arguing about whether abortion should be legal. I was saying that your idea is based entirely on the idea that pregnancy is all about the woman, or, more accurately, all about the physical side.

We've been discussing the legality of abortion together on another thread already. :p

Ludicrously unrealstic.

It would be an absolutely perfect solution, if you accept that a pregnancy is all to do with the womans body and nothing at all to do with the creation of a new life for which both parents are responsible.
i dont even understand your point

pregnancy IS all about a womans body. AFTER the baby is born and there is a new life, both are equally responsible already so there is no need to even it up.

unless you were hoping to turn the father back into an embryo to even things up with the "baby".

Well, this is the same as the random death of the mother in childbirth. We could take out that father but that wouldn't really be fair to the children so I figured we'd have to spread it out.
murphy's law would dictate that my husband would be one of the first to be chosen "randomly" though.

Besides, there are too many kids without active fathers in their lives now, I don't see the logic in taking away a good father in the name of "fairness" it would be unfair to his children.

As far as the other effects, those are included in the bill but I just didn't want to list them all. I also meant to include post-pardum and various other maladies that come after the birth.
okay.

i dont even understand your point

pregnancy IS all about a womans body. AFTER the baby is born and there is a new life, both are equally responsible already so there is no need to even it up.

unless you were hoping to turn the father back into an embryo to even things up with the "baby".
The physical side of pregnancy is all about the mother. But fathers have the emotional aspect to deal with, up to and including an emotional attachment to the child.

Ludicrously unrealstic.

(If you can't tell I'm trying to point out that nature makes pregnancy unfair to women and men in both the abilities women have that men don't and the dangers and injuries they endure. People who claim that unfairness falls on the man only are what is 'ludicrously unrealistic'.)

Now, I expect that all these men that are in other threads claiming that we need paper 'abortions' and that abortion is unfair will be climbing over each other to support this proposition. Who'll be the first to sign up?

Strawman. Next.

A man has no right to intrude on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Her body, her decision, no legal process can erase that.
sure it can, just ask the governor of south dakota.

The physical side of pregnancy is all about the mother. But fathers have the emotional aspect to deal with, up to and including an emotional attachment to the child.

As do the mothers. This is simply about making the physical aspects equal since there are so many that argue that legal aspects are unfair, I say if we're going to 'level' one, then we should level both.

Strawman. Next.

You should look up the definition of strawman, my friend.

murphy's law would dictate that my husband would be one of the first to be chosen "randomly" though.

Besides, there are too many kids without active fathers in their lives now, I don't see the logic in taking away a good father in the name of "fairness" it would be unfair to his children.


okay.

You do realize that I would never support this bill, right? This is meant to point out that pregnancy doesn't just bestow priveleges on a woman but a plethora of responsibilities as well.

As do the mothers. This is simply about making the physical aspects equal since there are so many that argue that legal aspects are unfair, I say if we're going to 'level' one, then we should level both.
I can understand people not wanting the man to be involved in the decision because they think it's nothing to do with them, but it is a bit bizarre to say the man can have nothing to do with it because of the way nature made the sexes different.

I can understand people not wanting the man to be involved in the decision because they think it's nothing to do with them, but it is a bit bizarre to say the man can have nothing to do with it because of the way nature made the sexes different.

Um, what better reason? Should women have access to vasectomies?

The physical side of pregnancy is all about the mother. But fathers have the emotional aspect to deal with, up to and including an emotional attachment to the child.
of course they do. they always have. so there is no need to even consider that that needs to be equalized. a man is as attached, as responsible, as involved, as protective of his child as a woman is to hers. the only variables are personal ones.

This will make it so men's body are thrust into the mix. I mean we want to make it fair, right? Weren't you just arguing about a legal process to resolve the inequality. This one actually does make it completely equal. Men must be burdened with pregnancy just like women. Everyone should be ecstatic, no?

I have never said anything about a man's right to decide whether a child is born, only his right to decide whether he will accept.

Women have full rights when it comes to the pregnancy. A child is only born based on the decisions and biological processes of the woman, and it should stay like that. This does create a situation where the woman, through dogmatic definitions of the nuclear family, has a level of control over the man.

You do realize that I would never support this bill, right? This is meant to point out that pregnancy doesn't just bestow priveleges on a woman but a plethora of responsibilities as well.
of course. I was trying to debate it until someone funny came in, you did want to keep the discussion going until then right?

You should look up the definition of strawman, my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

"The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position; deriving from the use of straw men in combat training."

Since you're trying to set the argument up that we were arguing for full equality in all aspects of reproduction, and not the more reasonable (albeit cowardly) recourse for a man attempting to opt out of the responsibilities for a child he does not want, I'd say you're attempting to misrepresent your opponent's position.

It is constantly brought up that men have no say in abortion and that it is, thus, unfair. I totally agree it is unfair so I have come up with a plan to make it fair.


If you're worried about it being fair, let's let an equal number of children decide their parents should die as the number of parents that decide their children should.

For example, if x number of parents decide to have an abortion, x number of children should get to decide to kill their parents.

of course they do. they always have. so there is no need to even consider that that needs to be equalized. a man is as attached, as responsible, as involved, as protective of his child as a woman is to hers. the only variables are personal ones.
?

I'm not sure I understand you. I think we're saying the same thing.

You should look up the definition of strawman, my friend.

You should reread the arguments. No one (at least not Sdaerji and I) have stated that a man should decide whether a woman should have an abortion or not.

sure it can, just ask the governor of south dakota.

Quite right.

In my statement, replace "can" with "should."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

"The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position; deriving from the use of straw men in combat training."

Since you're trying to set the argument up that we were arguing for full equality in all aspects of reproduction, and not the more reasonable (albeit cowardly) recourse for a man attempting to opt out of the responsibilities for a child he does not want, I'd say you're attempting to misrepresent your opponent's position.

No, I'm not setting that up. I saying that is the position that should be argued. The actually argument was represented in the part you quoted where people are advocating a paper 'abortion' which clearly does not represent equality. The argument being made for the paper 'abortion' is that the status quo is unfair. I was MAKING the argument that if you want fair then we should actually make it fair all the way around not just swing the pendulum further in the male direction.

I have totally and utterly lost what is going on in this thread. :D

You should reread the arguments. No one (at least not Sdaerji and I) have stated that a man should decide whether a woman should have an abortion or not.

No, I agree you don't. However, you did claim that access to that decision unfairly imbues the woman with rights. I simply pointed out what actually imbues women with these rights. If men want to have the same decision, that decision should have the same consequences. I mean, we're aiming for fairness, no?

Quite right.

In my statement, replace "can" with "should."
its sad that you need to edit what should have been utterly true.

No, I agree you don't. However, you did claim that access to that decision unfairly imbues the woman with rights. I simply pointed out what actually imbues women with these rights. If men want to have the same decision, that decision should have the same consequences. I mean, we're aiming for fairness, no?

Fairness is not possible in this situation.

However, as women rightly have full control over the pregnancy and its results, they should also have full responsibility for its results.

Here I'll help you guys out -

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 am simply showing what actually leveling the playing field would require. Quit acting like you two were the only people in that thread.

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

Now, whose argument was it that I was misrepresenting?

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.

Fairness is not possible in this situation.

However, as women rightly have full control over the pregnancy and its results, they should also have full responsibility for its results.

Ah, yes. Women have wombs so they are baby makers. "You touched it last". Fine. Then you agree that a woman gives parental rights to the man, he doesn't start with them, correct? It is at her discretion whether a father has rights? Is that what you're arguing?

Ah, yes. Women have wombs so they are baby makers. "You touched it last". Fine. Then you agree that a woman gives parental rights to the man, he doesn't start with them, correct? It is at her discretion whether a father has rights? Is that what you're arguing?

That would be a reasonable conclusion.

But let us not forget that if she does accept him as the father, then he is fully equal to her as a parent.

That would be a reasonable conclusion.

But let us not forget that if she does accept him as the father, then he is fully equal to her as a parent.

Oh, not it doesn't work that way. The woman has all the responsibility so she decides what priveleges she bestows on the father, just as she would some other adult who she allowed into the life of her child. You have just single-handedly argued away a father's parental rights.

Oh, not it doesn't work that way. The woman has all the responsibility so she decides what priveleges she bestows on the father, just as she would some other adult who she allowed into the life of her child. You have just single-handedly argued away a father's parental rights.

If the woman names the man as the father, she has a legal obligation to respect his rights as a father. If she doesn't want that, then she shouldn't name him or her (lets be inclusive) as a parent.

If the woman names the man as the father, she has a legal obligation to respect his rights as a father. If she doesn't want that, then she shouldn't name him or her (lets be inclusive) as a parent.
are you saying that a mans parental rights SHOULD be up to the mother of his child such that if she doesnt want him involved, he has no rights to his own child?

are you saying that a mans parental rights SHOULD be up to the mother of his child such that if she doesnt want him involved, he has no rights to his own child?

Yes. It is only fair.

EDIT: There presumably would be exceptions for instances such as marriage, or anytime there is an expressed understanding that the man would be the father.

Yes. It is only fair.
How on earth is that fair?

It's certainly interesting to see how heated people get in this discussion.

At first I thought: "this isn't equality and it's a bit too stupid" (to explain: it can only work if a couple agrees, therefore, unfair. One of the pair involved cannot choose not to be involved and abortion is thus impossible.)

then I read everything and I thought: "oh, sarcasm"

then I ignored it.

How on earth is that fair?

The woman, by nature and by law should have full responsibility for the pregnancy. Therefore she should have full responsibility for the result.

Keep in mind that the man only contributed sperm, and that cannot be construed as a chore.

If the woman names the man as the father, she has a legal obligation to respect his rights as a father. If she doesn't want that, then she shouldn't name him or her (lets be inclusive) as a parent.

Amusing. Women's rights and father's parental rights have just doubled over from the blow you just delivered.

Amusing. Women's rights and father's parental rights have just doubled over from the blow you just delivered.

I can't understand why.

Separate yourself from the idea that a child is created at conception, and it is not hard to see where I am coming from.

EDIT: Even you said that a father's parental responsibilities and rights are created at birth. Blowing a load doesn't entitle a man to a child.

I can't understand why.

Separate yourself from the idea that a child is created at conception, and it is not hard to see where I am coming from.

EDIT: Even you said that a father's parental responsibilities and rights are created at birth. Blowing a load doesn't entitle a man to a child.

I don't believe a child is created at conception. I believe a man loses control of the process just before conception. This is the fault of nature not of the woman. The women doesn't take action that continues the pregnancy. She simply doesn't take action to terminate the pregnancy. It's wholy different. It's like claiming that because I wouldn't run into a burning building to save a person inside, that I have sole responsibility for their death, even if the person fell asleep with a cigarette in their hand and started the fire.

You're not even arguing last touch, you're arguing last refusal to touch.

-snip
Wonderful bit of legislation, but I don't think it goes far enough. We should make the risks of abortion equally great for all parties involved, so allow me to add my own amendments:
Since having a parent grow old can be an enormous financial and emotional burden (which many people are ready to deal with) children should have the right to terminate their parents should those parents start getting old.
A random number of sexually active women must give up one of their unfertilized eggs to a randomly selected mate. This mate then has the right to either find a surrogate mother who will bring the child to term (in which case the donor must pay child support). If the woman feels that simply having her egg involved in the process because she was unlucky isn't a reason for her to pay for a child, she will be maligned. All such women, and advocates for their rights, will be called dead-beats, sluts, and little girls. The woman will have no say in this process, but will still be considered responsible for the results because she should have kept her legs shut.

I don't believe a child is created at conception. I believe a man loses control of the process just before conception. This is the fault of nature not of the woman. The women doesn't take action that continues the pregnancy. She simply doesn't take action to terminate the pregnancy. It's wholy different.

I agree with this.

It's like claiming that because I wouldn't run into a burning building to save a person inside, that I have sole responsibility for their death, even if the person fell asleep with a cigarette in their hand and started the fire.

You're not even arguing last touch, you're arguing last refusal to touch.

But you lose me here.

Are you saying that a woman does not have responsibility for her body?

Wonderful bit of legislation, but I don't think it goes far enough. We should make the risks of abortion equally great for all parties involved, so allow me to add my own amendments:
Since having a parent grow old can be an enormous financial and emotional burden (which many people are ready to deal with) children should have the right to terminate their parents should those parents start getting old.

Children are not required to care for their parents, firstly. Secondly, with the elderly parent their is undoubtedly a person. However, this is not an argument about abortion.

A random number of sexually active women must give up one of their unfertilized eggs to a randomly selected mate. This mate then has the right to either find a surrogate mother who will bring the child to term (in which case the donor must pay child support). If the woman feels that simply having her egg involved in the process because she was unlucky isn't a reason for her to pay for a child, she will be maligned. All such women, and advocates for their rights, will be called dead-beats, sluts, and little girls. The woman will have no say in this process, but will still be considered responsible for the results because she should have kept her legs shut.

Unnecessary. We've already equalized this issue by allowing the either partner to decide if the pregnancy continues to term. They are on equal footing.

Meanwhile, child support is not about the rights or responsibilities of the woman. The woman has the exact same responsibilities once a child exists. Child support is granted to the child and is a responsibility of both parents.

I agree with this.



But you lose me here.

Are you saying that a woman does not have responsibility for her body?

No, I'm saying that simply because she has the last ability to terminate the pregnancy (or save the man from the burning building) does not mean she is the only one responsible for the pregnancy (or the man in the burning building).

Children are not required to care for their parents, firstly. Secondly, with the elderly parent their is undoubtedly a person. However, this is not an argument about abortion.
'Sfunny, I was rather under the impression that it was about "abortion equality." And how we could level the Abortion playing field, well, children need rights too.
Further, a mother isn't required to care for the child. She can just dump him at an adoption center and move on.

The most important point that you are missing, however, is that paper abortions allow an independent out to both parties. Where your system forces the issue in favor of childbirth or abortion (what is the default, in the case of a complete cross on wishes?), paper abortions allow the man to quit out, and then the woman can quit out on her own.

'Sfunny, I was rather under the impression that it was about "abortion equality." And how we could level the Abortion playing field, well, children need rights too.
Further, a mother isn't required to care for the child. She can just dump him at an adoption center and move on.

She isn't dumping the child. Both parents must agree to give up the child and then the child's interests are taken on voluntarily by the adoption center. There is a party representing the future interests of the child from the moment of the invokation of the legal transfer of rights.

The most important point that you are missing, however, is that paper abortions allow an independent out to both parties. Where your system forces the issue in favor of childbirth or abortion (what is the default, in the case of a complete cross on wishes?), paper abortions allow the man to quit out, and then the woman can quit out on her own.

And in the paper abortion, the child's interests are not protected by anyone representing the child. That's the point and none of you have ever shown any precedent for such a thing.

She isn't dumping the child. Both parents must agree to give up the child and then the child's interests are taken on voluntarily by the adoption center. There is a party representing the future interests of the child from the moment of the invokation of the legal transfer of rights.
Which has nothing to do with the issue. A mother receiving a paper abortion could decide to get a real one, knowing that otherwise she would be a single parent. At present the man isn't involved in the process between "sperm donor" and "father", yet he has to bear the responsibility for what happens in that 9 month period.
And in the paper abortion, the child's interests are not protected by anyone representing the child. That's the point and none of you have ever shown any precedent for such a thing.
The rights of the unborn aren't legally recognized. A woman can drink while pregnant, yes? This causes damage to the fetus, yes? This will later harm the child, yes?
And yet, she can drink and no one leaps out of the bushes, ambushes her with demands that she be hit on the head with a hammer to equalize the possible retardation heaped upon the child.

Which has nothing to do with the issue. A mother receiving a paper abortion could decide to get a real one, knowing that otherwise she would be a single parent. At present the man isn't involved in the process between "sperm donor" and "father", yet he has to bear the responsibility for what happens in that 9 month period.

I'm not missing the point. The paper abortion only has any effect when a child is born. A woman can already decide to have or not have an abortion and she can already do so with full consideration of the wishes of the invloved man. The paper abortion changes nothing about the pregnancy whatsoever. It only changes the events after the birth of the child.

The rights of the unborn aren't legally recognized. A woman can drink while pregnant, yes? This causes damage to the fetus, yes? This will later harm the child, yes?
And yet, she can drink and no one leaps out of the bushes, ambushes her with demands that she be hit on the head with a hammer to equalize the possible retardation heaped upon the child.

You still miss the point. The document does not take effect until AFTER the birth of the child. It doesn't matter when it was signed. By the same argument, I could sign away the child's reproductive rights prior to birth because the 'unborn' has no rights. However, since that does not take effect until after the birth, the rights of the 'born' must be considered.

In terms of drinking, the effects occur during the pregnancy, not after it. They may continue to manifest or effect the child after the birth, but the direct effect is on the 'unborn'. It is wholly different.

You still miss the point. The document does not take effect until AFTER the birth of the child. It doesn't matter when it was signed. By the same argument, I could sign away the child's reproductive rights prior to birth because the 'unborn' has no rights. However, since that does not take effect until after the birth, the rights of the 'born' must be considered.

In terms of drinking, the effects occur during the pregnancy, not after it. They may continue to manifest or effect the child after the birth, but the direct effect is on the 'unborn'. It is wholly different.
Yes, and the primary effects of FAS occur after the birth. Yes, the primary cause (in this case, the mother signs away the child's health so she can get drunk) is prebirth, but the negative impact lasts the child's whole life.
By the same token, you oppose paper abortions (though they come into effect when signed during pregnancies and the man swears the kid/fetus off) because in the future the child will be negatively impacted.
Of course, since all you or anyone else on your side, seems to care about is that the appearance of parenting remains, you wouldn't care about what actually happens.

Yes, and the primary effects of FAS occur after the birth. Yes, the primary cause (in this case, the mother signs away the child's health so she can get drunk) is prebirth, but the negative impact lasts the child's whole life.

No, the effects continue after birth, they do not begin after birth. The direct and primary effect is pre-birth and all other effects are consequences of those effects.

By the same token, you oppose paper abortions (though they come into effect when signed during pregnancies and the man swears the kid/fetus off) because in the future the child will be negatively impacted.
Of course, since all you or anyone else on your side, seems to care about is that the appearance of parenting remains, you wouldn't care about what actually happens.

No, because when they take effect their is a child and no one is protecting the interests of the child (from the time of the effect).

That last bit is a strawman. All I or anyone who agrees with me cares about is that if a legal agreement is made regarding a child's rights that the agreement include someone who is an advocate for the child. Generally, this is the person who will has custody or will gain custody at the time of the agreement.

No, I'm saying that simply because she has the last ability to terminate the pregnancy (or save the man from the burning building) does not mean she is the only one responsible for the pregnancy (or the man in the burning building).

She has the only ability to terminate the pregnancy (the central reason why the analogy is faulty). While both are fully responsible for the pregnancy, they woman is the only one who can be responsible for the results of the pregnancy. The man should have absolutely no input whatsoever on the actual pregnancy, as it is the body of the woman.

Because of our necessary removal of all reproductive rights of the man, we must also remove his responsibility.

oooh, try this. If the father asks for an abortion, and the mother does not consent, he has no obligations towards the child since it is unwanted.

You're all arguing two different issues here, it seems to me.

1) Who has the right to demand an abortion? Is it just up to the pregnant woman or does the man who made her pregnant get a say? This has to do only with pregnancy, not with the existence of any children.

2) Is a man responsible for supporting the children he makes with a woman, even if he does not want those children? This part deals with children who have already come into existence in this world.

I think the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward, and this is the point the original post was trying to make: The woman carries all the risk and responsibility of pregnancy, therefore, the woman holds all the authority over whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. This seems only fair. Authority must be commensurate with responsibility. 100% responsibility for the outcome must be attached to 100% authority over the outcome. As the responsibility lessens, so should the authority. That's why women should have absolute authority to abort their pregnancies but not to kill their children after they are born.

A man does not carry responsibility for the pregnancy, therefore he should not have authority over it. Even in cases in which a woman contracts to bear a child for another couple, the couple cannot force her go through with the pregnancy if she changes her mind, though she should have to return any money they've spent on it. Her risk/responsibility = her authority/control/decision.

So a man should not be allowed to either stop a woman from having an abortion nor demand that she have one.

Question (2) is an entirely different issue. I don't think men should be forced to support children they never wanted in the first place unless they are legally married to the mother or were married to her at the time the children were conceived. This may seem like an arbitrary qualification, but the fact is that offspring are part of the marriage contract -- an optional part, yes, but a part nonetheless. When they marry, both the man and the woman are mutually agreeing to jointly raise any children they may produce together. I don't think a married man who doesn't want children can renounce paternity of his children and claim that they are not his because that claim can easily be disproved. US law grants a statutory right to inheritance, for instance, to children who can prove biological paternity, so I don't think a guy can wiggle out of this burden. The same rule applies to women not being able to deny maternity of their children. The children can enforce their claims with a blood test.

However, if a woman wants children but does not want to marry or have some similar contractual agreement with the man who fathers them, then I don't think she should demand child support from that man. If she wants to raise her kids on her own, then she should do so.

However, whether or not the woman should or should not be allowed to demand child support money, that in no way affects the power of the children to go after dad's money when they get old enough to act for themselves. I think children whose fathers were not involved in their lives at all at any time should not have that right, but children of divorced parents should because divorce does not erase parenthood. Even children who are given away by adoption might have a claim to inheritance if they track down their biological parents later -- you should see the way rich people write their wills to avoid this kind of potentiality.

Finally, I think a man should have to help support any children he specifically requested, even if he changes his mind later. If they would not have been born but for his insistance, then he doesn't get to walk away when he gets bored or finds some other woman he'd rather get pregnant.

Actually, I just wish we had an entirely different family system. I wish we were like this semi-autonomous tribe in China -- damn, I can't remember their name enough to find a link -- they were featured on Michael Palin's Himalayas show -- they boast a famous Chinese pop star. Curse my horrible memory for names.

Anyway, they're a matriarchy and they have no such thing as marriage. In their society all children belong to their mothers and are raised by their mothers and their mothers' families. The job of male role model that belongs to fathers in America is performed by uncles in their society. Fathers have nothing to do with raising kids, unless they want to and then they're just friends and mentors. Men have no parental obligations and no parental rights.

In this tribe, women choose when and whether to have children and do so with any man they like. In general, they eventually settle down with one guy they love best, but they don't have to. Lovers do not co-habit. They just date indefinitely. It is clearly superior, imo.

EDIT: Found it: http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/book-3542

The Musuo people of Lugu Lake. Check especially days 80 and 81 on the site. The information I gave above was from the interview I saw on television. Not all this information is on the website, but additional information is. Obviously, the Musuo are not perfect -- they have hang ups and prejudices -- they're just people after all. But they apparently don't have debates like this very often.

And in the paper abortion, the child's interests are not protected by anyone representing the child. That's the point and none of you have ever shown any precedent for such a thing.

One could argue that the cihld's interests are always protected by the state. Even in the case that both parents are actually willingly a part of the chid's life, the child is still, legally, a ward of the state (to a point) and the state can step in for a number of reasons.

She has the only ability to terminate the pregnancy (the central reason why the analogy is faulty). While both are fully responsible for the pregnancy, they woman is the only one who can be responsible for the results of the pregnancy. The man should have absolutely no input whatsoever on the actual pregnancy, as it is the body of the woman.

Because of our necessary removal of all reproductive rights of the man, we must also remove his responsibility.

Removal? Which ones did we 'remove'? The right to terminate a pregnancy is not a right, it's an ability and women get tons of responsiblity in exchange for it. The flaw is that once a chiild is born, they have the exact same rights and responsibilities. The only rights that are being removed are the man's rights to father his child. And you're the only one advocating that.

Removal? Which ones did we 'remove'? The right to terminate a pregnancy is not a right, it's an ability and women get tons of responsiblity in exchange for it. The flaw is that once a chiild is born, they have the exact same rights and responsibilities. The only rights that are being removed are the man's rights to father his child. And you're the only one advocating that.

Whether they are removed or not (you are correct in that) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the man does not have any reproductive rights. The child is the product of the woman's body, so the responsibility for the child is ultimately the mother's.

The man should not have shared burden of responsibility without shared rights.

Whether they are removed or not (you are correct in that) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the man does not have any reproductive rights. The child is the product of the woman's body, so the responsibility for the child is ultimately the mother's.

The man should not have shared burden of responsibility without shared rights.
Okay, let's accept that the man carries some of the burden of pregnancy, but the burden carried by the man is not equal to the burden carried by the woman.

The man may be asked to share costs incurred during the pregnancy. In some cases, he may pay 100% of the costs that are not covered by insurance, especially if he initially wanted the woman to bear him a child. But he does not carry any of the physical/medical risks of pregnancy. Those belong to the woman alone and they may lead to permanent disability or even death.

Also the man carries no -- as in zero -- responsibility for maintaining the pregnancy. He can eat, drink, smoke, and do anything he likes. The woman cannot.

So no matter how you slice it, when you combine costs plus risk plus responsibility, the woman's burden is greater and her authority should be greater also.

EDIT: I realize that you're making a kind of "no taxation without representation" argument here -- but I'm saying there is a difference between parental rights and reproductive rights. Men may have an argument that they shouldn't have to pay for children they're not allowed to raise as fathers, because they carry the same parental burden as mothers. They may also argue that they shouldn't be forced to take on a burden they never agreed to beforehand, such a supporting an ex-girlfriend's child that they never wanted.

But your point doesn't really apply to pregnancy for the reasons stated above. If a man wanted a woman to make a baby for him, he'd be a selfish, cheap bastard if he refused to help pay for it. Likewise, if he doesn't want a kid and the woman agrees to abort, he should help pay for that too, just to be civil at least. But her burden is greater, so she should be the decision-maker when it comes to pregnancy.

Whether they are removed or not (you are correct in that) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the man does not have any reproductive rights. The child is the product of the woman's body, so the responsibility for the child is ultimately the mother's.

The man should not have shared burden of responsibility without shared rights.

None. Are you sure? You're not actually claiming a man has no right to reproduce, are you?

The rights are parallel to responsibilities. Give me a right that a woman has that does not have to do with the pregnancy that a man doesn't.

Whether they are removed or not (you are correct in that) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the man does not have any reproductive rights. The child is the product of the woman's body, so the responsibility for the child is ultimately the mother's.

The man should not have shared burden of responsibility without shared rights.
And besides, you're wrong about children. Pregnancy is a process totally contained within a woman's body. But the child is the product of the man's body just as much the woman's. They don't prove paternity through phone records, you know. You know this, right?

Whether they are removed or not (you are correct in that) is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the man does not have any reproductive rights. The child is the product of the woman's body, so the responsibility for the child is ultimately the mother's.

The man should not have shared burden of responsibility without shared rights.
I'm sorry, the more I read this short little post, the more problems I have with it.

Are you saying that the child being the product of a person's body is what gives that person rights over it? I don't actually think that's how it works. What rights are you talking about?

Hmm I just saw this on the news today....

I think it's unfair that woman get's all the say in a abortion or pregnacy
and they preach about equality.... tsh.... The irony I tell ya...