NationStates Jolt Archive

The poll in the other thread shows almost 3/4 of Generalites think men should have some say on abortion. I'd like to find out how much of a say. Please be patient, poll coming ;)

Edit to add: Apparently, there's a 100-character limit on poll options. #5 and #6, the "American Idol" options, should include, "Only $1 a minute on your touch-tone phone!"

Edit to also add: If you're going to vote "50-50," please explain in a post how that would work?

Edit to also also add: I do hope it's clear that "There should be a calm, rational discussion of the issue, before a nation-wide vote." is the joke option ;)

I'll pre-empt your poll. The answer is none. Nobody should. A society should never attempt to usurp the autonomy of an individual, when none is endangered by the individual's actions.

I'll pre-empt your poll. The answer is none. Nobody should. A society should never attempt to usurp the autonomy of an individual, when none is endangered by the individual's actions.

/agree, but we're in the minority, according to the other poll. So, I wanted to see how they'd split it.

None of the above.

The only people with the right to decide on abortion are pregnant women deciding on their own. No one else.

Other.

Men should have an advisory role, but the decision is ultimately the woman's.

None whatsoever. It is the woman's uterus and body, thus her decision.

Men have 100% say in the matter. After all, they got the lady pregnant. It is for the man to decided if the baby shall be born or not.

Men have 100% say in the matter. After all, they got the lady pregnant. It is for the man to decided if the baby shall be born or not.

What's with your sub-par trolling as of lately? You're slipping.

Other.

Men should have an advisory role, but the decision is ultimately the woman's.

How much of an advisory role? And if the decision is ultimately the woman's, doesn't that imply that the man's opinion doesn't count?

What's with your sub-par trolling as of lately? You're slipping.

I blame school. :(

If "society" can have rules prohibiting me from doing to MY body as I like - say, the use of [certain] chemical substances - why should women be exempt just because they happen to be pregnant?

If "society" can have rules prohibiting me from doing to MY body as I like - say, the use of [certain] chemical substances - why should women be exempt just because they happen to be pregnant?

I don't like those other laws, either, but that's a topic for another thread. But I'll remember to include a "Spite" option in my next poll ;)

I blame school. :(

You should drop out.

If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion when the man wants her to, the man should not have to pay child support.

i went with the 49/51 option. its the same as 0/100 but sounds nicer

Legally, none whatsoever. The only person who should have any legal right to decide whether or not to abort a given pregnancy is the pregnant person in question.

Ideally, I would hope that such a decision would be made by both potential parents together, but, sadly, life doesn't always live up to such ideals.

If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion when the man wants her to, the man should not have to pay child support.

Nonsense, as the child once born has rights vis-à-vis the parents. If it's not your uterus, you don't get to decide what dwells in it or comes out of it. It ain't "fair", but them's the apples and you don't get to put up with menstruation or pregnancy, so I've no pity for you. If you don't want to risk having a child, don't stick your penis into vaginas.

None of the above.

The only people with the right to decide on abortion are pregnant women deciding on their own. No one else.
I agree.

i went with the 49/51 option. its the same as 0/100 but sounds nicer

LOL I should have included a "Let men think they have a say" option!

You should drop out.

Only if I can move in with you. Mother will kick me out of the house if I quit school.

I answered personally about my current situation, making it 49/51. But she could buy me out. Easily.

Only if I can move in with you.

Sorry, from that continent I only suffer Canadians.

Mother will kick me out of the house if I quit school.

Mother needs a bitch slap, that's what she needs.

Sorry, from that continent I only suffer Canadians.

What if I became a citizen of Canada first?

Mother needs a bitch slap, that's what she needs.

*agrees*

What if I became a citizen of Canada first?

I will always be aware of your sullied past.

I will always be aware of your sullied past.

Nice 3kth post :fluffle:

Silly answer: sacrifice a goat and examine the entrails to decide if abortion is a good idea.

Sensible answer: Woman has 50.00000000000000000000000001% of the choice, the man has the remaining 49.99999999999999999999999999%. Majority rules.

I will always be aware of your sullied past.

*cries*

Here's the problem with pregancy and abortion.

Both partners have equal say (consent) to have sex.

Once you've done your part as a male and "deposited", what you left is not longer yours but becomes part of the female body in form of the fertilized egg, embryo, and foetus - although it's still made up of 50% of your genes.

Once the kid is born, both partners have equal say again (parental rights) in raising the kid and share responsibility.

I strongly believe that a woman has the say over her body and thus a man cannot and must not tell her to get an abortion.

It becomes tricky, however, when the woman decides to abort the pregnancy while the man would like to become a father.

Again, she absolutely has the right over her body and one can't really force a woman to carry out the pregnancy, either.

For a guy, it's a situation he can't win:

He wants a kid and she doesn't - her will be done.
He doesn't want a kid and she does - her will be done.

I don't have to like it, but that's simply the way it is.

For a guy, it's a situation he can't win


That's why men should stick to porn ;)

Men have 100% say in the matter. After all, they got the lady pregnant. It is for the man to decided if the baby shall be born or not.

I agree. If I put the kettle on to boil I can decide to turn it off before it is ready. Just because women are the vessels that nature has decided to use to incubate new humans does not make them divine. They are just ovens for cooking human buns in.

I agree. If I put the kettle on to boil I can decide to turn it off before it is ready. Just because women are the vessels that nature has decided to use to incubate new humans does not make them divine. They are just ovens for cooking human buns in.

I never realized that "troll" was one of Sophie's choices :p

That's why men should stick to porn ;)

And sweet, sweet sodomy.

I never realized that "troll" was one of Sophie's choices :p

That is my opinion. I can have an opinion without being considered a troll can't I?

That is my opinion. I can have an opinion without being considered a troll can't I?Depends on the opinion :p

I agree. If I put the kettle on to boil I can decide to turn it off before it is ready. Just because women are the vessels that nature has decided to use to incubate new humans does not make them divine. They are just ovens for cooking human buns in.

Well-said, good sir or ma'am.

But hmm, if women are ovens, and children are buns, does that make my semen Pillsbury bun-mix, or raw dough?

Well-said, good sir or ma'am.

But hmm, if women are ovens, and children are buns, does that make my semen Pillsbury bun-mix, or raw dough?

I'm thinking yeast . . .

I never realized that "troll" was one of Sophie's choices :p

I applaud your idiocy. Were Sophie's opinion the opposite, replacing the sexes, you'd be all over him/her with praise. If ever the situation arises wherein I get a woman pregnant, and she refuses to have an abortion, there is no way in hell I will support that kid. I'd honestly rather go to jail than pay.

I applaud your idiocy. Were Sophie's opinion the opposite, replacing the sexes, you'd be all over him/her with praise. If ever the situation arises wherein I get a woman pregnant, and she refuses to have an abortion, there is no way in hell I will support that kid. I'd honestly rather go to jail than pay.

oh if only it were that easy

first they seize your tax refunds. then they garnishee your wages. then they take your driver's license. they'll even take your freaking hunting license.

youll be scraping by working under the table, risking arrest every time you drive someone elses car.

youll ruin your life in an effort to deny your own child the support it deserves.

nice.

That is my opinion. I can have an opinion without being considered a troll can't I?

Since there's only 21, I went and read all your posts. Can't decide. Troll? Sarcasm? You are good at baiting ;)

I applaud your idiocy.As I applaud yours. Were Sophie's opinion the opposite, replacing the sexes, you'd be all over him/her with praise.People don't normally congratulate eachother on making sense, unless they've established a precedent of not doing it. If ever the situation arises wherein I get a woman pregnant, and she refuses to have an abortion, there is no way in hell I will support that kid. I'd honestly rather go to jail than pay.Let's see.. You have complete control over whether or not you'll get someone pregnant, so if you deliberately choose to, and she chooses to carry it to term, you're willing to go to jail just for the principle of running from your self-chosen, self-inflicted repsonsibility?

Heh, I can't honestly say I'd be afraid of that situation if I were you. You're not man enough to impregnate anything.

I applaud your idiocy. Were Sophie's opinion the opposite, replacing the sexes, you'd be all over him/her with praise. If ever the situation arises wherein I get a woman pregnant, and she refuses to have an abortion, there is no way in hell I will support that kid. I'd honestly rather go to jail than pay.

Then you shouldn't be having sex. At the very least, you shouldn't be having sex unless you have (a) discussed this attitude with your partner and she still agrees to sleep with you and (b) are using as much protection as humanly possible.

In fact, if you never want children, your best bet is to get sterilized now.

I'll pre-empt your poll. The answer is none. Nobody should. A society should never attempt to usurp the autonomy of an individual, when none is endangered by the individual's actions.There in lies the problem with the debate. When does the fetus/embryo become an individual?

The poll in the other thread shows almost 3/4 of Generalites think men should have some say on abortion. I'd like to find out how much of a say. Please be patient, poll coming ;)

Edit to add: Apparently, there's a 100-character limit on poll options. #5 and #6, the "American Idol" options, should include, "Only $1 a minute on your touch-tone phone!"

Edit to also add: If you're going to vote "50-50," please explain in a post how that would work?

Edit to also also add: I do hope it's clear that "There should be a calm, rational discussion of the issue, before a nation-wide vote." is the joke option ;)

The couple should work it out to see if they could fit in having a baby.

Then you shouldn't be having sex. At the very least, you shouldn't be having sex unless you have (a) discussed this attitude with your partner and she still agrees to sleep with you and (b) are using as much protection as humanly possible.

In fact, if you never want children, your best bet is to get sterilized now.

Ah, Dempublicents is here, I bet you'll be easier to understand. Surely you can explain to me why the man consents to the birth of the child at sex, while the woman doesn't?

There in lies the problem with the debate.

You won't find much agreement for that point nowadays.

Ah, Dempublicents is here, I bet you'll be easier to understand. Surely you can explain to me why the man consents to the birth of the child at sex, while the woman doesn't?

Because the man can't get pregnant.

He cannot force a woman to have an abortion (or not to), as it is her body involved - she is the one who is pregnant. As such, his right to decide whether or not he will be a biological father ends when his participation in reproduction ends - at sex.

There in lies the problem with the debate. When does the fetus/embryo become an individual?When it ceases to be either. How's that a problem?

Because the man can't get pregnant.

He cannot force a woman to have an abortion (or not to), as it is her body involved - she is the one who is pregnant. As such, his right to decide whether or not he will be a biological father ends when his participation in reproduction ends - at sex.

Of course. Child support doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the woman's body, however.

oh if only it were that easy

first they seize your tax refunds. then they garnishee your wages. then they take your driver's license. they'll even take your freaking hunting license.

youll be scraping by working under the table, risking arrest every time you drive someone elses car.

youll ruin your life in an effort to deny your own child the support it deserves.

nice.

No, I'd be abroad by then, because you've all missed something. If I impregnated a woman having sex without any form of protection AND WITH A CLEAR STATE OF MIND, I would support the thing as long as I got to see it. If I impregnated a woman either with protection or in a state of mind that was unclear, I would not support it because I did not choose to have it. It's that simple.

It should be entirely the womens choice, but if she decides to have the baby and the father does not want it he should still involve himself with the baby, but he shouldn't have to invest as much time (in an evolution sense his parental investment should be minimal but still present)

Of course. Child support doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the woman's body, however.This seems to me to be connected to this misconception:Once the kid is born, both partners have equal say again (parental rights) in raising the kid and share responsibility.Because parents don't have rights or or 'a say' over their kids. Children have rights, they're sovereign beings. The only but here, is that children has a limited capacity for autonomy, and since the parents are the most logical guardians, it's the role they're normally appointed - until such time as they fail in their responsibility, or the child becomes a fully autonomous being.

Child support has sweet fuck-all to do with the mother, it's to do with the child. If you've deliberately put a human into this world that relies on you to sustain itself, you've also deliberately obliged yourself to sustain it.

It's so damn simple. I don't get why so many of you are trying to make it look complicated.

It's so damn simple. I don't get why so many of you are trying to make it look complicated.

Oy, all the guy did delibrately was have sex. Sex didn't mean consenting to bringing a child into the world before, but it seems as though it does now. I figure there's some complex logical subroutines going on here to support that.

Of course. Child support doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the woman's body, however.

You didn't ask anything about child support. You asked "Surely you can explain to me why the man consents to the birth of the child at sex, while the woman doesn't?"

Child support is another matter, which can really only be discussed after the birth of a child. And you are right that it has nothing to do with the woman's body. It has to do with the fact that a child cannot take care of himself and thus needs support from others.

Oy, all the guy did delibrately was have sex. Sex didn't mean consenting to bringing a child into the world before, but it seems as though it does now. I figure there's some complex logical subroutines going on here to support that.

Sex never means "consenting to bringing a child into the world." However, when a man has sex with a woman, he is consenting to the risk that she may become pregnant, and may then decide to bring a child into the world.

Note that only a woman can "bring a child into the world" - by carrying a pregnancy to term and by giving birth. A man cannot do this, and thus cannot "bring a child into the world." By logical extension, a man cannot consent to bring a child into the world.

You didn't ask anything about child support. You asked "Surely you can explain to me why the man consents to the birth of the child at sex, while the woman doesn't?"

Child support is another matter, which can really only be discussed after the birth of a child. And you are right that it has nothing to do with the woman's body. It has to do with the fact that a child cannot take care of himself and thus needs support from others.

Kay, what if the man doesn't want to support it? Let's say even before it becomes a 'soverign entity'?

Sex never means "consenting to bringing a child into the world." However, when a man has sex with a woman, he is consenting to the risk that she may become pregnant, and may then decide to bring a child into the world.

Note that only a woman can "bring a child into the world" - by carrying a pregnancy to term and by giving birth. A man cannot do this, and thus cannot "bring a child into the world." By logical extension, a man cannot consent to bring a child into the world.

Err...When exactly does he become responsible for it then?

Well 49/51 is better than one sided. I mean look, half the women i talk to say men should have a say, cause overall, he has a influence in the childs life. Would you want the child to live a bad life cause the father can't provide for the child? If not, at least give the man the permission to throw the idea out there. Overall the woman makes the final decision, yet you can't completely leave it up to fully woman or fully man, cause extremes never work.

Oy, all the guy did delibrately was have sex. Sex didn't mean consenting to bringing a child into the world before, but it seems as though it does now. I figure there's some complex logical subroutines going on here to support that.What the fuck?

People can avoid getting eachother pregnant and still have sex. They can also choose not to have sex. And they can choose to have sex with the chance of producing offspring. All three are deliberate choices for all parties involved, assuming no coersion's taking place. Complex logic that, eh?

Just out of curiousity though; when the hell did having sex capable of producing offspring not mean consenting to doing so? Back in the golden age of double-think?

I said 50:50 but then I disagreed with myself. I reckon the woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body, and she should not have to lose months of her life and go under labour if she does not want to.

Sex never means "consenting to bringing a child into the world." However, when a man has sex with a woman, he is consenting to the risk that she may become pregnant, and may then decide to bring a child into the world.

Note that only a woman can "bring a child into the world" - by carrying a pregnancy to term and by giving birth. A man cannot do this, and thus cannot "bring a child into the world." By logical extension, a man cannot consent to bring a child into the world.I never thought I'd be saying this, but: rubbish, Demp. It takes both male and female in unison to bring about a pregnancy. So although the male has no rights and limited influence over whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term, he does indeed consent to the possibility by enabling it to happen.

It's no different that, say, me firing a gun out the window without checking what I might hit. I can't divorce myself of the responsibility for shooting the neighbour's bathroom mirror - or the neighbour itself, for that matter - simply because I wasn't looking. It was my choice not to, and I knew full well what my action might result in.

Kay, what if the man doesn't want to support it? Let's say even before it becomes a 'soverign entity'?

Then, in my opinion, he shouldn't have had sex. A man who fathers a child and won't support it, in my mind, is a scumbag.

Now, on the subject of whether or not he should be legally forced to do so, I would say no. The child will be better off with the scumbag completely out of her life.

Err...When exactly does he become responsible for it then?

In a moral sense? He should be doing what he can to support the mother through her pregnancy (thus, somewhat responsible) and is responsible for the child once it is born.

In a legal sense, he is monetarily responsible for the child once it is born.

Well 49/51 is better than one sided. I mean look, half the women i talk to say men should have a say, cause overall, he has a influence in the childs life. Would you want the child to live a bad life cause the father can't provide for the child? If not, at least give the man the permission to throw the idea out there. Overall the woman makes the final decision, yet you can't completely leave it up to fully woman or fully man, cause extremes never work.

In the end 49/51 is the exact same thing as 0/100. If the woman gets the final decision (as you say she should), then she gets 100% of the decision. The man does not carry any weight whatsoever in the decision itself.

Now, what most people mean when they say he should "have a say" is that the woman should listen to and consider his opinions on the matter when making her decision. This is something I absolutely agree with (in most cases), but it isn't exactly something you can legislate.

This seems to me to be connected to this misconception:Because parents don't have rights or or 'a say' over their kids. Children have rights, they're sovereign beings. The only but here, is that children has a limited capacity for autonomy, and since the parents are the most logical guardians, it's the role they're normally appointed - until such time as they fail in their responsibility, or the child becomes a fully autonomous being.

Child support has sweet fuck-all to do with the mother, it's to do with the child. If you've deliberately put a human into this world that relies on you to sustain itself, you've also deliberately obliged yourself to sustain it.

It's so damn simple. I don't get why so many of you are trying to make it look complicated.
If you read my post again, you know exactly what I was meaning without making it a complicated statement.
But the parents do indeed have the right to make decisions on how they are going to raise their child (Erziehungsrecht) and they do so with a 50-50 say.

I deliberately left out the child's personal rights but I did mention the responsibility the parents share equally. That is where the emphasis was.

I never thought I'd be saying this, but: rubbish, Demp. It takes both male and female in unison to bring about a pregnancy.

Of course it takes both a male and female to bring about a pregnancy. But only the woman is involved in carrying that pregnancy to term. Thus, only she can bring a child into the world. By extension, only she can consent to doing so.

So although the male has no rights and limited influence over whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term, he does indeed consent to the possibility by enabling it to happen.

I never said otherwise. In fact, that's pretty much precisely what I said. He consents to the possibility of a child being born when he consents to sex because he consents to the possibility of impregnating the woman - and his control ends there. But he never consents to carry the pregnancy to term (or to abort) because he is incapable of doing so - he is never pregnant.

Then, in my opinion, he shouldn't have had sex. A man who fathers a child and won't support it, in my mind, is a scumbag.

Now, on the subject of whether or not he should be legally forced to do so, I would say no. The child will be better off with the scumbag completely out of her life.



In a moral sense? He should be doing what he can to support the mother through her pregnancy (thus, somewhat responsible) and is responsible for the child once it is born.

In a legal sense, he is monetarily responsible for the child once it is born.


A'ight, lot of information, lemme think through this. Clearly, if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, but doesn't want a child can abort the pregnancy, it's her body. Now, the man, also clearly, can't choose to end the pregnancy, that would invade the woman's rights. If men got pregnant, he could absolutely choose not to have the child. Also, for men, having sex may automatically ammount to taking resposibility for a child, because they can't stop the pregnancy, even if he didn't intend for one. He can't, during pregnancy, decide he doesn't want to be a father and end the pregnancy because it's the woman's body, nor can he decide he doesn't want to be a father in a legal or monetary sense because...It's..future harm to the potential child? He has responsibilty to it before it's born? He can't stop the birth, so he has to support it? I'm lost at this point.

Now that I think about it, we are majorly talking about if the woman wants the baby yet the father has reasons he can't be a father (can't support it, scumbag, something else...) yet, what about the other way around. Does a man get to say "No, I wanna be a father." while the mother doesn't want to have a baby for other reasons (fear, doesn't want birthmarks, something else...)

A'ight, lot of information, lemme think through this. Clearly, if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, but doesn't want a child can abort the pregnancy, it's her body.

Indeed. We could discuss whether or not that is the right choice or a good choice, but she certainly has that choice.

Now, the man, also clearly, can't choose to end the pregnancy, that would invade the woman's rights. If men got pregnant, he could absolutely choose not to have the child.

But of course.

Also, for men, having sex may automatically ammount to taking resposibility for a child, because they can't stop the pregnancy, even if he didn't intend for one.

Pretty much. His participation in reproduction ends at sex, so his decision in whether or not there is a child ends at sex. If he doesn't want a child, he shouldn't have sex - at least not without getting sterilized.

From a moral sense, I would argue that this actually goes for both men and women, but that is another discussion entirely. A woman can end a pregnancy because she is the one who is pregnant. Yes, this does extend the time period in which she can decide whether or not to become a parent. It may seem unfair, but biology has not seen fit to make men able to become pregnant. There are many things about biology that are not fair.

He can't, during pregnancy, decide he doesn't want to be a father and end the pregnancy because it's the woman's body, nor can he decide he doesn't want to be a father in a legal or monetary sense because...It's..future harm to the potential child? He has responsibilty to it before it's born? He can't stop the birth, so he has to support it? I'm lost at this point.

He has a responsibility to it after it is born. His actions led to a child being born and his child is now in this world. That child is entitled to support from both parents.

Now, like I said, I don't think he should be legally forced to be a part of the child's life, even in a monetary sense, because I don't think that is what is best for the child. But I'm not going to have any respect for a man capable of supporting his child who chooses not to.

Suppose two people were needed to start a process but only one could stop it in the middle. Considering that they both had to start the process, wouldn't they both bear responsibility for the result? One might argue, I suppose, that the person who could have stopped it has a greater amount of responsibility, but I think one would be hard pressed to come up with an argument for absolving the second party of any responsibility whatsoever.

Now that I think about it, we are majorly talking about if the woman wants the baby yet the father has reasons he can't be a father (can't support it, scumbag, something else...) yet, what about the other way around. Does a man get to say "No, I wanna be a father." while the mother doesn't want to have a baby for other reasons (fear, doesn't want birthmarks, something else...)

A'ight, lot of information, lemme think through this. Clearly, if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, but doesn't want a child can abort the pregnancy, it's her body. Now, the man, also clearly, can't choose to end the pregnancy, that would invade the woman's rights. If men got pregnant, he could absolutely choose not to have the child. Also, for men, having sex may automatically ammount to taking resposibility for a child, because they can't stop the pregnancy, even if he didn't intend for one. He can't, during pregnancy, decide he doesn't want to be a father and end the pregnancy because it's the woman's body, nor can he decide he doesn't want to be a father in a legal or monetary sense because...It's..future harm to the potential child? He has responsibilty to it before it's born? He can't stop the birth, so he has to support it? I'm lost at this point.

i cant stay for the debate but i still dont see what your problem with this simple idea is.

due to the differences in biology, when a woman consents to sex, she consents to the possibility that she well end up pregnant from it no matter what precautions they take to prevent it.

she cannot ever walk away from a pregnancy. no free ride. she has to either have the child (or try to) or she has an abortion. an abortion is the worst day in the life of many of the woman who undergo the procedure. its not renegging in her responsibilities.

when a man consents to sex, he consents to the possibility that the woman might become pregnant and that she will have to deal with that pregnancy as she sees fit. that can include a live birth of his child.

all children have the right to be supported by their parents. that is the right of the CHILD, not the right of the mother. if a child comes into the world, both parents have absolutely equal rights and responsibilities to it.

all "unfairness" lies in the difference in biology between men and women. it should not be made "fair" by depriving a 3rd person (the child) of its rights.

Now that I think about it, we are majorly talking about if the woman wants the baby yet the father has reasons he can't be a father (can't support it, scumbag, something else...)

I thought we were talking about the man simply not wanting to be a father, not being unable to do so, but I suppose that's beside the point.

yet, what about the other way around. Does a man get to say "No, I wanna be a father." while the mother doesn't want to have a baby for other reasons (fear, doesn't want birthmarks, something else...)

The man can say he wants to be a father all he wants. And when he finds a woman willing to be impregnated by him and carry that pregnancy to term, he can do so.

... I've no pity for you. If you don't want to risk having a child, don't stick your penis into vaginas.
Isn't that "personal responsiblity" argument more or less the same as that you dismiss when it comes from pro-lifers?

You know, when they tell women that "if you hadn't sought sex you wouldn't have become pregnant."

If you read my post again, you know exactly what I was meaning without making it a complicated statement.Self-evidently not, but I'm delighted to have misunderstood you.Of course it takes both a male and female to bring about a pregnancy. But only the woman is involved in carrying that pregnancy to term. Thus, only she can bring a child into the world. By extension, only she can consent to doing so.This is what brought my comment about. Though I agree with your final comclusion, I don't for a second agree with the bit I bolded. If I screw my girl, fully aware that my spem's functional and neither of us takes steps to prevent a pregnancy, I'm explicitly consenting to her having the child, should she choose to. Without my explicit consent, she wouldn't have a choice.Also, for men, having sex may automatically ammount to taking resposibility for a child, because they can't stop the pregnancy, even if he didn't intend for one.Exactly right, because the man cannot possibly claim he didn't intent to make the woman pregnant, unless he's suffering severely diminished capacity, in which case he's not legally responsible for his actions anyway.I'm lost at this point.Only because you apparently can't get your head around the fact that when a guy engages in sexual activities that may get a girl pregnant, he's consenting to the full extreme of the consequences of the act. Otherwise he shouldn't be participating in it. It's not like we men don't have a choice. It's quite easy to practice safe sex, debate possible obligations with the partner beforehand, getting our tubes snipped, or refraining from fucking girls in that particular hole. The choice is ours, just like the consequences are ours.

Again, I fail to see why this has to be some complicated excercise in illogic, hypocracy and double-think, when it's so damn simple.

Isn't that "personal responsiblity" argument more or less the same as that you dismiss when it comes from pro-lifers?

You know, when they tell women that "if you hadn't sought sex you wouldn't have become pregnant."Anti-Freedomers, aka Pro-Lifers use it as a red herring to detract attantion from the fact that they intentionally seek to usurp the autonomy of an individual, for no damn reason at all.

After all, what they're arguing isn't that the woman shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but rather that they have the right to submit the woman to their whims.

Actual stance on abortion aside, it is the woman's body, thus, it is her choice.

However, if the man wants otherwise, then he should not be obligated to pay child support. If he wants an abortion because he knows he won't be able to support the kid yet the woman wants the baby anyway, that should be the woman's problem.

And, yes, as painful as the truth is, if people weren't out looking for sex three times a night, they wouldnt've gotten pregnant in the first place.

Isn't that "personal responsiblity" argument more or less the same as that you dismiss when it comes from pro-lifers?

No. A woman's participation in the reproductive process does not end at sex.

You know, when they tell women that "if you hadn't sought sex you wouldn't have become pregnant."

Since when is that an argument made by those who would ban abortion? The argument about abortion isn't about becoming pregnant. It is about staying pregnant. It is absolutely true that a woman who doesn't have sex (and doesn't have it forced on her) will not become pregnant. Nobody argues with that or dismisses it. The question is whether or not she will stay pregnant.


This is what brought my comment about. Though I agree with your final comclusion, I don't for a second agree with the bit I bolded. If I screw my girl, fully aware that my spem's functional and neither of us takes steps to prevent a pregnancy, I'm explicitly consenting to her having the child, should she choose to. Without my explicit consent, she wouldn't have a choice.

You are consenting to her possibly becoming pregnant, and possibly carrying the child to term. You are not consenting to "bringing a child into this world." That is something only she is capable of and thus only she can consent to. You are, in a sense, consenting to the possibility of her bringing a child into this world.

Exactly right, because the man cannot possibly claim he didn't intent to make the woman pregnant, unless he's suffering severely diminished capacity, in which case he's not legally responsible for his actions anyway.

Of course he can claim he didn't intend to make the woman pregnant. If they were using birth control, etc. it is quite obvious that pregnancy was not the intent. In fact, pregnancy is not the intent in most sex. What he cannot claim (unless he is severely undereducated) is that he did not know that she might become pregnant.

And sweet, sweet sodomy.
That may be a good choice, but the risk of STIs increases.

Child support has sweet fuck-all to do with the mother, it's to do with the child. If you've deliberately put a human into this world that relies on you to sustain itself, you've also deliberately obliged yourself to sustain it.

It's so damn simple. I don't get why so many of you are trying to make it look complicated.
I agree, this is the child's right. But in my opinion, to hold the pro-choice position simultaneously hold the view that the man consents to fatherhood upon sex, is misandrist and hypocritical.

all children have the right to be supported by their parents. that is the right of the CHILD, not the right of the mother. if a child comes into the world, both parents have absolutely equal rights and responsibilities to it.

all "unfairness" lies in the difference in biology between men and women. it should not be made "fair" by depriving a 3rd person (the child) of its rights.
Agreed, 100%, from a pro-life perspective.

she cannot ever walk away from a pregnancy. no free ride. she has to either have the child (or try to) or she has an abortion. an abortion is the worst day in the life of many of the woman who undergo the procedure. itAgain, I fail to see why this has to be some complicated excercise in illogic, hypocracy and double-think, when it's so damn simple.

Oy, after listening to 'Demp' over there, y'all's harsh wordings really grate on the mind, yanno?

No. A woman's participation in the reproductive process does not end at sex.

Since when is that an argument made by those who would ban abortion? The argument about abortion isn't about becoming pregnant. It is about staying pregnant. It is absolutely true that a woman who doesn't have sex (and doesn't have it forced on her) will not become pregnant. Nobody argues with that or dismisses it. The question is whether or not she will stay pregnant.
I'm sure you know that argument I attempted to paraphrase. It's a very cliched one.

I agree, this is the child's right. But in my opinion, to hold the pro-choice position simultaneously hold the view that the man consents to fatherhood upon sex, is misandrist and hypocritical.

How so?

The pro-choice position is derived from the position that all human beings have the right to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions. The man cannot control the woman's body. Thus, his participation in reproduction ends when he has sex. He can only control his own participation in the reproductive process - which means that he can only control whether or not he has sex.

Any time an adult has heterosexual sex, that adult is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy - the woman that she may become pregnant and the man that he may impregnate her. Because the man's participation ends there, his consent encompasses all that may come of that pregnancy, including the live birth of a child. Because the woman's participation does not end there, she has the ability to choose whether or not she will continue the process by attempting to carry the pregnancy to term.

You are consenting to her possibly becoming pregnant, and possibly carrying the child to term. You are not consenting to "bringing a child into this world." That is something only she is capable of and thus only she can consent to. You are, in a sense, consenting to the possibility of her bringing a child into this world.What's the difference?Of course he can claim he didn't intend to make the woman pregnant. If they were using birth control, etc. it is quite obvious that pregnancy was not the intent. In fact, pregnancy is not the intent in most sex. What he cannot claim (unless he is severely undereducated) is that he did not know that she might become pregnant.If the first period had been a comma instead, I'd agree. If you have good faith you're practicing safe sex, but the little jinx deliberately tricks you somehow, you're obviously exempt from any obligations. That, however, is an extremely unusual circumstance - just like the diminished capacity one - and of no real relevance to this particular topic.Oy, after listening to 'Demp' over there, y'all's harsh wordings really grate on the mind, yanno?I'm sure you'll cope somehow. I'd be nicer, but half the posts in this thread basically boils down to "But pretty-please isn't there some way I can weasel my way out of taking responsibility for my own actions?" and I can't honestly say I think that deserves nice, polite replies. A kick in the arse would seem more appropriate.

I'm sure you know that argument I attempted to paraphrase. It's a very cliched one.

Indeed. But, as I explained, it is still a different situation.

What's the difference?

She consents to actually doing something. You consent to give her the opportunity. The difference may seem irrelevant, but it is not in these arguments. Those who would try to equate the man's position in the reproductive process and the woman's position are ignoring basic biology, and the differences must be made very clear.

If the first period had been a comma instead, I'd agree. If you have good faith you're practicing safe sex, but the little jinx deliberately tricks you somehow, you're obviously exempt from any obligations. That, however, is an extremely unusual circumstance - just like the diminished capacity one - and of no real relevance to this particular topic.

Why do you assume it has to be "the little jinx deliberately tricking you"? Birth control fails, my dear. Safe sex does not eliminate the possibility of a pregnancy. The point is that the intent of most sex is not pregnancy. Most men who have sex are not trying to get anyone pregnant and most women are not trying to get pregnant. Pregnancy is a possible outcome, and both have to be aware of that even if they are practicing safe sex. But it is not necessarily, or even usually, the intent of either person.

She consents to actually doing something. You consent to give her the opportunity. The difference may seem irrelevant, but it is not in these arguments. Those who would try to equate the man's position in the reproductive process and the woman's position are ignoring basic biology, and the differences must be made very clear.Right, sorry. For a moment there I'd almost forgotten this thread was all about usurping the autonomy of pregnant women.Safe sex does not eliminate the possibility of a pregnancy.Which is why there's things like chemical and clinical abortions available.Why do you assume it has to be "the little jinx deliberately tricking you"? Birth control fails, my dear. [...] The point is that the intent of most sex is not pregnancy. Most men who have sex are not trying to get anyone pregnant and most women are not trying to get pregnant. Pregnancy is a possible outcome, and both have to be aware of that even if they are practicing safe sex. But it is not necessarily, or even usually, the intent of either person.We don't disagree at all, but unless you're being deliberately manipulated, how can you get the impression you're practicing safe sex, don't desire offspring, and yet end up with offspring?

Which is why there's things like chemical and clinical abortions available.

Indeed, but not all women will choose to undergo them, even if they did not intend to get pregnant in the first place.

We don't disagree at all, but unless you're being deliberately manipulated, how can you get the impression you're practicing safe sex, don't desire offspring, and yet end up with offspring?

You can practice safe sex, not desire offspring, and still cause a pregnancy or become pregnant. If a woman then chooses not to abort and the pregnancy is carried to term, then offspring results. There is no need for deliberate manipulation - just a woman who does not wish to have an abortion.

My fiance and I do not intend to have a child right now. For that reason, I am on the birth control pill and I take it religiously. However, we are both morally opposed to elective abortions. Thus, if I were to become pregnant tomorrow and my pregnancy was healthy, we would end up having a child, albeit a little earlier than we were planning on. Neither of us is manipulating or misleading the other. In fact, we discussed this before we ever had sex. We discussed it again when we made the choice to stop using condoms, as that did raise the chances somewhat.

Perhaps you are under the impression that "safe sex" includes consent to abort any pregnancy, but it does not. All it means is that the participants are taking measures to prevent pregnancy. The discussion of what will be done in the event of a pregnancy is a separate one. And, even then, there may be circumstances that change the outcome.

but unless you're being deliberately manipulated, how can you get the impression you're practicing safe sex, don't desire offspring, and yet end up with offspring?

Err...by practicing safe sex, not wanting children, and the girl ends up not wanting to abort? Seems the simplest way.

I'm still thinking about it though...Yes, the biology is unfair, but surely we can, to some degree, make the rights of men more accurately resemble those of women without infringing on women's rights?

Err...by practicing safe sex, not wanting children, and the girl ends up not wanting to abort? Seems the simplest way.

I'm still thinking about it though...Yes, the biology is unfair, but surely we can, to some degree, make the rights of men more accurately resemble those of women without infringing on women's rights?

So, which part of the 49/51 split outweighs the other?

Err...by practising safe sex, not wanting chirldren, and the girl ends up not wanting to abort? Seems the simplest way.

I'm still thinking about it though...Yes, the biology is unfair, but surely we can, to some degree, make the rights of men more accurately resemble those of women without infringing on women's rights?

The rights of men currently equally match the rights of women. The results of those rights may not, but the rights themselves do. Both have the right to consent to (or not consent to) sex. Both have the right to make their own medical decisions, and neither has the right to make those decisions for the other. Once a child is born from a reproductive process that both participated in, neither has the right to abandon that child and both have the right and responsibility to take care of that child.

Perhaps you are talking about making the situation seem more fair - to somehow make up for the imbalance in participation caused by biology?

In theory, yes, men should have a say.

In practice, however, it cannot be more than an "advisory opinion" at most.

In theory, yes, men should have a say.

In practice, however, it cannot be more than an "advisory opinion" at most.

Why should it be any more than that? How could it be any more than that?

The rights of men currently equally match the rights of women. The results of those rights may not, but the rights themselves do. Both have the right to consent to (or not consent to) sex. Both have the right to make their own medical decisions, and neither has the right to make those decisions for the other. Once a child is born from a reproductive process that both participated in, neither has the right to abandon that child and both have the right and responsibility to take care of that child.

Perhaps you are talking about making the situation seem more fair - to somehow make up for the imbalance in participation caused by biology?

We've overcome biology before, I guess...I dunno, really. One would think it'd be easier for a man to remove himself from the pregnancy, since it's not happening in him...I dunno. It sounds all well and good, 'men can opt out whenever women can'. After all, he doesn't even participate then...*unfinished thoughts* And, small point of contention, aren't there sort of "safe drop" zones, to abandon babies?

Why should it be any more than that? How could it be any more than that?

In short, my opinion is that men, as a part, should have a say. If they wanted to raise a child on their own, that should be taken into consideration.

But it cannot happen. The women carries the child and gives birth / has the abortion. Her body, her choice.

The discussion of what will be done in the even of a pregnancy is a separate one.I disagree. If the guy is to be held responsible for his part, it has to be clear what his part is. If it's clearly understood that abortion isn't an option, then obviously the guy has some obligations in the event of the pregnancy being carried to term. If it's clear the opposite is the case, then the guy can't possibly be said to have any obligation in the event the pregnancy is carried to term, as he has been mislead. If no such understanding is ensured before sex, then the guy must obviously by default assume he's got an obligation in the event the pregnancy is carried to term.
The reason being the complete straightforward one of the guy not walking into it blindly, however much he'd like to claim so.And, even then, there may be circumstances that change the outcome.I'm not sure how relevant one in a million incidents are here.

Err...by practicing safe sex, not wanting children, and the girl ends up not wanting to abort? Seems the simplest way.Fundamental misunderstanding here. I don't subscribe to your definition of safe sex, at least not if the intent is to avoid offspring, rather than STDs. I mean, I wouldn't dream of fucking a girl without letting her know exactly where I stand on pregnancies, nor have I ever, to the very best of my knowledge - not that it's an issue these days, as I apparently can't have children (oh the joys of thinking you can make quick cash by cumming in a jar).I'm still thinking about it though...Yes, the biology is unfair, but surely we can, to some degree, make the rights of men more accurately resemble those of women without infringing on women's rights?Biology is unfair? Hmm.. Well.. I suppose. I, for one, am rather glad I don't menstruate and get pregnant. I don't really see what it's got to do with anything though.

The rights of the male and the female do not differ, or should not, at any rate. As far as pregnancy goes, it's exclusively a matter for the woman. As far as achieving pregnancy goes, it's the responsibility of both, equally. And as far as the child goes, it's got a right to be taken care of by the parents, or failing that, it's community.

Err...by practicing safe sex, not wanting children, and the girl ends up not wanting to abort? Seems the simplest way.

I'm still thinking about it though...Yes, the biology is unfair, but surely we can, to some degree, make the rights of men more accurately resemble those of women without infringing on women's rights?

what do you have in mind?

if a man needs to have some right to erase a child, why shouldnt he have a right to insist on one? why are you guys only insisting on the right to walk away from a child? to be equal shouldnt there be some way to force her to provide you with a living newborn?

just a thought.

in any case, you still have to address the problem of making it more fair by removing the rights of a 3rd person.

We've overcome biology before, I guess...I dunno, really. One would think it'd be easier for a man to remove himself from the pregnancy, since it's not happening in him...I dunno. It sounds all well and good, 'men can opt out whenever women can'. After all, he doesn't even participate then...*unfinished thoughts* And, small point of contention, aren't there sort of "safe drop" zones, to abandon babies?

Yes, there are, but they are not truly "legal" in the sense that you might think of it or seen as a legal right. Essentially, in return for not killing the infant or leaving it in a dumpster, the parent who abandons the child at a hospital/fire station/etc. is granted immunity from prosecution. A mother who chooses this option has still broken the law. The government has simply agreed not to prosecute her for it since she did it in a way that didn't involve death of the child.


In short, my opinion is that men, as a part, should have a say. If they wanted to raise a child on their own, that should be taken into consideration.

"Taken into consideration" and "having a say" are not the same thing. I absolutely believe a woman should (barring extreme circumstances) talk to a man about the pregnancy and take into account his opinion on what to do. If he wishes to raise the child on his own, there should be a legal way to do that and she should consider it. Note that considering it does not necessarily mean she will do it, just that she looks at it as an option before making her final decision.

But to "have a say" would mean that he actually has some power in making the decision, which is something that cannot and should not happen. I think most people would agree that, in a perfect or even decent situation, a woman should discuss this with the man before making a final decision.


I disagree.

I don't see how the rest of this disagrees with anything I've said, so I'll just snip it. Suffice it to say that I agree with you. The discussion of what to do in the event of a pregnancy absolutely should be discussed before two people have sex. Unfortunately, it often is not. And that discussion is very different from a simple, "Hey, are you on the pill?" or, "Hey, please use a condom."

I'm not sure how relevant one in a million incidents are here.

Do you really think it's "one in a million"? One of the things I've always said (and completely believe) is that it is truly impossible to say, with certainty, what you will do in a difficult situation. A woman who has said she would absolutely never abort, when faced with the choice, may decide that it is the best thing for her. She was not misleading anyone before, she really thought she could never do it, but when faced with the actual prospect of pregnancy, she has a different viewpoint. The same can happen in reverse. It isn't a matter of misleading anyone, it's a matter of being actually faced with something you've only speculated about before. And I would guess that it actually happens quite often in the scheme of things.

"Taken into consideration" and "having a say" are not the same thing. I absolutely believe a woman should (barring extreme circumstances) talk to a man about the pregnancy and take into account his opinion on what to do. If he wishes to raise the child on his own, there should be a legal way to do that and she should consider it. Note that considering it does not necessarily mean she will do it, just that she looks at it as an option before making her final decision.

But to "have a say" would mean that he actually has some power in making the decision, which is something that cannot and should not happen. I think most people would agree that, in a perfect or even decent situation, a woman should discuss this with the man before making a final decision.


does the entire male argument boil down to "its not fair"?

does the entire male argument boil down to "its not fair"?

The argument seems to be that women have one more decision to make in the process than men - the decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Because of this, some argue, men are being forced into fatherhood by women and it isn't fair that they can't choose to abort a pregnancy as well. Thus, to make it "fair", some wish to be able to sign away the possible child as if they were having an abortion (except, of course, for the fact that the child may still come into existence).

So, yes, the argument basically boils down to, "It's not fair."