NationStates Jolt Archive

Should men have equal access to a post conception choice? Since I only no about abortion in the US my statements and conclusions are based on the mindset of American liberties.

Since the point of the feminist movement was to create a equal society without bias towards gender. Is it fair that women have a post conception option that men do not? If bolth genders are to be considered equal should not men also enjoy some form of post conception option?

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?

For those of you who are anti abortion let me save you the trouble. For purposes of this arguement it assumes that we do not withdraw the woman's right to have an abortion. Although that is a perfectly acceptable answer to ensuring that bolth sexes are treated equally.

Both sexes are treated equally ... complete control over their own anatomy ... it is not the womans fault that the mans anatomy has no part in the post conception part of pregnancy

Should men have equal access to a post conception choice? Since I only no about abortion in the US my statements and conclusions are based on the mindset of American liberties.

Since the point of the feminist movement was to create a equal society without bias towards gender. Is it fair that women have a post conception option that men do not? If bolth genders are to be considered equal should not men also enjoy some form of post conception option?

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?

For those of you who are anti abortion let me save you the trouble. For purposes of this arguement it assumes that we do not withdraw the woman's right to have an abortion. Although that is a perfectly acceptable answer to ensuring that bolth sexes are treated equally.

You fucked. You face the consequences.

If you would have kept your dick in your pants, this couldn't have happened.

(no you, specifically, but you as a general term)

But since the man is now separated from birth, since he has no fault for abortion or birth, he also has no responsibility.

EDIT: Other than resolving his responsibility for the pregnancy in the first place.

He is biologically separated ... that is not the same as responsibility free

Both sexes are treated equally ... complete control over their own anatomy ... it is not the womans fault that the mans anatomy has no part in the post conception part of pregnancy

But since the man is now separated from birth, since he has no fault for abortion or birth, he also has no responsibility.

EDIT: Other than resolving his responsibility for the pregnancy in the first place.

You fucked. You face the consequences.

If you would have kept your dick in your pants, this couldn't have happened.

(no you, specifically, but you as a general term)

Same stupid argument that is used against abortion.

Same stupid argument that is used against abortion.

From the man's prospective, it really isn't.

The woman is under no obligation to have an abortion if the man desires it.

He is causally separated to a very significant degree. He is only a cause to the extent that he effects the woman's decision by commitments and expectations.

The same can be said post birth of the woman too ...

He is biologically separated ... that is not the same as responsibility free

He is causally separated to a very significant degree. He is only a cause to the extent that he effects the woman's decision by commitments and expectations.

From the man's prospective, it really isn't.

The woman is under no obligation to have an abortion if the man desires it.

Of course, I would never argue that.

Of course, I would never argue that.

Well then what's the point? If the woman doesn't have an abortion, or put the offspring up for adoption, the man cannot simply shed responsibility.

The same can be said post birth of the woman too ...

What do you mean?

Well then what's the point? If the woman doesn't have an abortion, or put the offspring up for adoption, the man cannot simply shed responsibility.

Because he never had responsibility for the baby.

Because he never had responsibility for the baby.

Of course he has responsibility for the baby. Women don't produce sperm. It takes a man and a woman to produce a baby.

By participating in sex, the man has indicated his agreement to be responsible for the outcome of that sex.

If the woman wants to abort (and it is entirely her choice to do so or not), his responsibility ends there.

If she wants to carry the baby to term then adopt, his responsibility is at his option, if he wishes to keep the child or not.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).

If she wishes to keep the baby and not allow him parental involvement (if he so desires and is a fit parent), he should not be held responsible for child support.

Fairly simple, I'd say.

No, it takes a man and a woman to produce a pregnancy, from there the man is silent.

And a pregnancy produces a baby if nature runs it's course.

Of course he has responsibility for the baby. Women don't produce sperm. It takes a man and a woman to produce a baby.

No, it takes a man and a woman to produce a pregnancy, from there the man is silent.

just as the woman does not have the right to have someone else carry her child, a man does not have the right to decide whether or not someone else carry's his child (once it is conceived.) the roles of the sexes in reproduction are different. this mandates slightly different rights when it comes to continuing pregnancy.

but should a baby be born, both parents must have equal rights to it.

By participating in sex, the man has indicated his agreement to be responsible for the outcome of that sex.

And a child is not the outcome of sex.

If the woman wants to abort (and it is entirely her choice to do so or not), his responsibility ends there.

If she wants to carry the baby to term then adopt, his responsibility is at his option, if he wishes to keep the child or not.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).

If she wishes to keep the baby and not allow him parental involvement (if he so desires and is a fit parent), he should not be held responsible for child support.


Care to tie that together with any logic?

And a pregnancy produces a baby if nature runs it's course.

A man cannot cause a pregnancy to terminate or run its course.

(Without violating the rights of the woman, of course)

While with normal intercourse, I would have to go with the 'its the womens choice' side, there are some instances where I would have to disagree.

For example, I heard a story (was it here?) about a guy in a hospital, who received oral sex from a nurse, with a condom on. The nurse then took the condom out of the trash, and used the residual semen on the condom to get herself pregnant. When she gave birth, she sued for child support.

That isn't right. There is also the hypothetical situation of a women raping a man and having a child, either statutory, under the influence of alchohol, or something else borderline. Does the man get a say in that? Does he have to pay child support?

And a child is not the outcome of sex.

Care to tie that together with any logic?

A child is not the outcome of sex? How else do you have one?

What do you find to be illogical? If a man gets a woman pregnant, his responsibilities (as I see them, obviously) are laid out rather specifically. He does not have the right to usurp her decision about carrying the child or aborting it, and with that in mind, his responsibilities seem fairly clear cut to me. What don't you agree with, and why?

but should a baby be born, both parents must have equal rights to it.

Why? The man did practically nothing.

By participating in sex, the man has indicated his agreement to be responsible for the outcome of that sex.

If the woman wants to abort (and it is entirely her choice to do so or not), his responsibility ends there.

If she wants to carry the baby to term then adopt, his responsibility is at his option, if he wishes to keep the child or not.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).

If she wishes to keep the baby and not allow him parental involvement (if he so desires and is a fit parent), he should not be held responsible for child support.

Fairly simple, I'd say.

Yes but, what if she decides to keep the baby, and he doesn't wish to. Why should he be forced to support the child?

Further, if she decides to keep the child, and doesn't wish the father to be involved, yet the father wishes to be involved, why should her wishes supersede his

Why? The man did practically nothing.

So... what you're saying is, the more work that is done to bring a child into the world, the more responsibility the worker has towards the child.

In which case, Doctors should pay support for all the children they deliver, as clearly they do more work than the father did...

While with normal intercourse, I would have to go with the 'its the womens choice' side, there are some instances where I would have to disagree.

For example, I heard a story (was it here?) about a guy in a hospital, who received oral sex from a nurse, with a condom on. The nurse then took the condom out of the trash, and used the residual semen on the condom to get herself pregnant. When she gave birth, she sued for child support.

That isn't right. There is also the hypothetical situation of a women raping a man and having a child, either statutory, under the influence of alchohol, or something else borderline. Does the man get a say in that? Does he have to pay child support?

Of course, the premise requires consensual sex. If there is coersion, rape, or what have you, the issue of responsibility is abrogated.

If, however, there IS consensual sex and an accident occurs (condom breaks, for instance) the man IS still responsible. Why? Well, even though he was not actively pursuing pregnancy, he was participating in an act that has a chance of resulting in same of his own free will. Thus he is, in having consensual sex, accepting the risk, and must accept the responsibility.

Why? The man did practically nothing.

wierd isnt it?

parental rights isnt based on how much effort you put into making the child but on yoru genetic contribution. (or legal decree in the case of adoption)

Yes but, what if she decides to keep the baby, and he doesn't wish to. Why should he be forced to support the child?

Further, if she decides to keep the child, and doesn't wish the father to be involved, yet the father wishes to be involved, why should her wishes supersede his

the right to support isnt the mother's

its the child's

when it comes to adoption BOTH parents have to agree (unless the court steps in). if she wants to give the baby up for adoption and he doesnt, it doesnt happen

Why? The man did practically nothing.

Hey, I made her orgasm repeatedly. That has to be worth something.

Yes but, what if she decides to keep the baby, and he doesn't wish to. Why should he be forced to support the child?

Further, if she decides to keep the child, and doesn't wish the father to be involved, yet the father wishes to be involved, why should her wishes supersede his

The first is easier to answer... he participated in the sex, so he must accept the responsibility. If he doesn't want children, and is not willing to support one if it should come about, he should not have sex.

If the father wishes to be involved, barring that he is an unfit parent, I believe he should be allowed to be. My point was more that if SHE doesn't want to allow parental rights (except for reasons that he is unfit to parent), she should not expect parental responsibililty (ie child support).

A child is not the outcome of sex? How else do you have one?

Not what I meant. Under the premise that abortion should be an option to a woman, sex is causally separated from birth.

What do you find to be illogical? If a man gets a woman pregnant, his responsibilities (as I see them, obviously) are laid out rather specifically. He does not have the right to usurp her decision about carrying the child or aborting it, and with that in mind, his responsibilities seem fairly clear cut to me. What don't you agree with, and why?

I believe that the woman should have sole control over the pregnancy, and because of that, the woman is sole cause of birth or abortion. Since he is cause of the pregnancy, the man is obligated to see it through to the resolution. But since he is not a cause of the child, he has no obligation to it.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).
Does not a willingness to abandon the fetus before one knows a damn thing about it, other than that it exists, indicate a certain lack of fitness for the role of fatherhood?
One of the best arguments for the Right to Choose follows the same logic (a woman who doesn't want a child so much that she is willing to go through an invasive medical procedure in order to avoid the possibility is likely to be a pretty terrible parent).

So... what you're saying is, the more work that is done to bring a child into the world, the more responsibility the worker has towards the child.

In which case, Doctors should pay support for all the children they deliver, as clearly they do more work than the father did...

I was more or less probing for your reasoning. The father must do something to get this parental right, correct?

parental rights isnt based on how much effort you put into making the child but on yoru genetic contribution. (or legal decree in the case of adoption)

That doesn't make it right.

You better not be implying that Whereyouthinkyougoing is pregnant! :mad:

Not what I meant. Under the premise that abortion should be an option to a woman, sex is causally separated from birth.
Sex is not separated from birth, there is merely another decision added into the process, one that is up to the woman. There is a decision that the MAN has entire control over in the process, and that is to contribute his sperm in the first place. Once he has done so, she has the option of what to do next with the result. Once a child actually has been born, he is equally responsible for it.

I believe that the woman should have sole control over the pregnancy, and because of that, the woman is sole cause of birth or abortion. Since he is cause of the pregnancy, the man is obligated to see it through to the resolution. But since he is not a cause of the child, he has no obligation to it.

Of course he is a cause of the child. She has the right to decide whether to see the pregnancy through or not, a step in which he has no decision making power, and if she does, he is absolutely a cause.

Think of it this way. Take abortion off the table. If abortion were not possible, he would be responsible for the child. Since abortion IS possible, but is entirely the woman's choice, it has no bearing on his ultimate responsibility for any child that is born. It would CANCEL his responsibility if she chooses to abort, obviously. But if she chooses not to abort, his responsibility remains in force.

I always find the hypocricy when this come up highly amusing

"by having sex a man consents to be obligated to the child", funny, we don't let that argument work for women, do we?

"the child has a right to be supported by its parents!" oh, so no adoption huh?

The fact is, at the end of the day, no woman need ever be held responsibile for a child she does not wish to have. Period. At all. No woman need be made to take responsible for a child until, at least, the 6th month of pregnancy.

A man is bound by the woman's decision at conception. This is not equitable. Now true, it is unortunate that for a mother to abort a pregnancy, no child is actually born, but for a father to walk away would require the child to not have support of his/her biological father.

Of course, the argument that people use along these lines "oh, but the father has a duty to the child! the child has rights to support!" Since when has that been the case? Parents give children over to foster homes all the time. In numerous states in this country, a new mother and father can take their newborn into a police station, put it down, and walk away without any punishment or obligation.

So as nice it is to say that children have a right to support, in practice it's simply not true in many instances. Parents can give their newborn over to the state, leaving the child with no parental support, and it's perfectly legal.

except for the fact that many many many women who get abortions are already mothers.

Which kind of blows that whole argument straight to hell, doesn't it?

If I remember right it is a majority ... bottle had the stats on that if I remember right

Does not a willingness to abandon the fetus before one knows a damn thing about it, other than that it exists, indicate a certain lack of fitness for the role of fatherhood?
One of the best arguments for the Right to Choose follows the same logic (a woman who doesn't want a child so much that she is willing to go through an invasive medical procedure in order to avoid the possibility is likely to be a pretty terrible parent).

except for the fact that many many many women who get abortions are already mothers.

Which kind of blows that whole argument straight to hell, doesn't it?

Does not a willingness to abandon the fetus before one knows a damn thing about it, other than that it exists, indicate a certain lack of fitness for the role of fatherhood?
One of the best arguments for the Right to Choose follows the same logic (a woman who doesn't want a child so much that she is willing to go through an invasive medical procedure in order to avoid the possibility is likely to be a pretty terrible parent).

One could certainly argue that, yes.

I was thinking more of the case where after the child is born, and he is paying support, he wants to become involved. Lack of fitness at that point would need to be redetermined, I think.

I find that a funny argument for Choice, although it does work. I think that in some ways, the fact that a woman realizes that she is not capable of raising a child and chooses to abort shows that she is thinking more about the potential child and the circumstances it would be forced to bear than herself. But it amounts to the same thing in the end.

except for the fact that many many many women who get abortions are already mothers.

Which kind of blows that whole argument straight to hell, doesn't it?

Not really. If you are undesiring to be a parent to this particular child then it entirely feasible that this would affect your care of that child. For example, you may have discovered with your first that this was not something that you wanted to do, and so would be resentfull of a subsequent child for existing.

PArenting is not something to be taken on in a half-assed way. If you don't want to put in the time and commitment to raise the child well, then please don't go ahead with it. And people who have already gone through it once are probably the BEST prepared to acertain if they are willing and able to go through it again.

Sex is not separated from birth, there is merely another decision added into the process, one that is up to the woman. There is a decision that the MAN has entire control over in the process, and that is to contribute his sperm in the first place. Once he has done so, she has the option of what to do next with the result. Once a child actually has been born, he is equally responsible for it.

A subsequent decision can remove the responsibility of the former, even if there is still a linking in causation.

If you decide to make a gun, and I decide to shoot someone with it. How much responsibility do you have for shooting the person?

Think of it this way. Take abortion off the table. If abortion were not possible, he would be responsible for the child. Since abortion IS possible, but is entirely the woman's choice, it has no bearing on his ultimate responsibility for any child that is born. It would CANCEL his responsibility if she chooses to abort, obviously. But if she chooses not to abort, his responsibility remains in force.

I have already said that we are assuming abortion is an option. Taking abortion off of the table makes this a non-argument since it is the contingent factor.

except for the fact that many many many women who get abortions are already mothers.

Which kind of blows that whole argument straight to hell, doesn't it?
Or maybe, after having children, they've realized that they can't deal with another. Which kind of supports my argument: Forcing women to bear unwanted children will not, in fact, lead to a favorable outcome for the child, and forcing men to be fathers won't work, either.

I always find the hypocricy when this come up highly amusing

"by having sex a man consents to be obligated to the child", funny, we don't let that argument work for women, do we?
If she chooses not to abort, and to keep the child, we certainly do. The abortion decision is not the same as the sex decision. It is an entirely separate issue.

"the child has a right to be supported by its parents!" oh, so no adoption huh?

Sometimes giving a child up for adoption is the best support parents can give... if they are unable to raise the child.

The fact is, at the end of the day, no woman need ever be held responsibile for a child she does not wish to have. Period. At all. No woman need be made to take responsible for a child until, at least, the 6th month of pregnancy.
That is true. Again, we are dealing with the separate issue of pregnancy and a child. And the woman has the sole decision as to whether one results in the other or not.

A man is bound by the woman's decision at conception. This is not equitable. Now true, it is unortunate that for a mother to abort a pregnancy, no child is actually born, but for a father to walk away would require the child to not have support of his/her biological father.

Biology is not equitable. If it were, men would carry the fetus on alternating months. Since they don't, they don't have a say in the pregnancy portion of our entertainment. But by being there at the start, they are responsible for the outcome.

Of course, the argument that people use along these lines "oh, but the father has a duty to the child! the child has rights to support!" Since when has that been the case? Parents give children over to foster homes all the time. In numerous states in this country, a new mother and father can take their newborn into a police station, put it down, and walk away without any punishment or obligation.

So as nice it is to say that children have a right to support, in practice it's simply not true in many instances. Parents can give their newborn over to the state, leaving the child with no parental support, and it's perfectly legal.
This is true, but sometimes (of course not always) it is in the best interest of the child. Better that they should turn it over to the police than leave it in a dumpster. None of this negates the rest of the argument, however.

I was more or less probing for your reasoning. The father must do something to get this parental right, correct?

... So... you're saying a man needs to earn his parental rights? Meaning... he has no obligation to pay child support unless he's done something to earn the right to pay child support?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you?

The first is easier to answer... he participated in the sex, so he must accept the responsibility. If he doesn't want children, and is not willing to support one if it should come about, he should not have sex.

By that answer, you cannot be pro-choice, meaning the whole question is moot to you in the first place.

This is true, but sometimes (of course not always) it is in the best interest of the child. Better that they should turn it over to the police than leave it in a dumpster.

Sure, but then again, the parents are never asked if it's in the best interest, are they? Parents can give up their child to the state for no other reason than that they just don't feel like it. So the argument that the child is "deserving" of support from his parents...that's really not demonstrated in reality is it?

None of this negates the rest of the argument, however.

Oh on the contrary, that's the entirety of the argument. Once we note that society as a whole really doesn't actually believe in the "children have the right of support from their parents" then...well...why should I have to support my child, if it has no right to my support?

A subsequent decision can remove the responsibility of the former, even if there is still a linking in causation.

If you decide to make a gun, and I decide to shoot someone with it. How much responsibility do you have for shooting the person?
I am complicit.

But your point is not entirely valid. If I GIVE you the gun, load it, point it at someone and suggest you pull the trigger, we are getting closer to it.

I have already said that we are assuming abortion is an option. Taking abortion off of the table makes this a non-argument since it is the contingent factor.
I am saying that it is non-argument, in that it is a separate issue. If it seems like we are taking a step outside the process and dumping it, in fact, that it how it works. Providing sperm is the man's choice. Abortion is the woman's. Chalk it up to how biology works, but there it is. Simply that a woman COULD get an abortion does not, in any way, excuse a man from responsibility for his earlier participation.

Biology is not equitable.

A great deal of atrocities in our history have been perpitrated on this principle.

By that answer, you cannot be pro-choice, meaning the whole question is moot to you in the first place.

How so? Choice in the pro-choice debate refers entirely to the woman's right to choose an abortion or not. How does a man deciding not to risk pregnancy relate to that?

A great deal of atrocities in our history have been perpitrated on this principle.

No argument there! But getting a father to support a child is not, as far as I can see, an atrocity.

... So... you're saying a man needs to earn his parental rights? Meaning... he has no obligation to pay child support unless he's done something to earn the right to pay child support?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you?

He must do something or have some quality that delineates him from all other people in order to be distinguished as a right holder.

It has been mentioned that the linking of genetic material is what gives him responsibility, I say that is nonsense. Do you agree?

But your point is not entirely valid. If I GIVE you the gun, load it, point it at someone and suggest you pull the trigger, we are getting closer to it.

As I have said, the man is responsible up to amount of influence he had over the woman's decision.

I really don't see how your analogy is any more relevant or accurate than mine, however.

Simply that a woman COULD get an abortion does not, in any way, excuse a man from responsibility for his earlier participation.

I believe we have established that subsequent decisions can absolve prior decisions, so what causes this to be any different.

How so? Choice in the pro-choice debate refers entirely to the woman's right to choose an abortion or not. How does a man deciding not to risk pregnancy relate to that?

Because, if the decision to participate in sex leads to the responsibility to raise children, then it applies to the woman as much as it does to the man, and if the woman has no choice but to bear children due to her decision to have sex, then you cannot be pro-choice.

Either that or you are a hypocrite.

As I have said, the man is responsible up to amount of influence he had over the woman's decision.

I really don't see how your analogy is any more relevant or accurate than mine, however.

I believe we have established that subsequent decisions can absolve prior decisions, so what causes this to be any different.

Abortion is not a straight line decision here. It is not A then B then C, but rather A, also 2, then B. (Yes, I know there is a better way to express this in logic symbology, but I don't know what that is... work with me). That is that the abortion decision is a separate issue entirely from child support.

A company hires a temp worker. The temp agency provides one, and is responsible for paying him. The company then has a decision to make as to whether to cut the department they hired the temp employee to work in. If they decide to keep the department and the worker, does the temp agency get to say "Well, you COULD have cut the department, so we are no longer responsible and won't pay him anymore"?

Because, if the decision to participate in sex leads to the responsibility to raise children, then it applies to the woman as much as it does to the man, and if the woman has no choice but to bear children due to her decision to have sex, then you cannot be pro-choice.

Either that or you are a hypocrite.

Not in the slightest. Abortion is an entirely separate issue from a man's decision to have sex. That is what I have been saying.

We are dealing with two unrelated issues.
1) If a man decides to provide a woman with sperm, he is responsible for whatever the outcome may be, whether she decides to abort or not.
2) If a woman is pregnant, she has the right to decide what to do about it.

Two separate issues.

Responcibilities without rights is slavery.

Rights without responcibilities is eliteism.

I'm kinda curious to see how this will work out.

Responcibilities without rights is slavery.

Rights without responcibilities is eliteism.

I'm kinda curious to see how this will work out.

I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding things. I am not arguing responsibility without rights. If a man is paying child support, I believe he gets parental rights (ie a say in how the child is raised, visitation, and so on).

And I don't think the folks on the other side are saying that if a man demands parental rights he should not expect the accompanying responsibilities.

Or am I not getting your point?

This reminds of an interesting wavier I found once which, simply said, gave the man the right to be informed once the woman was pregnant, though if the relationship was stressed he may not contact her(legally), and that he would be kept infromed of what was going on. But, if the woman failed to inform within six months of being aware of the bady, or three months if the baby was already born, they would surrender the option of having the father pay father support. Though this allowed for the father to chose to help raise the child and that they would be granted the right to see the child and it was actually determined by a court who held the child if their was an issue of custody, this was determined by how was the more fit parent.

I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding things. I am not arguing responsibility without rights. If a man is paying child support, I believe he gets parental rights (ie a say in how the child is raised, visitation, and so on).

And I don't think the folks on the other side are saying that if a man demands parental rights he should not expect the accompanying responsibilities.

Or am I not getting your point?

What we are saying, is that a woman has the ability to decide whether or not she must raise/support this child, while a man does not.

A man is not allowed to decide whether or not he he will support the child.

Not in the slightest. Abortion is an entirely separate issue from a man's decision to have sex. That is what I have been saying.

We are dealing with two unrelated issues.
1) If a man decides to provide a woman with sperm, he is responsible for whatever the outcome may be, whether she decides to abort or not.
2) If a woman is pregnant, she has the right to decide what to do about it.

Two separate issues.

And yet, if a woman grants a man the opportunity to fertilise her, is she not also responsible for whatever the outcome may be? Why then is she permitted the option of abortion?

What you seem to be saying is that a woman is not a slave to her womb, but a man is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The South Islands View Post
From the man's prospective, it really isn't.

The woman is under no obligation to have an abortion if the man desires it.
Of course, I would never argue that.

Well thats what coat hangers are for...scrambled eggs anyone? ;)

I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding things. I am not arguing responsibility without rights. If a man is paying child support, I believe he gets parental rights (ie a say in how the child is raised, visitation, and so on).

And I don't think the folks on the other side are saying that if a man demands parental rights he should not expect the accompanying responsibilities.

Or am I not getting your point?
It's wasn't aimed at you in particular, if anything it's acknowledgement of a logical failing of mine. That particular failing is working out a way that, yes, leaves a woman's right to choose wholy with her, yet also demands that a man pay child support should she choose to carry to term. There's a problem in that, as noted, I either have to give men some sort of rights, which infrenges on a woman's right of choice, or I take away all his rights, but leave him with all the responcibilities, which is slavery and very unequal.

So, I meant what I said, I'm curious to see how this thread will play out and if the two positions can be reconciled.

Someone earlier pointed out two seperate issues are here.

1) If a man provides a woman with sperm, he's responsible for the outcome.

2) If a woman is pregnant, she can choose wether it's taken to term, or aborted.


I am making a statement on the first one.
If I were to have unprotected sex with a female, I would expect to be partly responsible for any resulting children.
However, because I do not want to be, I refuse to do so.
If I have sex in such a way that should exclude the possibility of having a child (To a reasonable extent, 99% is enough to count as total in my opinion) i.e. with a condom (Preferred choice) or whilst she is on the pill (Or states she is, preferred in combination with the condom) then I feel I should have no responsibility for what happens.

Why?

The statement was I give female sperm, I am responsible for what she does. I cannot feel responsible for what others do, if I go to lengths to prevent a certain outcome (Which is most likely to not occur already) then I feel I have done enough already, raising a child/paying for child is more than I have agreed to.

tl;dr

I try to keep my sperm out of her, I put a physical barrier between her and my sperm. Why must I pay for the opposite happening with my life and livelihood.

sorry to barge in.

if you have sex, you should be prepared to have a baby, correct?
Then If Man is expected to be prepared for consequences, so does the Woman.
Although, it is restricted to consensual sex cases.

Regarding child support, it is related to the notion of Parenting, right?
So if Man provides child support, he should be allowed the right of parenting.
If the Woman refused the Man right of parenting (i.e. making decisions concerning the child), than automatically child support obligation should be dropped. Why should the guy pay for raising a child he has no chance to protect? Should he raise a drug dealer? A Murderer? (worst case only of course).

Both sexes are treated equally ... complete control over their own anatomy ... it is not the womans fault that the mans anatomy has no part in the post conception part of pregnancy

Bingo. Well said. When the male has the option to carry the offspring to term, he will have the right to exercise it. Until then, it is the woman's body and the woman's right to decide what happens to it. *nod*

then it may be said that it is not man's fault that women has only receptacle system without a filter.

then it may be said that it is not man's fault that women has only receptacle system without a filter.

On the other hand, the man is clearly distributing contaminated fluids. :p

Bingo. Well said. When the male has the option to carry the offspring to term, he will have the right to exercise it. Until then, it is the woman's body and the woman's right to decide what happens to it. *nod*
Hmm... so why should a guy have to pay child support then? (Puts on devil's advocate cap for a second).

If you decide to make a gun, and I decide to shoot someone with it. How much responsibility do you have for shooting the person?

If I give you a gun and I have no reason to suspect that you are untrustworthy, then I can legitimately expect that you will not misuse it. If you do, if you break the laws under the assumption of which I gave it to you, I have no responsibility.

But there is no such thing as "misuse" when it comes to abortion. There are no laws of use to be broken--a woman has the right to choose.

Hmm... so why should a guy have to pay child support then? (Puts on devil's advocate cap for a second).

He doesn't if there isn't a child.

Think of it as two separate events and two separate timelines:

From conception on: The father and the mother share equal responsibility for their actions, including the potential birth and raising of their child.

From conception until birth(or more specifically, until the arbitrary point where the medical risks of an abortion outweigh the risks of a birth): When all other considerations are made, all opinions are counted and all responsibilities are assesed, a woman's right to control her body trumps everything. Including the desire of the father and even the life of another(the fetus).

:)

He doesn't if there isn't a child.

Think of it as two separate events and two separate timelines:
But it's not two separate timelines or events though.

From conception on: The father and the mother share equal responsibility for their actions, including the potential birth and raising of their child.
Ok. I can except that.

From conception until birth(or more specifically, until the arbitrary point where the medical risks of an abortion outweigh the risks of a birth): When all other considerations are made, all opinions are counted and all responsibilities are assesed, a woman's right to control her body trumps everything. Including the desire of the father and even the life of another(the fetus).
Here's the same logic problem though. We tell the father he HAS to accept responsibility for his actions, but he has not rights under that. All choices are the woman's. Ok, I can accept that her choice is paramount. But, as Neo Art pointed out, we don't accept a "Woman should accept responsibility for having sex, including the chance that there might be a pregnancy" as a reason as to why women should carry a pregnancy to term, even if she doesn't want to. Why should that argument apply to men and not women?

Or, to put it another way, women should be allowed to enjoy sex as sexual beings without having to be forced to deal with a child, should one happen, right. Why can't men?

Here's the same logic problem though. We tell the father he HAS to accept responsibility for his actions, but he has not rights under that. All choices are the woman's. Ok, I can accept that her choice is paramount. But, as Neo Art pointed out, we don't accept a "Woman should accept responsibility for having sex, including the chance that there might be a pregnancy" as a reason as to why women should carry a pregnancy to term, even if she doesn't want to. Why should that argument apply to men and not women?

Or, to put it another way, women should be allowed to enjoy sex as sexual beings without having to be forced to deal with a child, should one happen, right. Why can't men?

The father's responsibilities as well as the mother's began at the moment of conception. They bear full responibility for the ramifications of that act. BUT... I'll re-iterate: A woman's right to control her body trumps it all.

On the other hand, the man is clearly distributing contaminated fluids. :p

more a reason to have a scrubber system, isn't it?:p

more a reason to have a scrubber system, isn't it?:p

Not when you can permanently correct the contamination problem with a few good whacks with a hammer. :)

When we get pregnant, we get the final choice on whether to abort or not. Until then we can talk and try to persuade, but it's the woman who makes the final choice.

Lol, this thread hasn't become a feminazi 'men should keep it their pants!!!!' yet has it? :p:p

The father's responsibilities as well as the mother's began at the moment of conception. They bear full responibility for the ramifications of that act. BUT... I'll re-iterate: A woman's right to control her body trumps it all.
Maybe a back to basics approach then (And, seriously here folks, I really am trying to find a way to get these two to mesh, so feel free to jump in).

Basic assumptions:

Group 1
A woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term is hers and hers alone.
No one can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (Morally, mind, not literally).
So therefore, the argument that a woman must accept responsibility for her actions and carry to term is a bunk argument, though saying she must accept responsibility for her actions and act as she sees fit is acceptable.

Group 2
Responsibility without rights is akin to slavery (If my school told me I had to teach for free, I would be rightly pissed).
To force responsibility on someone without their consent is morally wrong.
To take away someone's rights and responsibilities without just cause is also morally wrong.

So, to wit. Woman has complete right to choose what happens to her body. That is consistent with her rights as a human and her responsibility to herself.

A man does NOT have the right to force a woman to carry to term or abort. That would be consistent with forcing responsibility on someone is wrong.

So why can a man be held responsible for the choice that the woman makes (I.e. child support should she choose to carry to term)? Would that not be forcing responsibility on him without his consent?

Can someone see what I'm missing here and help me connect the two to where we don't end up with a situation that places men above women (or vice versa) in terms of making a choice that affects the other?

Not when you can permanently correct the contamination problem with a few good whacks with a hammer. :)
LG, your sons are living proof that doesn't work though. ;)

Maybe a back to basics approach then (And, seriously here folks, I really am trying to find a way to get these two to mesh, so feel free to jump in).

Basic assumptions:

Group 1
A woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term is hers and hers alone.
No one can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (Morally, mind, not literally).
So therefore, the argument that a woman must accept responsibility for her actions and carry to term is a bunk argument, though saying she must accept responsibility for her actions and act as she sees fit is acceptable.

Group 2
Responsibility without rights is akin to slavery (If my school told me I had to teach for free, I would be rightly pissed).
To force responsibility on someone without their consent is morally wrong.
To take away someone's rights and responsibilities without just cause is also morally wrong.

So, to wit. Woman has complete right to choose what happens to her body. That is consistent with her rights as a human and her responsibility to herself.

A man does NOT have the right to force a woman to carry to term or abort. That would be consistent with forcing responsibility on someone is wrong.

So why can a man be held responsible for the choice that the woman makes (I.e. child support should she choose to carry to term)? Would that not be forcing responsibility on him without his consent?

Can someone see what I'm missing here and help me connect the two to where we don't end up with a situation that places men above women (or vice versa) in terms of making a choice that affects the other?

You CAN force responsibility on people. Men and women alike. Criminal justice is an excellent example of that. A man's responsibility toward a child no more ends when he doesn't want it than a woman's responsibility(assuming she has the child) if she doesn't want it and the man does.

It's at this point that the issues of responsibility and control split. You cannot force responsibility on a woman by depriving her of control of her body any more than you can force a man in jail to donate blood to save a relative's life.

LG, your sons are living proof that doesn't work though. ;)

Well, it works for most people. Or so I'm told. :p

You CAN force responsibility on people. Men and women alike. Criminal justice is an excellent example of that.
Criminal justice is another kettle of fish however because that assumes that someone violated someone else's rights.

Now consensual sex can get rather kinky, but to that level... ;)

A man's responsibility toward a child no more ends when he doesn't want it than a woman's responsibility(assuming she has the child) if she doesn't want it and the man does.
But if a woman DOESN'T want it, she can abort. But if she DOES want it, he should pay child support. That's where I'm running afoul of that. It would seem that her choice forces him to pay, whether he likes it or not.

It's at this point that the issues of responsibility and control split. You cannot force responsibility on a woman by depriving her of control of her body any more than you can force a man in jail to donate blood to save a relative's life.
Exactly! You can't and shouldn't. But isn't a woman forcing a guy to pay if she chooses to carry to term?

Well, it works for most people. Or so I'm told. :p
Point for your side. :D

But if a woman DOESN'T want it, she can abort. But if she DOES want it, he should pay child support. That's where I'm running afoul of that. It would seem that her choice forces him to pay, whether he likes it or not.


Exactly! You can't and shouldn't. But isn't a woman forcing a guy to pay if she chooses to carry to term?

Yep. :)

Men have just as much access to birth conrtol as women(i.e. condoms, witch are everywhere and cheap), and so know the risks of sex. Men therfore have the option to choose before the moment of conception, witch I realize upsurps the whole point of the debate, but it dose not change the fact that moment of accountability began before the child was born. I hate the damn things, but in this day and age, I would no longer belive a woman that I didnt know very well on a personal level that she was on somekind of contraception or free of stds.As to just saying "No",yeah right.

Both sexes are treated equally ... complete control over their own anatomy ... it is not the womans fault that the mans anatomy has no part in the post conception part of pregnancy
I love how the thread-steal was also all that needs to be said.

Each individual has the right to choose how their own body participates in reproduction. A man has the right to choose whether or not to allow his own body to participate in pregnancy and childbirth; a man has exactly zero right to decide how the body of any other man or woman participates in pregnancy and childbirth.

Reproductive rights should be the same up to, including, and after conception. For one person to make such decisions for another unwilling person before conception is called "rape." I'm perfectly comfortable using that term to describe any person who attempts to force another person's body to participate in reproduction against their wishes at any stage of the process.

No. Are we done?

EDIT: No to the OP. It's moronically obvious. I will now fall asleep reading the thread.

Yep. :)
So how do we reconcile the two?

But since the man is now separated from birth, since he has no fault for abortion or birth, he also has no responsibility.

EDIT: Other than resolving his responsibility for the pregnancy in the first place.

Sorry could you repeat that one? If a man fathers a child, then of course he has some responsiblity.

Maybe a back to basics approach then (And, seriously here folks, I really am trying to find a way to get these two to mesh, so feel free to jump in).

Basic assumptions:

Group 1
A woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term is hers and hers alone.
No one can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (Morally, mind, not literally).
So therefore, the argument that a woman must accept responsibility for her actions and carry to term is a bunk argument, though saying she must accept responsibility for her actions and act as she sees fit is acceptable.

Group 2
Responsibility without rights is akin to slavery (If my school told me I had to teach for free, I would be rightly pissed).
To force responsibility on someone without their consent is morally wrong.
To take away someone's rights and responsibilities without just cause is also morally wrong.

So, to wit. Woman has complete right to choose what happens to her body. That is consistent with her rights as a human and her responsibility to herself.

A man does NOT have the right to force a woman to carry to term or abort. That would be consistent with forcing responsibility on someone is wrong.

So why can a man be held responsible for the choice that the woman makes (I.e. child support should she choose to carry to term)? Would that not be forcing responsibility on him without his consent?

Can someone see what I'm missing here and help me connect the two to where we don't end up with a situation that places men above women (or vice versa) in terms of making a choice that affects the other?


The important thing you are missing out is is the child. It too has rights, and both parents are responsible for providing for that child.

I see what you are saying, it hardly seems fair on the poor old man. But and call me sexist if you want to, we are men, we can suck that unfairness up and deal with it. In fact I'd go so far as to become totaly sexist and proclaim that a 'real man' would never hesitate to provide for the fruit of his loins.

It's not the childs fault nor the dads fault if the mother is a bitch, yet the child should not be made to suffer for the mothers bitcheness.

So how do we reconcile the two?

They can't be. It's one of the (few) unexpected perks of being a woman.

On the bright side, I can pee into a coke bottle without making a mess. :)

The important thing you are missing out is is the child. It too has rights, and both parents are responsible for providing for that child.

I see what you are saying, it hardly seems fair on the poor old man. But and call me sexist if you want to, we are men, we can suck that unfairness up and deal with it. In fact I'd go so far as to become totaly sexist and proclaim that a 'real man' would never hesitate to provide for the fruit of his loins.

It's not the childs fault nor the dads fault if the mother is a bitch, yet the child should not be made to suffer for the mothers bitcheness.
It might work... except we open the whole can o worms about a right to a life (And we're REALLY trying to avoid an abortion debate. ;) ).

I HATE it when things don't match up!

On the bright side, I can pee into a coke bottle without making a mess. :)
An important point and advantage indeed. *nods* :D

I HATE it when things don't match up!
For whatever it's worth, I'm female and I 100% agree. I really hate the fact that biology has already decided which party must become pregnant and which party cannot.

On the bright side, I can pee into a coke bottle without making a mess. :)
Not to veer into TMI territory, but...

I discovered a couple of years ago that it is possible for a woman to do this. It's just hard because (believe it or not) most women aren't precisely sure where pee comes out on our bodies. A lot of women couldn't put their finger directly on their urethra's opening on the first try.

However, once you identify exactly where that opening is, it's surprisingly easy for a woman to pee into a coke bottle.

What I'm sad about is that I cannot write my name in the snow. That alone would have strongly motivated me to improve my penmanship and actually learn proper cursive script.

Responcibilities without rights is slavery.

Rights without responcibilities is eliteism.

I'm kinda curious to see how this will work out.

I'd say "rights without responsibilities = abuse of power"

I like the symmetry with the preceding clause.

Yeah, that's as far as I got. Threads like this are too complex for me, taking a position is like swallowing pills from an old jar with "CAUTION -- DO NOt ..." and the rest of the label eaten away by who-knows-what.

For whatever it's worth, I'm female and I 100% agree. I really hate the fact that biology has already decided which party must become pregnant and which party cannot.
If it helps, my wife agrees with you 100% as she is more than tired of the baby keeping her up at night by kicking the hell out of her, the cramps, and the start of contractions.

Not to veer into TMI territory, but...

I discovered a couple of years ago that it is possible for a woman to do this. It's just hard because (believe it or not) most women aren't precisely sure where pee comes out on our bodies. A lot of women couldn't put their finger directly on their urethra's opening on the first try.

However, once you identify exactly where that opening is, it's surprisingly easy for a woman to pee into a coke bottle.

What I'm sad about is that I cannot write my name in the snow. That alone would have strongly motivated me to improve my penmanship and actually learn proper cursive script.
... :eek: Yup, that was indeed TMI. :p:D

Not to veer into TMI territory, but...

I discovered a couple of years ago that it is possible for a woman to do this. It's just hard because (believe it or not) most women aren't precisely sure where pee comes out on our bodies. A lot of women couldn't put their finger directly on their urethra's opening on the first try.

However, once you identify exactly where that opening is, it's surprisingly easy for a woman to pee into a coke bottle.

What I'm sad about is that I cannot write my name in the snow. That alone would have strongly motivated me to improve my penmanship and actually learn proper cursive script.

Not TMI, not the least little bit. In fact, a welcome chance to use my imagination in the face of well-informed ideology.

I'm thinking you could get your fingers in there and purse your urethra to improve the ... er, muzzle-speed of the stream, to make it more coherent, and then by swaying motions of the hips or by delicate use of the two fingers, in fact write your name in the snow.

Sure, it might take some practice. But don't give up so easily, and remember that when blokes say "write their name" they probably just mean "write their initials."

I've always had trouble with the punctuation. Lead-time, if you get my drift ...

... :eek: Yup, that was indeed TMI. :p:D
I know, I know. We ladies aren't supposed to actually admit we pee and fart and stuff. But we do, and sometimes bodily functions are interesting and fun, and I have absolutely no tact whatsoever. So if you don't want to hear about the female urethra, best that you run away from any thread I'm in...;)

On second thoughts, it might take four fingers to get proper control.

Not TMI, not the least little bit. In fact, a welcome chance to use my imagination in the face of well-informed ideology.

I'm thinking you could get your fingers in there and purse your urethra to improve the ... er, muzzle-speed of the stream, to make it more coherent, and then by swaying motions of the hips or by delicate use of the two fingers, in fact write your name in the snow.

Sure, it might take some practice. But don't give up so easily, and remember that when blokes say "write their name" they probably just mean "write their initials."

I've always had trouble with the punctuation. Lead-time, if you get my drift ...
Is it wrong that I'm immediately getting the image of women's "Personal Penmanship" workshops? I can totally see this becoming the new trend, because of the mix of "handicrafts" and exercise. Kind of like those dance aerobics courses.

"Now sway your hips gently. Let the words flow. That's right, keep it up! Sway, sway, aaaaaannnd...PUNCTUATE!

Oh I don't mind that you pee, fart, etc or admit that you do. It's just that the mental image of you trying to to find a way to pee in a coke bottle is going to stay with me the rest of the night and I'm about to head to bed. That's NOT the sort of thing you really want to contemplate in your dreams at night, right? :p
Haha, fair enough.

How about this: the day I learned to pee into a bottle was (by sheer coincidence) also the first day I got a thumb stuck in a bottle. Different bottles, thank heavens, but maybe the image of me sheepishly asking for help getting a bottle off my thumb can be an improvement over the alternative Bottle-and-bottle image.

I know, I know. We ladies aren't supposed to actually admit we pee and fart and stuff. But we do, and sometimes bodily functions are interesting and fun, and I have absolutely no tact whatsoever. So if you don't want to hear about the female urethra, best that you run away from any thread I'm in...;)
Oh I don't mind that you pee, fart, etc or admit that you do. It's just that the mental image of you trying to to find a way to pee in a coke bottle is going to stay with me the rest of the night and I'm about to head to bed. That's NOT the sort of thing you really want to contemplate in your dreams at night, right? :p

Is it wrong that I'm immediately getting the image of women's "Personal Calligraphy" workshops? I can totally see this becoming the new trend, because of the mix of "handicrafts" and exercise. Kind of like those dance aerobics courses.

"Now sway your hips gently. Let the words flow. That's right, keep it up! Sway, sway, aaaaaannnd...PUNCTUATE!

Well thankyou! That's the image I'll be taking to bed, though the nearest I've experienced is my yoga class.

Nightmares? Not a bit. I'll probably sleep in ...

It might work... except we open the whole can o worms about a right to a life (And we're REALLY trying to avoid an abortion debate. ;) ).

I HATE it when things don't match up!

Ahhh forget that right to a life, and abortion malarky I'm talking about a child that has been born. If a child is born, then it is both the responsbilty of the mother and the father to provide for that child.

Okay so if the farther has no say in the child being born, quite frankly so what, suck it up, be adult about it, we don't alwayss get things our own way.

The aggrived dad can look after himself, but a baby needs to be looked after. You'll not often find me advocating this sorta stance, but not everybody should be treated the equally. When it comes to children, they must be given priority.

If a dad complains about providing for his child, then fuck him, quite frankly.

Ahhh forget that right to a life, and abortion malarky I'm talking about a child that has been born. If a child is born, then it is both the responsbilty of the mother and the father to provide for that child.

Okay so if the farther has no say in the child being born, quite frankly so what, suck it up, be adult about it, we don't alwayss get things our own way.

The aggrived dad can look after himself, but a baby needs to be looked after. You'll not often find me advocating this sorta stance, but not everybody should be treated the equally. When it comes to children, they must be given priority.

If a dad complains about providing for his child, then fuck him, quite frankly.
This is actually a very interesting legal topic, in my opinion, precisely because it is NOT about any supposed "right to life." It's about whether or not some humans have the right to care from other humans, and which humans fall under such rules.

This is actually a very interesting legal topic, in my opinion, precisely because it is NOT about any supposed "right to life." It's about whether or not some humans have the right to care from other humans, and which humans fall under such rules.

Interesting legal topic, yeah I'd agree, but I just can't get the the phrase wot tha fuck! outa my head.

It seems that nature provides a stimulus so that all animals to some effect look after their young. It seems a sad indicment of humanity if we bring this down to the level of legality.

Meh I guess it's a two way sword, on one hand we are encouraged to not let our emotions sway our rationality, yet some emotions have a purpose that must surly be in our best intrests. The desire to protect our young must surly be one of these?

Should men have equal access to a post conception choice? Since I only no about abortion in the US my statements and conclusions are based on the mindset of American liberties.

Since the point of the feminist movement was to create a equal society without bias towards gender. Is it fair that women have a post conception option that men do not? If bolth genders are to be considered equal should not men also enjoy some form of post conception option?

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?

For those of you who are anti abortion let me save you the trouble. For purposes of this arguement it assumes that we do not withdraw the woman's right to have an abortion. Although that is a perfectly acceptable answer to ensuring that bolth sexes are treated equally.

You already have freedom of choice. No one forced you to poke it in her. If you don't want to be responsible then stop having sex. Sex is not a toy. It's a tool for making babies. That is how men should approach it.
If you didn't want the kid, you should have thought about that when you failed or refused to double pack it.

It's not that these men want equal rights, its that they want freedom of choice but not the responsibility that goes with it. They want other people to pay for they screwups. That's the real issue.

How about this: the day I learned to pee into a bottle was (by sheer coincidence) also the first day I got a thumb stuck in a bottle. Different bottles, thank heavens, but maybe the image of me sheepishly asking for help getting a bottle off my thumb can be an improvement over the alternative Bottle-and-bottle image.
What the Hell was going on that day? Bored day at the recycling center?

What the Hell was going on that day? Bored day at the recycling center?

She's Bottle. Clearly she was visiting kin-folk, and ran into some boundary issues.

Edit: Those poor, molested bottles :(

You already have freedom of choice. No one forced you to poke it in her. If you don't want to be responsible then stop having sex. Sex is not a toy. It's a tool for making babies. That is how men should approach it.
If you didn't want the kid, you should have thought about that when you failed or refused to double pack it.

It's not that these men want equal rights, its that they want freedom of choice but not the responsibility that goes with it. They want other people to pay for they screwups. That's the real issue.

I'm fairly divided on this particular issue, but I don't think that this is a good argument: it's the same argument that anti-choicers often use against the right to an abortion!

But... this is a tricky issue, really. I mean, on one hand, if it was legal for the man to just walk out, then it could easily put the woman in a really tough situation, with two really bad(potentially) choices: abort, or have a child that she cannot afford. While I would argue that abortion is just a medical procedure like any other, from what I understand, the hormones released in pregnancy create that nurturing maternal attachment, even before the child is born. While the woman wouldn't be forced to have an abortion under this system, it'd create a situation where it'd be, really, the only responsible option. And that sucks. Especially if she doesn't take the responsible option, then the child is punished for her indiscretion. But doesn't that happen anyway, say, in situations where the mother has absolutely no clue who the father is, or at least doesn't know enough about him to find him? (Say, a pregnancy from a fling over a vacation)

But, on the other, it basically means that only women(well, and gay men) can be sexual beings without worry of being held slaves to another's whim.
And why, necessarily, should responsibility begin with conception? Why not with the moment from which it is decided to have a child-- that is, the decision to abort or to carry to term? That is, since a woman makes 100% of the decision on whether a child is born, should she not have 100% of the responsibility to ensure that, one way or another, it will be cared for-- most likely by assuring that the father will, if it is born, help her pay for, and hopefully raise, it?

But even that solution raises a lot of tricky situations.
What happens if a woman gets pregnant, and, despite all possible efforts to contact the him, the father doesn't find out about it until after the cutoff for abortions? I'd say in that situation, then that's just tough luck for him, but that's probably a less common situation anyway.

And what about, currently, women who, say, claim they are on the pill but are lying, or poke holes in condoms, so that they can screw a guy over? This is probably admittedly very rare, but also hard to prove. It'd devolve into he said/she said. I've heard of several instances of this happening, but that was admittedly one one of those shows where the idiots go and argue -- Dr. Phil, I want to say... but not sure. Just remember it was that sort of show-- which have a tendency to attract those less common but rather infuriating situations. (Interestingly enough, the entire audience took the woman's side, and didn't think poorly of her at all for intentionally screwing somebody over like that--she didn't deny it either. While I'm fairly divided on this issue, I think any woman who does that is a horrible person that deserves to respect from anybody)

I mean, ideally, single mothers in the situation of a man not wanting to support the child would get government help to make up for that so that neither party would be fucked (well, except in the way that they wanted to be), but, of course, we need that money to spend on killing brown people. :rolleyes:

Same stupid argument that is used against abortion.

What if the woman had kept her legs closed?
Same argument? Why blame the guy, women like sex too remember?

AMK

xxx

You already have freedom of choice. No one forced you to poke it in her. If you don't want to be responsible then stop having sex. Sex is not a toy. It's a tool for making babies. That is how men should approach it.
If you didn't want the kid, you should have thought about that when you failed or refused to double pack it.

It's not that these men want equal rights, its that they want freedom of choice but not the responsibility that goes with it. They want other people to pay for they screwups. That's the real issue.

What then if the guy really wanted the baby but the woman went out and got it aborted?
People need to stop this idiotic imagining that women only have sex with men to please the man.
When a women and a man have sex, they are both taking a risk. The difference is the woman can take direct action with regards pregnancy after the event. The man cannot.

AMK
xxx

But... this is a tricky issue, really. I mean, on one hand, if it was legal for the man to just walk out, then it could easily put the woman in a really tough situation, with two really bad(potentially) choices: abort, or have a child that she cannot afford.

You are missing the third option. If she doesn't want to abort, and doesn't want to raise it, give it up for adoption. Which, again, already exists, and parents give up all legal rights to their children to the state all the time, and many states have laws that allow the parents to walk into any hospital or police station within one week of the child being born, put it down, and walk away, without any penalties what so ever.

So we as a society, frankly, don't really believe in this whole "children deserve support from their parents" because, if we did, then giving children up to the state would never be an option, as it is both parents, in a perfectly legal fashion, sundering all obligation to care for their child.

And if we as a society allow both parents to do so, there really can be no coherent reason to somehow claim that a child deserves or has rights to the support from his father, when in fact, we really don't believe that, as our adoption and legalized abandonment rules demonstrate.

Once we note that society as a whole really doesn't actually believe in the "children have the right of support from their parents" then...well...why should I have to support my child, if it has no right to my support?Children have the right to support.
Support from who? Well, there's a list, but at the top of the list are the child's parents. Only if the child's parents give up their parental rights do they give up their parental responsibilities.

Or, to put it another way, women should be allowed to enjoy sex as sexual beings without having to be forced to deal with a child, should one happen, right.Not at all. Both men and women are forced to deal with a child, should one be born. It is true that women are the only ones who are forced to deal with a fetus. Such is biology.

The traditional way for a guy to deal with an unwanted child...

www.emirates.com
www.ba.com
www.lufthansa.com
www.quantas.com
www.klm.com

shall I go on?
Emigrate!!!

AMK
xxx

Children have the right to support.
Support from who? Well, there's a list, but at the top of the list are the child's parents. Only if the child's parents give up their parental rights do they give up their parental responsibilities.

Well ok fine, let me rephrase. If I biologically father a child, does that child have right to support from me? As a matter of law and policy, we don't actually really believe that because, with the mother's consent, we can give that child over to the state.

If legally I can give my child over for the state to take care of, then that child doesn't have an absolute right to my support. We recognize that.

Therefore any arguments that say a father should not be able to decide to not support his biological offspring because "the child has the right to support from its father" are fallacies, since, as a matter of policy...no, it doesn't. Because that child can be given to the state, without support from either parent. So if it has no absolute right to support from a parent at all how can one claim it has the right to support from the father?

Not at all. Both men and women are forced to deal with a child, should one be born. It is true that women are the only ones who are forced to deal with a fetus. Such is biology.

ahh, but as noted, women are the only one of the two who have the ability to choose not to have to pay support in the future, but after conception.

And, it's again, not true at all that the parents are forced to deal with the child. Check child abandonment laws, it's perfectly legal in many places to drop your newborn off and leave. So children don't really have the right to the support of its parents, why should allowing the father to simply sign away his rights and responsibilities, while allowing the mother to retain them (or, of course, vice versa) be any different?

Ok, so both sexes should ideally have the same rights. But reality isn't fair so, let's work with that.

Here's what I think:

His responsibility ends when she decides to have an abortion. Her responsibility likewise ends there.

Simple as that.

Now, the problem is when she decides to carry the pregnancy to term.

There should be legal recourse for both, since both parties involved are humans and are afforded the same rights as humans before the eyes of the law.

This is a slippery slope because they may not see eye to eye.

But if there were safeguards in place there would be little or no issue.

There are safeguards for women right now but not for men. Men are being given the short end of the stick here but from the feminist's POV, this is perhaps a way of exerting her power. Afterall for so long women were subservient to men so this is the just fruits of that.

But men shouldn't pay for the sins of their fathers as women for their mothers.

Men are entitled to their sexual reproductive rights as are women.

They should be allowed to "opt out" but they can't because they cannot abort the pregnancy against the woman's still as that is a violation of her rights.

There needs to exist a legal recourse for men to justify their reasons for opting out. But they would have to opt out before the foetus is carried to term. They would have to opt out within the time frame given for elective abortions and do so before a court of law. This assumes he has been informed. So there are problems with almost any potential solution.

There are many exception to every case and not all cases the same. This is something that needs a lot of consideration because it's a new issue in the right-to-life and reproductive rights debate.

It's easy to provide suggestions and solutions but they may not work because there will always be differing opinions.

^^ The above is solely the opinion of the poster and thus baseless conjecture. The prosecution may object. ^^

Well ok fine, let me rephrase. If I biologically father a child, does that child have right to support from me? As a matter of law and policy, we don't actually really believe that because, with the mother's consent, we can give that child over to the state.

If legally I can give my child over for the state to take care of, then that child doesn't have an absolute right to my support. We recognize that.

Therefore any arguments that say a father should not be able to decide to not support his biological offspring because "the child has the right to support from its father" are fallacies, since, as a matter of policy...no, it doesn't. Because that child can be given to the state, without support from either parent. So if it has no absolute right to support from a parent at all how can one claim it has the right to support from the father?Well, the child has the right to support, and since the father helped to make the mess, he is the first in line. I agree that it is silly to say that the child has the right to support from a specific person. It would be better to say that the parents have the legal obligation to support the child because the child has the right to support from someone.

ahh, but as noted, women are the only one of the two who have the ability to choose not to have to pay support in the future, but after conception.So? Fetuses don't have any rights. (Okay, they don't have as many rights as a child does.)

By participating in sex, the man has indicated his agreement to be responsible for the outcome of that sex.

If the woman wants to abort (and it is entirely her choice to do so or not), his responsibility ends there.

If she wants to carry the baby to term then adopt, his responsibility is at his option, if he wishes to keep the child or not.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).

If she wishes to keep the baby and not allow him parental involvement (if he so desires and is a fit parent), he should not be held responsible for child support.

Fairly simple, I'd say.

You make two starkly different arguments within this position.

1. Both man and woman bare responsibility for the child.

2. The child is primarily the property of the woman.
This position is made clear by your indication that the woman holds primary decision making power over if the child is born, and if the father will play a role in its upbringing (according to your final point).

In reality however, both mother and father hold equal power in all aspects
except if the child will be born or not. And at the end of the day, a decision has to be made. While it may not be fair that the father has no say in this matter, it would otherwise be irreconcilable if both parties had equal say. And since the mother actually has to bare the child, it seems only logical that decision would fall on her shoulders.

No one got offended by the scrambled eggs joke I'm shocked

No one got offended by the scrambled eggs joke I'm shocked

Oh I'm sorry, my moral outrage indicator is on the fritz. I brought it in to get looked at.

The real question is whether anyone - man or woman - should be held to parental responsibilites just because the other gamete donor wishes to retain them for themself.

which functionally is the question, and since, as I have noted, we don't really believe that children have the absolute right to support from its parents, my personal answer is "no"

If bolth genders are to be considered equal should not men also enjoy some form of post conception option?

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?


Get out of the darkages. Things are already as equal as they can be with differing biology. The difference being a man has to take steps to claim parental rights because, well, it is obvious who the mother is but not so obvious who the father is. A man claim legal paternity to any child he fathers. Any time he suspects a woman can be carrying his child, he can sue for recognition of legal paternity (in some cases an affadavit will serve, unless contested by the mother, in which case the dna testing gets brought out, just like when a woman initiates a paternity suit). He can then sue for just rights, visitation or custody - all of which is hopefully decided by what is in the best interest of the child. He can totally block any option of giving the child up for adoption. In such cases a woman cannot unilaterally relinquish her legal responsibilites to the child any more than a man who does not wish to be a father can.

In general, the only time one parent can voluntarily relinquish rights if the other wishes to still hold claim of parental rights, is if the other parent is married to someone who wishes to adopt the child and thus assume legal rights and responsibilites in lieu of the parent who relinquishes them.

So it is already equal under law.

The real question is whether anyone - man or woman - should be held to parental responsibilites just because the other gamete donor wishes to retain them for themself.

Ah well the Internet is no place for morals to begin with...

You know, though, if it's at 0 constantly, it may not be broken...

Now that you mention it, it seems to have been stuck on 0 for my entire life... ;)

which functionally is the question, and since, as I have noted, we don't really believe that children have the absolute right to support from its parents, my personal answer is "no"

Question though: Is that a legally defensible position? Would it hold up in court?

I'm genuinely curious.

Oh I'm sorry, my moral outrage indicator is on the fritz. I brought it in to get looked at.

You know, though, if it's at 0 constantly, it may not be broken...

Question though: Is that a legally defensible position? Would it hold up in court?

I'm genuinely curious.

no, not really, but then again, that is the debate, the law can be changed. The question is should it. Many say no because the child "has the right" to support from the parents, but then again, that's not REALLY true as a matter of practice.

What we are saying, is that a woman has the ability to decide whether or not she must raise/support this child, while a man does not.

A man is not allowed to decide whether or not he he will support the child.

Yes he is... the man makes his decision at the very start of the process. When he decides whether to contribute his sperm.

Yes he is... the man makes his decision at the very start of the process. When he decides whether to contribute his sperm.

Then where does it leave men who contribute sperm to a sperm donation bank?

*Men are entitled to their sexual reproductive rights as are women.

They should be allowed to "opt out" but they can't because they cannot abort the pregnancy against the woman's still as that is a violation of her rights.

There needs to exist a legal recourse for men to justify their reasons for opting out. But they would have to opt out before the foetus is carried to term. They would have to opt out within the time frame given for elective abortions and do so before a court of law. This assumes he has been informed. So there are problems with almost any potential solution.
*

Men CAN opt out, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. The place men opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If he doesn't provide sperm, then he is not responsible. If he does, he is.

Men CAN opt out, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. The place men opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If he doesn't provide sperm, then he is not responsible. If he does, he is.

Yes but there should be a cut off point. There is for women, there should be for men. But when it happens and under what conditions is the issue.

You make two starkly different arguments within this position.

1. Both man and woman bare responsibility for the child.

2. The child is primarily the property of the woman.
This position is made clear by your indication that the woman holds primary decision making power over if the child is born, and if the father will play a role in its upbringing (according to your final point).

In reality however, both mother and father hold equal power in all aspects
except if the child will be born or not. And at the end of the day, a decision has to be made. While it may not be fair that the father has no say in this matter, it would otherwise be irreconcilable if both parties had equal say. And since the mother actually has to bare the child, it seems only logical that decision would fall on her shoulders.

Fair enough... I did overstate a bit, but the OP indicated that the man didn't want the child... so I was working with that premise to start. If the man DOES want the child and is fit and providing support, then absolutely he should have equal parental rights.

Men CAN opt out, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. The place men opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If he doesn't provide sperm, then he is not responsible. If he does, he is.

surely then you are in favor of applying the same rules to women? The place women can opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If she doesn't provide an egg, then she is not responsible. If she does, she is.

See, no, that doesn't work, now does it?

More importantly, men are only responsible in a legal sense at that point because the law says he is. NOt biology, not natural order, the law says he is. The law can be changed, we are arguing that it should be changed. Trying to attack an argument of "well the law should change" by saying "well that is not what the law says!" earns you only a very big "duh".

Yeah, as a matter of law men are responsible at that point. I think it should change. If you want to argue my position that the law should change, don't tell me what it is now. I know what it is now. I disagree with it.

I think men should have the ability to opt out at up to 5 months in the pregnancy. If you disagree with me, explain to me why he should not be able to opt out at that point. Don't tell me what he can do now. I know what he can do now. I disagree.

Yes but there should be a cut off point. There is for women, there should be for men. But when it happens and under what conditions is the issue.

The cut off point for men is BEFORE CONCEPTION.

The cut off point for men is BEFORE CONCEPTION.

Why before? For women it's after.

Then where does it leave men who contribute sperm to a sperm donation bank?

A sperm donation is anonymous, and a woman (or couple) who accepts that donation accepts full responsibility for the resulting child. Likewise, the man making the donation gives up his parental rights to that child when he turns over that responsibility to the recipient.

As a side note, consider how unlikely it is that a woman would go to all the trouble and expense of being artificially inseminated and THEN abort... so this case doesn't really figure in to the current discussion.

Why before? For women it's after.

Sigh... read the thread.

*The real question is whether anyone - man or woman - should be held to parental responsibilites just because the other gamete donor wishes to retain them for themself.*

Yes.

And, in fact, if a woman wishes to give up the baby and the man wishes to keep custody, then the woman should pay parental support.

You are missing the third option. If she doesn't want to abort, and doesn't want to raise it, give it up for adoption. Which, again, already exists, and parents give up all legal rights to their children to the state all the time, and many states have laws that allow the parents to walk into any hospital or police station within one week of the child being born, put it down, and walk away, without any penalties what so ever.

That... is actually a very good point, along with the bits in several posts about how we don't really believe that the biological parents have a responsibility.

Men CAN opt out, as has been stated multiple times in this thread. The place men opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If he doesn't provide sperm, then he is not responsible. If he does, he is.

So, if "don't stick it in her" is a good argument against this, is "don't spread your legs" a good argument against legal abortions? If not, you must explain the contradiction, or you hold an inconsistent position.

*So, if "don't stick it in her" is a good argument against this, is "don't spread your legs" a good argument against legal abortions? If not, you must explain the contradiction, or you hold an inconsistent position.*

Nope... and we get back to how biology works. Yes, certainly, I would say "don't spread your legs" is a BETTER option than abortion, safer for the woman than going through a medical proceedure... but it is a separate issue than "don't stick it in her".

What it comes down to, again, is that men have the choice of reproduction at the stage of adding sperm, and women too, at that stage have a choice of not allowing the addition of sperm. Women have the ADDITIONAL choice at the fetus stage of aborting or carrying to term. Men do not have a choice in this stage. Biology. If men were the ones carrying the baby, they would have this choice. So no contradiction, simply that women, because of their additional burden in the process, get an additional choice.

Sigh... read the thread.

I did and I have my own opinions. So... nyah!

surely then you are in favor of applying the same rules to women? The place women can opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If she doesn't provide an egg, then she is not responsible. If she does, she is.

See, no, that doesn't work, now does it?

More importantly, men are only responsible in a legal sense at that point because the law says he is. NOt biology, not natural order, the law says he is. The law can be changed, we are arguing that it should be changed. Trying to attack an argument of "well the law should change" by saying "well that is not what the law says!" earns you only a very big "duh".

Yeah, as a matter of law men are responsible at that point. I think it should change. If you want to argue my position that the law should change, don't tell me what it is now. I know what it is now. I disagree with it.

OK, I don't think I ever said "that is what the law says" so I am assuming you are directing that at someone else. But anyway...

I think men should have the ability to opt out at up to 5 months in the pregnancy. If you disagree with me, explain to me why he should not be able to opt out at that point. Don't tell me what he can do now. I know what he can do now. I disagree.

A man has absolutely no right to pressure a woman into an abortion. Once he has made her pregnant, his responsibility should not be allowed to be abrogated. If we allow him to opt out at that time, he is bringing undue pressure on her to go in the direction of an abortion, which may be entirely against her wishes, but she may feel there is no other choice. If he is responsible for his actions, that pressure ceases to exist.

The ONLY reason for allowing an opt out like you propose is that doing so is within the time frame of a possible abortion. So no, this is a very bad idea. Abortion is the woman's choice, and the man does not get a vote. Your option provides him with a very strong vote.

surely then you are in favor of applying the same rules to women? The place women can opt out is BEFORE CONCEPTION. If she doesn't provide an egg, then she is not responsible. If she does, she is.

See, no, that doesn't work, now does it?

More importantly, men are only responsible in a legal sense at that point because the law says he is. NOt biology, not natural order, the law says he is. The law can be changed, we are arguing that it should be changed. Trying to attack an argument of "well the law should change" by saying "well that is not what the law says!" earns you only a very big "duh".

Yeah, as a matter of law men are responsible at that point. I think it should change. If you want to argue my position that the law should change, don't tell me what it is now. I know what it is now. I disagree with it.

I think men should have the ability to opt out at up to 5 months in the pregnancy. If you disagree with me, explain to me why he should not be able to opt out at that point. Don't tell me what he can do now. I know what he can do now. I disagree.

It's your position that the law should change because the law does not reflect what we supposedly believe in practice is that correct?

But I think the practice that we employ does not necessarily reflect our true belief, but rather tries to deal with certain realities. We make law to reflect what we believe is right, and how things should be done. In turn, we feel both parents are responsible and that the child does have the right to their support. However, we realize that parents in positions of hardship may at times opt to simply abandon a child after it is born because they have reconsidered their acceptance of responsibility. In this case, we allow exceptions such as, leaving a child at a hospitals doorstep, or putting up a child for adoption not because we feel the child doesn’t have the inalienable right to their parents support but rather to preserve the life of the child (since the child cannot support itself). At the same time, we also punish parents for neglecting or abandoning their children where they will otherwise perish because we believe (as the law states) that the children are the parent’s obligation.

So in the end, I think changing the law would not be an act to reflect what society really believes is the case when it comes to parental responsibility, but rather would be a vehicle to provide irresponsible parents an escape route from the consequences of their actions.

I did and I have my own opinions. So... nyah!

Great. What are they?

You asked a question I have answered about 46 times in this thread... so "nyah" was not really needed... I just didn't want to say it all again.

So tell us what your own opinions are.

Should men have equal access to a post conception choice?No.

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?Mr. Straughn, if he does not want to father a child, is responsible to ascertain a woman's intentions before he has sex with her. Once he does, he turns over the choice to her, and he knows that.

If you don't want to risk becoming a father, don't have sex with pro-life women. In fact, don't have sex with a woman who says, "I'm not sure." If you don't want to risk becoming a father, then your choice is simple: you should only have sex with a woman who promises that if a pregnancy should result from your encounter, she means to terminate it.

Because once you've had sex, the decision is all hers.

Understand that your actions have consequences.

Understand that this may mean you have to give up on irresponsible, drunken sex.

Boo-hoo for you.

Men should have every right to opt out of responsibility. Why, Because the woman has the right to opt out. So why shouldn't the man? And saying he had the option before conception is just stupid because the woman had the same option she could have said no as well.

They are equally responsible for the pregnancy. 50/50. So they should have the same list of choices in front of them. The male should not be subject to the decision of the woman. If he wants to opt out of responsibility then he should have the right to do so.

Why should he be allowed to? Because if you flip the situation and make it the woman who wants to abort the baby and the man who wants to keep it, the man still has no say and loses his child.

To put it simply: "You can not be responsible for something you have no say in."

Men should have every right to opt out of responsibility.He does, right up until the moment that his part in the physical production of a child is complete: that is, right up until he ejaculates.

At any point up until he does his part, he can say, "Whoa, I don't want to risk it."

Likewise, a woman can opt out (legal limitations aside) right up until the moment that her part is concluded: that is, through most of the pregnancy.

It just so happens that the man's contribution, and his opportunity to think about his responsibility, is over much more quickly.

No.

Mr. Straughn, if he does not want to father a child, is responsible to ascertain a woman's intentions before he has sex with her. Once he does, he turns over the choice to her, and he knows that.

If you don't want to risk becoming a father, don't have sex with pro-life women. In fact, don't have sex with a woman who says, "I'm not sure." If you don't want to risk becoming a father, then your choice is simple: you should only have sex with a woman who promises that if a pregnancy should result from your encounter, she means to terminate it.

and yet once again in this thread I must point out that "because that's the way it is" is an insuffient answer to the question of "should it be different?"

I've been thinking about this issue while in class (instead of paying attention. :rolleyes:), and I think I'm starting to be convinced more and more from my conflicted position.
OK, I don't think I ever said "that is what the law says" so I am assuming you are directing that at someone else. But anyway...



A man has absolutely no right to pressure a woman into an abortion. Once he has made her pregnant, his responsibility should not be allowed to be abrogated. If we allow him to opt out at that time, he is bringing undue pressure on her to go in the direction of an abortion, which may be entirely against her wishes, but she may feel there is no other choice. If he is responsible for his actions, that pressure ceases to exist.

The ONLY reason for allowing an opt out like you propose is that doing so is within the time frame of a possible abortion. So no, this is a very bad idea. Abortion is the woman's choice, and the man does not get a vote. Your option provides him with a very strong vote.
Wait, it should be illegal to create circumstances such that a woman, as a result of not being able to afford a child, might feel pressured into being responsible and having an abortion? Let's take that line of argument a bit further, shall we? With that line of thought, it should be illegal for a company to fire/lay off a man whose wife is pregnant, or a pregnant woman herself (and I don't mean for the pregnancy, I mean a woman who happens to be pregnant, but is fired for an unrelated reason: there's just not enough work available and/or she's a bad worker), because the woman will very possibly, with the loss of income, feel pressured to go in the direction of an abortion.
Furthermore, in the situation where a woman does want a child and a man does not, it seems only sensible, from her point of view, to have a child with some other man who will be a willing father, and therefore a better parent for his kids. I mean, sure, there's the pro-lifers out there, but most of them are devoutly religious and believe that sex before marriage is immoral anyway, so they'll be unlikely to be in the situation.

No.

Mr. Straughn, if he does not want to father a child, is responsible to ascertain a woman's intentions before he has sex with her. Once he does, he turns over the choice to her, and he knows that.

If you don't want to risk becoming a father, don't have sex with pro-life women. In fact, don't have sex with a woman who says, "I'm not sure." If you don't want to risk becoming a father, then your choice is simple: you should only have sex with a woman who promises that if a pregnancy should result from your encounter, she means to terminate it.

Because once you've had sex, the decision is all hers.

Understand that your actions have consequences.

Understand that this may mean you have to give up on irresponsible, drunken sex.

Boo-hoo for you.

Of course, it's entirely possible, and probably quite common(though I've not seen statistics to back this up, it's only a hunch), for a woman to claim that she'll have an abortion, but then once she's actually pregnant, find that she's changed her mind, and wants a child after all. (Or, in much rarer cases, was lying in the first place because she wants a kid but the guy doesn't) People, in general, change their minds quite often, and pregnancy often naturally brings out nurturing/maternal instincts, which could easily influence her decision. Tough, you might say, the guy should have been more choosy. Make sure it's a trustworthy person, who knows what she wants, etc. But then I'd argue you're asking for people to have unrealistic standards: I know I wouldn't trust somebody 100% without knowing them for several years at the least-- that's just basic good sense, as the majority of people are lying assholes who will screw you over at a moment's notice for their own gain.

And if having sex with a woman alone is enough that you should bear responsibility for a child she has, then could a hypothetical woman, who, upon finding herself pregnant and not knowing who the father is, find an old ex and make him pay child support?

I assume no. The difference is that it's not his genetic material, right?
So, then if it's genetics that matters, imagine a woman who rapes a guy, and, in the process, gets pregnant and keeps it. Well, then it's his genetic material, is it not? Hell, you could even apply one argument that I've often seen used in this debate, "Well, it doesn't matter if the woman lied to him about birth control/abortions/et c, because the child deserves his care, even if the mother was a bitch" and say "It doesn't matter if she raped him, the child deserves the father's support; it's not the child's fault, after all, that his mother got pregnant by raping somebody."
So would you argue that a raped man should have to take care of the child?

What if a guy uses a condom, it doesn't break, but the woman, when he's not looking, takes the sperm in it and uses it to impregnate herself? What should happen in that situation?
After all, this situation, too, it'd not be the child's fault s/he was conceived that way, so should the father, by virtue of genetic material, be forced to care for the child?

It's your position that the law should change because the law does not reflect what we supposedly believe in practice is that correct?

Not exactly. I believe the law should change as a matter of equity. I believe that consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood and that nobody should be obligated to pay for something when he, or she, did not willingly take on that obligation.

I believe the law should change as a matter of equity. One of the popular arguments against my position is that the child once born has the right to support from his parents, and that allowing the father, or mother, to opt out of supporting the child violates that child's rights.

In response to that argument i point out that no such right of the child to be supported by its parents exists under our law, as we can, legally, give our children over to the state and never support it again. So the argument of "the father should not be able to opt out because the chlid has a right to his support" is untrue, as, since we have laws allowing children to be given to the state, apparently the child has no absolute right to support from either parent.

However, we realize that parents in positions of hardship may at times opt to simply abandon a child after it is born because they have reconsidered their acceptance of responsibility. In this case, we allow exceptions such as, leaving a child at a hospitals doorstep, or putting up a child for adoption not because we feel the child doesn’t have the inalienable right to their parents support but rather to preserve the life of the child (since the child cannot support itself).

OK, but for the problem that we do not require, or even ask, the parents to demonstrate hardship. In fact we don't require them to demonstrate anything. The law allows them to completely and totally abandon their child for the state for no other reason than because they felt like it.

So in the end, I think changing the law would not be an act to reflect what society really believes is the case when it comes to parental responsibility, but rather would be a vehicle to provide irresponsible parents an escape route from the consequences of their actions.

How is current law anything but allowing irresponsible parents an escape route from the consequences of their actions?

And there is a whole world of difference between being "irresponsible" and not wanted to carry responsibilities that you didn't agree to. Am I irresponsible if you ask me for money and I say no? Absolutely not, I am not avoiding my responsibilities to you, I have no responsibility to you.

Just as, in my opinion, simply consenting to sex should not, as a matter of equity, equate to consenting to being responsible for children. There is a risk that you will get into a car accident every time you drive, but we don't refuse to treat you once you get in one because you consented to it.

We recognize as an abortion right that consent to sex is not consent to lose your bodily autonomy. Why should consent to sex be consent to lose your financial autonomy?

I've gone back and forth on this issue, argued from several different positions, and my own view continues to change every time I discuss it. I did want to bring up one point, however.

Many argue that, because a woman has 100% of the decision in whether or not to bring a child into this world (because she has access to abortion), that she should carry the full responsibility for that decision and the father should not be be required to take on any of that responsibility.

I can see the logic behind this argument - I've even made it myself before. But, if this were the way we were to take the law, I think we should take it to its logical endpoint. If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.

and yet once again in this thread I must point out that "because that's the way it is" is an insuffient answer to the question of "should it be different?"That's right, but I think you're missing the implications of what I'm saying.

Presumably, a man understands his role in the process of creating a child. He understands when it begins and when it ends. He understands exactly up to what point he has time to decide, "Do I want to go ahead with this?"

A woman has a different role in creating a child, and as it happens this role covers a broader span of time. She can decide, much later than a man, "I want to quit." A man cannot "quit" after conception because he's already done.

This is no different than many collective enterprises which involve divided my labor. Once I complete my part, completion of the rest is up to other people, and even if I change my mind after I am done, I am still responsible for the finished project.

Consider several people planning a burglary. Each has a different role: the first must cut the power line to the building so that the alarm will not go off, the next must cause a diversion across town to distract the police, and the last must actually enter the building to crack the safe.

If the first participant wants out, he has right up until the moment he cuts the power lines to walk away. After he does his part, however, he may have second thoughts. He may wish that he hadn't participate, he may worry that the operation will go bad, and he will wish that his teammates will abort. But his part is done, and after the team gets caught the courts will still hold him responsible for his part in the crime: he IS responsible, because he did his part. He did not back out in time.

The man responsible for the diversion has somewhat longer to make his decision. Even after the power lines are cut, he can decide, "This is stupid." He can walk away. But once he goes ahead with his part in the crime, it's too late to back out: whether or not the plan will go off in full is entirely up to his last partner.

The final partner, the safe-cracker, has the longest time to have second thoughts, and he is the last who can abort.

Is it "fair" to the first two conspirators they do not get as long to back out of their responsibility as the safe-cracker? Not exactly, no. But then, they knew what they were getting into.

A man knows his part in starting a pregnancy. He has every opportunity to say, "I'm not turning my key." But once he turns his key, he turns over responsibility to his partner.

NOTHING about partnership OR responsibility suggests that this is unjust. Unfair? Maybe. But it's also unfair that a man who would love to carry a child to term cannot do so in his own body. Life isn't fair.

But unfair /= unjust. As long as he knows what he's getting into, he can and should be held responsible for the result.

Of course, it's entirely possible, and probably quite common(though I've not seen statistics to back this up, it's only a hunch), for a woman to claim that she'll have an abortion, but then once she's actually pregnant, find that she's changed her mind, and wants a child after all.

If a man is afraid of that, he should have her sign a contract absolving him of responsibility before they have sex.

I'm fine with an "opt out," so long as it occurs before the man contributes to the pregnancy. Not after.

I believe that consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.No, it's not.

Consenting to sex, for a man, is consenting to give a woman the decision as to whether you will become a parent.

What is responsibility? My responsibility for a situation exists because I contributed to bringing it about. I can avoid my responsibility by refusing to contribute to bringing it about.

If I have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, I am as responsible for that pregnancy as she is. If she chooses to continue that pregnancy, I continue to be responsible for the pregnancy. If that pregnancy results in a child, I am responsible for that child because I was responsible for the pregnancy.

If, upon hearing of the pregnancy, I wish NOT to be responsible for it, what can I do? Can I go back in time to avoid taking part in its creation? Guess not.

I can, of course, explain my feelings to my partner and hope that she will agree the pregnancy is a bad idea. But I cannot force her to have an abortion, and I knew all along that if this happened it would be her decision.

My responsibility does not vanish because I don't want it.

When a woman gets an abortion she does not absolve herself of responsibility for a child: rather, she makes it so there will be no child.

If there is a child, she is responsible for it. If there is a child, the father is responsible for it.

If there is no child, no one is responsible for anything. Man and woman both have opportunities to prevent a child from coming into being: a woman just has more opportunities than a man, and there is nothing to be done about that.

No, it's not.

Consenting to sex, for a man, is consenting to give a woman the decision as to whether you will become a parent.

Define "parent". If you mean a contributer of genetics, then yes, absolutly, consenting for sex is consenting to give a woman the decision as to whether you will become a parent should a pregnancy occur. A man can not stop the child being born.

If you define "parent" as "one who is responsible" then I disagree, consenting to sex should not be consenting to give a woman the decision as to whether you will become responsible for the child should a pregnancy occur.

And it is precisely because the man has no say in whether the pregnancy should be brought to term that he should, as a matter of equity, at very least, have a choice as to whether he will resume responsible.

By participating in sex, the man has indicated his agreement to be responsible for the outcome of that sex.

If the woman wants to abort (and it is entirely her choice to do so or not), his responsibility ends there.

If she wants to carry the baby to term then adopt, his responsibility is at his option, if he wishes to keep the child or not.

If she wishes to keep the baby (and is a fit parent), he is responsible for child support and more parental involvement is his choice (unless he is unfit for such involvement).

If she wishes to keep the baby and not allow him parental involvement (if he so desires and is a fit parent), he should not be held responsible for child support.

Fairly simple, I'd say.

Fairly simple, but not fairly equal.

By participating in sex, the man has somehow complete responsibility for all actions that another person commits afterward?

If the woman wishes to abort, he has no say in the matter. Which I agree with, it being her body and all, no matter that the 'fault' of the conception is half hers.

If she wishes to have the baby then put it up for adoption, the man has no say in the matter, though he could adopt the child after it was put 'on the market', if you will. A bit strange that he has no say in the matter of his child after it is born, but I assume we can't very well force a woman to keep something she doesn't want.

If the woman decides to keep the child, the man has to pay child support and may get further involved in the child's life if he wishes. This is one issue I have with the system. Why does he have to pay? She is the one who wants the child correct? He may not want to be involved with the child at all, but since he was involved in its creation, he is automatically responsible for it. But wait... if she decides to abort it he has no choice in the matter of its destruction..hrm. Odd, he apparently has no responsibility for it then.

If the woman doesn't want him to be involved with the child, even if he is a fit parent he shouldn't have to pay any child support? Really, What the Hell? So, he isn't responsible for a child that is genetically half his? He has no say in the child's life at all? He can be barred from any contact with the child, despite being a fit parent, just because the woman apparently has more credit for the child or something? Well, at least he doesn't have to pay child support.. despite probably being willing too, and wanting to be involved with the child.

In conclusion, a man and a woman have consentual sex and the man is responsible for any outcome post conception, but has no say in anything, whether the baby is aborted, put up for adoption, kept by the woman when he does not want to be involved with the child while he is forced to pay child support, or kept solely by the woman when he wants to be involved with the child. The woman seems to get exclusive rights on someone that is only half hers, just because it stayed in her and possibly popped out months later.

Unfairly simple.

For factual purposes, I do want to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding about adoption.

In most circumstances, an unwed mother can give her child up for adoption without the father's consent. An unwed father is under a positive legal obligation to demonstrate his willingness to parent in order to claim his parental right.

There is some good reason for this: when it comes to fathers who cannot be located or identified, it should not be up to a mother to track the man down to get consent for an adoption.

But there have been cases in which this is misapplied so that a father who is ready and waiting to take care of his child but who has not filed the appropriate paperwork is deprived of an infant who is put up for adoption. The system should be readjusted to presume a father's right unless he is absent or demonstrably uninterested.

Also, when a mother decides to keep her child we compel (however ineffectually, in most cases) the father to contribute child support, but should a father choose to raise his child we do nothing to compel child support payments from the mother. This is a matter of equity, and it should be corrected. So long as the mother is financially capable of providing some support (and that should go for fathers as well), if a father chooses to raise a child that the mother does not want, she should have to pay child support just the same as he would.

In other words, abortion has been falsely targeted as a woman's "opt-out" from responsibility. This is not the case. The real opt-out is adoption.

If she wishes to have the baby then put it up for adoption, the man has no say in the matter, though he could adopt the child after it was put 'on the market', if you will. A bit strange that he has no say in the matter of his child after it is born, but I assume we can't very well force a woman to keep something she doesn't want.

This is actually not true. In order to give a child up for adoption legally, both parents must consent, as the biological father has equal parental rights. While the required amount of effort to find the biological father varies from state to state, none remove parental rights from the father outright.

If the biological father finds that his child has been put up for adoption without his consent, he can sue for custody of the child (within a reasonable amount of time, anyways - not 10 years down the road) then the mother actually has to pay child support.

At least, this is where the law currently stands.

*snip*

I snipped the rest of it because it is based on the same incorrect premise. You seem to be under the impression that a man does not have automatic parental rights. You are incorrect. Both parents have equal rights and responsibilities once a child is born. Both parents have equal rights to abrogate responsibility once a child is born (although the logistics here can favor the woman).

I've gone back and forth on this issue, argued from several different positions, and my own view continues to change every time I discuss it. I did want to bring up one point, however.

Many argue that, because a woman has 100% of the decision in whether or not to bring a child into this world (because she has access to abortion), that she should carry the full responsibility for that decision and the father should not be be required to take on any of that responsibility.

I can see the logic behind this argument - I've even made it myself before. But, if this were the way we were to take the law, I think we should take it to its logical endpoint. If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.

Oh, certainly. I've always thought it implied that if the father doesn't take up the responsibilities, then neither should the mother be required to extend him his rights as the father, either.

If you define "parent" as "one who is responsible" then I disagree, consenting to sex should not be consenting to give a woman the decision as to whether you will become responsible for the child should a pregnancy occur.But he is responsible, whether he likes it or not. You can't just wash away causation.

If it were not for him there would be no baby. That makes him responsible.

He does not "become" responsible for the child because of a decision a woman makes. She does not "make" him responsible. He is responsible for any child that results from his actions. He "made" himself responsible.

The woman has the final decision as to whether there will be a child, but the principle still stands: if there is a child resulting from his behavior, he is responsible for it.

If I give you a gun and I have no reason to suspect that you are untrustworthy, then I can legitimately expect that you will not misuse it. If you do, if you break the laws under the assumption of which I gave it to you, I have no responsibility.

But there is no such thing as "misuse" when it comes to abortion. There are no laws of use to be broken--a woman has the right to choose.

That is irrelevant.

But he is responsible, whether he likes it or not. You can't just wash away causation.

If it were not for him there would be no baby. That makes him responsible.

He does not "become" responsible for the child because of a decision a woman makes. She does not "make" him responsible. He is responsible for any child that results from his actions. He "made" himself responsible.

The woman has the final decision as to whether there will be a child, but the principle still stands: if there is a child resulting from his behavior, he is responsible for it.

simple question...why? Why should he be responsible? Why should my actions that lead to the creation of a baby make me responsible for that baby?

If I have a child, and then 20 years down the road, my son gets someone pregnant, it can be said that if it were not for me, there would be no pregnancy, since I was involved in the conception of the one that conceved that child.

But I am not responsible for it.

You keep saying that he is responsible...why? Why should he be?

Sorry could you repeat that one? If a man fathers a child, then of course he has some responsiblity.

Baseless assertion that causing a pregnancy causes an obligation to a child #45.

I completely agree with this position.

Interesting. You won't find many men (or women) who do. So you think that men basically have no reproductive rights?

I can see the logic behind this argument - I've even made it myself before. But, if this were the way we were to take the law, I think we should take it to its logical endpoint. If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.

I completely agree with this position.

Consider several people planning a burglary. Each has a different role: the first must cut the power line to the building so that the alarm will not go off, the next must cause a diversion across town to distract the police, and the last must actually enter the building to crack the safe.

If the first participant wants out, he has right up until the moment he cuts the power lines to walk away. After he does his part, however, he may have second thoughts. He may wish that he hadn't participate, he may worry that the operation will go bad, and he will wish that his teammates will abort. But his part is done, and after the team gets caught the courts will still hold him responsible for his part in the crime: he IS responsible, because he did his part. He did not back out in time.

The man responsible for the diversion has somewhat longer to make his decision. Even after the power lines are cut, he can decide, "This is stupid." He can walk away. But once he goes ahead with his part in the crime, it's too late to back out: whether or not the plan will go off in full is entirely up to his last partner.

The final partner, the safe-cracker, has the longest time to have second thoughts, and he is the last who can abort.

Is it "fair" to the first two conspirators they do not get as long to back out of their responsibility as the safe-cracker? Not exactly, no. But then, they knew what they were getting into.

When I first read this analogy, I thought something was wrong with it, and I've just now realized what it is: the lock-picker and the diversion guy are intending to commit a crime. The man, in the hypothetical case here, is probably taking reasonable precautions to avoid pregnancy. A better example would be as follows:
Imagine an athlete. Now, in sports, you play with the knowledge that there is some risk of injury to yourself or others. Now, in the course of playing his sport, he accidentally injures another player. They both were wearing proper safety equipment, and were following all the safety rules of the sport. It was just a freak accident. Now, say, in this example, the injury has two possible treatments: one inexpensive, and one that is very expensive. The injured player chooses the expensive treatment.

Should the one athlete have to pay the injured athlete's medical bills?

Interesting. You won't find many men (or women) who do. So you think that men basically have no reproductive rights?

Meh. The way I look at it, no pay, no play. If you want to enjoy your rights as a father, you gotta help support them financially.

simple question...why? Why should he be responsible?Because it is a foreseeable result of his actions concurrently with the actions of his sexual partner, and he has already forgone every opportunity he had to prevent it.

If the birth is NOT reasonably foreseeable, he should not be held responsible, as in the following case: woman promises she will have an abortion, man has sex with her under the belief that she will have an abortion. Whether she changes her mind or she was deceitful, if he can prove that she made the promise then he should not be held responsible for the child.

Now let's look at the other extreme. Man has sex with a woman he knows to be pro-life; if a pregnancy results, woman will have child. Man knows full well the possible consequences of his actions, and he accepts that chance. Under no legal theory I of which I am aware could anyone make even a reasonable argument that he does not share responsibility for the birth.

Let's consider another case:

Man and woman decide they want a baby. Woman gets pregnant; man changes his mind. Is he not responsible for the child? That's nonsense: he actually decided to create it. Of course he's responsible.

Now, the woman can change her mind, but the difference is this: when she changes her mind, there is no baby. The responsibility doesn't disappear, there's just nothing to be responsible for.

In most cases, there are not certainties, but there is risk--and a man is well aware of the last opportunity he has to avoid the risk. Once his sperm is on its way, he cannot take back his action. He is holding his betting stub and hoping for the best.

But he knew what he was getting into. The results of his actions were predictable. And we are legally responsible for the predictable results of our actions, even if we share concurrent responsibility with someone else--even if, that is, someone else had to turn her key, too.

Why should my actions that lead to the creation of a baby make me responsible for that baby?Because you cannot say you did not understand the consequences of your action. Unless, of course, the woman promised to abort a pregnancy: in that case, if she defies your expectations you may disclaim responsibility for her deceit or change-of-heart.

If I have a child, and then 20 years down the road, my son gets someone pregnant, it can be said that if it were not for me, there would be no pregnancy, since I was involved in the conception of the one that conceved that child.

But I am not responsible for it.Foreseeability. Come on, I thought you were a lawyer.

You keep saying that he is responsible...why? Why should he be?Because he knew a pregnancy could result from his actions, and he knew that once the pregnancy resulted he would have no say in the outcome. If he wants to take a stand, if he wants to set conditions on his sexual activity, he must do it before engaging in the activity.

Afterwards, he cannot say, "I may have caused this, but it's not my responsibility." Lacking a contract to the contrary, causation IS responsibility.

Meh. The way I look at it, no pay, no play. If you want to enjoy your rights as a father, you gotta help support them financially.

I agree, but that wasn't what I was saying.

What I said was that, if a man does not automatically have those responsibilities, he should not automatically have those rights either. No matter what he was willing to do, he would have those rights and responsibilities if and only if the woman chose to extend them to him.

But he is responsible, whether he likes it or not. You can't just wash away causation.

Simple causality does not decide responsibility. Causation is certainly necessary for responsibility, but there are many situations where nearly all would not consider a necessary causal agent responsible for a particular effect.

Therefore, the question becomes: "When and how can the actions of one agent be absolved of responsibility through the actions of another agent?"

He does not "become" responsible for the child because of a decision a woman makes. She does not "make" him responsible. He is responsible for any child that results from his actions. He "made" himself responsible.

No, he loses responsibility for and right to the child because of the unique position of the woman. It is thus his decision to assume the obligation or not.

I do believe that creating or allowing an expectation of obligation assumption is the same as explicitly stating it. Therefore the man does have an obligation to inform the woman of his choice at a convenient time.

When I first read this analogy, I thought something was wrong with it, and I've just now realized what it is: the lock-picker and the diversion guy are intending to commit a crime. The man, in the hypothetical case here, is probably taking reasonable precautions to avoid pregnancy.Ah, but you're missing the key aspect of the analogy.

The three criminals intend to commit a crime. Meanwhile, they take great precautions to prevent getting caught, which is nevertheless a possible consequence of their actions.

People having sex intend to have sex even if they do not intend to get pregnant. But pregnancy, like getting arrested, is still a possibility.

Interesting. You won't find many men (or women) who do. So you think that men basically have no reproductive rights?

None, only an obligation to help resolve the pregnancy if the woman so desires.

What has the man done to merit parental rights?

Because it is a foreseeable result of his actions concurrently with the actions of his sexual partner, and he has already forgone every opportunity he had to prevent it.

If the birth is NOT reasonably foreseeable, he should not be held responsible, as in the following case: woman promises she will have an abortion, man has sex with her under the belief that she will have an abortion. Whether she changes her mind or she was deceitful, if he can prove that she made the promise then he should not be held responsible for the child.

I think we can find some common agreement here. Let me further this. What about birth control? What about if he informs the woman straight off "if we have sex and pregnancy results, I will not care for that child, if you disagree do not have sex with me"?

I am a lawyer, and as such, I agree, reasonably forseeable is the key. If I use birth control, have I taken sufficient steps to alleviate me of the responsibility? if I tell her to promise me that she will abort if she gets pregnant, have I taken sufficient steps? If I simply inform her that if she wants to have sex with me she does so on the condition I will take no part in the pregnancy that may occur, is that enough?

I think as long as reasonable precautions are taken, that should be sufficient to alleviate responsibility.

Wow, this is a really good question. Seriously. Even my over-opinionated ass has no clue on how to answer it.

:confused:

I snipped the rest of it because it is based on the same incorrect premise. You seem to be under the impression that a man does not have automatic parental rights. You are incorrect. Both parents have equal rights and responsibilities once a child is born. Both parents have equal rights to abrogate responsibility once a child is born (although the logistics here can favor the woman).

Got it.

Either Upper Botswavia doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about, or I read her/its/his post wrong.

If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.

....and assuming the man accepts said legal rights. Okay. Nevermind. Dempublicents knows what's up.

Wow, this is a really good question. Seriously. Even my over-opinionated ass has no clue on how to answer it.

:confused:

It's one of those weird ones. I've gone back and forth and changed my position multiple times. I think it depends how I feel that day.

I don't think there will ever be an answer to this question that pleases everyone and that someone doesn't say is unfair. Given that, I think the biggest concern in the question should be the party that has taken no action to cause the situation - the child. Whatever the law says in the end, I think it should be what is best for the children involved.

You are missing the third option. If she doesn't want to abort, and doesn't want to raise it, give it up for adoption. Which, again, already exists, and parents give up all legal rights to their children to the state all the time, and many states have laws that allow the parents to walk into any hospital or police station within one week of the child being born, put it down, and walk away, without any penalties what so ever.

So we as a society, frankly, don't really believe in this whole "children deserve support from their parents" because, if we did, then giving children up to the state would never be an option, as it is both parents, in a perfectly legal fashion, sundering all obligation to care for their child.

No, the second paragraph does not follow from the first. As a society, we believe (in the sense you use the word, act as though we believe) that children deserve support. If you imagine yourself in the role of a parent, visualize a hypothetical child as "yours" then this support is something you are willing to give personally. If you imagine yourself in the role of the state, and the child as an orphan or foundling, then this too is something you are willing to give, impersonally.

The state, as in so many other things, acts in loco parentis. The ancient (mammallian!) parent/child relationship may in fact be the origin of the state, how would we even know when for the bulk of us, our very consciousness developed within such a relationship?

And if we as a society allow both parents to do so, there really can be no coherent reason to somehow claim that a child deserves or has rights to the support from his father, when in fact, we really don't believe that, as our adoption and legalized abandonment rules demonstrate.

I think you're trying to hang too much off what is essentially a harm-minimization arrangement, and ascribing more value to one social fact than the other. For instance: "we have laws requiring both parents to support a child, showing that we believe it to be an obligation, therefore there is no reason the abandonment of children should be allowed."

It's one of those weird ones. I've gone back and forth and changed my position multiple times. I think it depends how I feel that day.

I don't think there will ever be an answer to this question that pleases everyone and that someone doesn't say is unfair. Given that, I think the biggest concern in the question should be the party that has taken no action to cause the situation - the child. Whatever the law says in the end, I think it should be what is best for the children involved.

Yes indeed. In some degree, laws requiring parents to support their children are punitive, intended to make prospective parents take the obligation seriously ... but you can't punish the parent without punishing the child.

My preferred solution is to see raising children as a social good, and pay parents right out of the treasury. By the hour.

Of course that is fairy-dust. Might be nice, won't happen.

What the hell is a "reproductive right" anyways? Abortion is a matter of individual sovereignty over her body, and that's it.

Both the man and the woman involved get one vote. But the woman is the one who has the baby in her body, so she gets a second vote. So really, there's not a damn thing the man can do, because it's in her body.

Yes.

And, in fact, if a woman wishes to give up the baby and the man wishes to keep custody, then the woman should pay parental support.

I'm not sure if I can agree with this given the prevalence of date rape and the almost total lack of legal recourse a woman has in such cases under current social views which affect legal outcomes in such cases. It is very difficult to even make formal allegations when no justice comes out if it in the overwhelming number of cases and one is going to be aksed non-rleavant harrasing questions and blamed like the victims of no other crime (well, except perhaps the victims of domestic violence who also not coincidentally happen to be overwhelmingly female).

If culture in general were less sexists and less marked by violence against women then I could probably agree. But then again, if culture where less sexists bullshit ideas like women "forcing" men to be responsible for their own actions wouldn't come up in forums like this and have so much support.

Until that time I can't think of a better answer than allowing one parent to unilaterally rid themselves of legal responsibility. And if that means the state needs to take a larger role in providing health care and other necessities of well being for a child so be it. (Perhaps then the state would get off its ass and start treating violence against women like the crime epidemic it is). As a corallary I believe that any parent who gives up responsibility and then tries to sneak rights such as a say or having unauthroized knowledge of the child (hanging around schools, etc) or even calling and asking the other parent about the child after the custodial parent has told them to go away should face harsh penalities, including imposistion of responsibilty without any rights for having tried to cheat the system.

I'm not sure if I can agree with this given the prevalence of date rape and the almost total lack of legal recourse a woman has in such cases under current social views which affect legal outcomes in such cases. It is very difficult to even make formal allegations when no justice comes out if it in the overwhelming number of cases and one is going to be aksed non-rleavant harrasing questions and blamed like the victims of no other crime (well, except perhaps the victims of domestic violence who also not coincidentally happen to be overwhelmingly female).

If culture in general were less sexists and less marked by violence against women then I could probably agree. But then again, if culture where less sexists bullshit ideas like women "forcing" men to be responsible for their own actions wouldn't come up in forums like this and have so much support.

Until that time I can't think of a better answer than allowing one parent to unilaterally rid themselves of legal responsibility. And if that means the state needs to take a larger role in providing health care and other necessities of well being for a child so be it. (Perhaps then the state would get off its ass and start treating violence against women like the crime epidemic it is). As a corallary I believe that any parent who gives up responsibility and then tries to sneak rights such as a say or having unauthroized knowledge of the child (hanging around schools, etc) or even calling and asking the other parent about the child after the custodial parent has told them to go away should face harsh penalities, including imposistion of responsibilty without any rights for having tried to cheat the system.

I agree with you, but this thread has been based on consensual sex... of course any form of coersion or rape changes the picture drastically, whether it was a man raping a woman or a woman taking a used condom and using it to impregnate herself (as has been suggested a couple of times).

I can see the logic behind this argument - I've even made it myself before. But, if this were the way we were to take the law, I think we should take it to its logical endpoint. If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.

The voice of reason, as always.

I would find that scenario preferable (though not ideal) compared to the current situation in most western jurisdictions.

In the past I've argued for an opt-out for men for dialectical purposes - that is, I believe that the "men have responsibilities, so suck it up!" position so prevalent here entails a contradiction, and a double standard. Arguments from claims that "abortion is a separate issue" and "children have rights to both parents" I find both specious and disingenous.

I believe there must be a third way, but I admit that it may not be always feasible in our individualist yet oh-so-caring societies.

There's a simple solution to this problem:

If a man doesn't want to have to pay child support as a result of a pregnancy that came about accidentally (broken condom, etc.) or "accidentally" (the girl saying she was on BC when she wasn't), he should just have a waiver form with him - something to the effect of "I, [name of girl], being of sound mind hereby absolve [name of guy] from any parental or alimonial responsibilities should I become pregnant as a result of having sex with him." They both sign it, date it, and voila. If the girl doesn't sign, then the guy shouldn't have sex. If the female willingly signs it, then the document speaks for itself: the girl has agreed to relieve the male from any parental or financial responsibilities should she become pregnant, and thus (if she signed it) cannot pull a 180 and try to sue the guy for support. Conversely, if she doesn't sign and the guy still goes ahead and has sex with her and she gets pregnant, then he is fully responsible for any parental or financial duties pertaining to the child.

Problem solved!

Im not one to lean toward people who bitch about 'equal rights' meaning being 'greater rights' than anyone else.

Two categories of people come to mind here.

-Women
If you want to get paid like a man, then work like a man. I have worked in a factory for a summers job before, and we had no women apply for the factory floor positions. Instead they all applied for desk jobs in the air conditioning with little personal water dispensors and all sorts of luxories.
They would raise hell because us men, who were working our left testicals off on the floor 14 hours a day in sweltering hot temperatures, were getting paid almost three times as much as they were.

If they want the extra cash, i say get off your lazy asses and work. And when you do work, dont bitch about it. Men have been doing it for centuries, if you want to be equal, then you do it too and keep your mouths shut.

-Minorities
We dont even need to get involved in this one. It's evident that in the US, atleast, minorities are the ones who get the most assistance but bitch the most because its not nearly enough to get free college.

The father's responsibilities as well as the mother's began at the moment of conception. They bear full responibility for the ramifications of that act. BUT... I'll re-iterate: A woman's right to control her body trumps it all.

By that logic shouldn't a man have control over his own. By insisting that he contribute to an unwanted child you force him work. Which takes away his control over his own body as you have legally tasked it for a specified amount of labor.

Men have just as much access to birth conrtol as women(i.e. condoms, witch are everywhere and cheap), and so know the risks of sex. Men therfore have the option to choose before the moment of conception, witch I realize upsurps the whole point of the debate, but it dose not change the fact that moment of accountability began before the child was born. I hate the damn things, but in this day and age, I would no longer belive a woman that I didnt know very well on a personal level that she was on somekind of contraception or free of stds.As to just saying "No",yeah right.

so we absolve the woman of responsibility over the decision of whether or not to have sex?

You already have freedom of choice. No one forced you to poke it in her. If you don't want to be responsible then stop having sex. Sex is not a toy. It's a tool for making babies. That is how men should approach it.
If you didn't want the kid, you should have thought about that when you failed or refused to double pack it.


This sounds like a religious position. obviously sex is a toy...otherwise we wouldn't enjoy doing it as much.

Baseless assertion that causing a pregnancy causes an obligation to a child #45.

Baseless assertion? Why you must be thinking logicly, and say that because you require proof.

Lets take our brains out of the equation for a bit and take us down to the same level as any other animal. It is true to say that most animals look after their young until a certian amount of time has passed, and then the young mature and are able to look after themselves.

There is a Darwinian reason why this is so, and it is about propergation and survival of the species.

Now lets get back to us wonderful humans and our powers of deductive reasoning.

Do you propose that because we are able to reason, and use higher brain functions, we are not subject to the rules of evolution? Or that we are something more than intelegent animals?

Some of what we do, is left over from such a time when we where closer to the animals, that such feelings are still present means that their is again a Darwinian reason for it. No matter how much we want to deny certian aspects of being human, we still feel the need for love, and to have sex, and thus to produce offspring. Part of that process is an obligation to make sure that such offspring survive.

Now please tell me why because we are able to use logic, that this is not the case?

Yes.

And, in fact, if a woman wishes to give up the baby and the man wishes to keep custody, then the woman should pay parental support.

Indeed, my mum and dad divorced when I was two years old, both me and my brother lived with my dad, and my mum had to pay him child support. This is right and fair.

I can see the logic behind this argument - I've even made it myself before. But, if this were the way we were to take the law, I think we should take it to its logical endpoint. If a woman, by law, is the only one automatically held legally responsible for a child because she did not have an abortion, she should also be the only one with any automatic legal rights to parenthood. A man - whether he is a biological parent or not - should have no legal rights regarding the child unless the woman chooses to extend them to him.
I'd be totally in favor of this.

By that logic shouldn't a man have control over his own. By insisting that he contribute to an unwanted child you force him work. Which takes away his control over his own body as you have legally tasked it for a specified amount of labor.
Requiring that a man pay for his debts does not impinge on his right to bodily autonomy. It's, frankly, pretty lame for you to try this angle. Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that nobody should ever have to pay for anything because that requires that they lift their hand, open their wallet, and take out some money, and that is a VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE AMG!!!!

There's a simple solution to this problem:

If a man doesn't want to have to pay child support as a result of a pregnancy that came about accidentally (broken condom, etc.) or "accidentally" (the girl saying she was on BC when she wasn't), he should just have a waiver form with him - something to the effect of "I, [name of girl], being of sound mind hereby absolve [name of guy] from any parental or alimonial responsibilities should I become pregnant as a result of having sex with him." They both sign it, date it, and voila. If the girl doesn't sign, then the guy shouldn't have sex. If the female willingly signs it, then the document speaks for itself: the girl has agreed to relieve the male from any parental or financial responsibilities should she become pregnant, and thus (if she signed it) cannot pull a 180 and try to sue the guy for support. Conversely, if she doesn't sign and the guy still goes ahead and has sex with her and she gets pregnant, then he is fully responsible for any parental or financial duties pertaining to the child.

Problem solved!
And you are going to verify that all of these signatures are genuine and were given willingly...how, exactly?

I'd be totally in favor of this.

Sticky slope mate.

What if the woman is a totaly inadequte mother, and because she has extended no rights to the father, the father has no right to take her to court to take an endangered child from her?

As far as a child belongs to anybody, it must surly belong to the couple, both man and woman, who provided it with it's genes.

Sticky slope mate.

What if the woman is a totaly inadequte mother, and because she has extended no rights to the father, the father has no right to take her to court to take an endangered child from her?

As far as a child belongs to anybody, it must surly belong to the couple, both man and woman, who provided it with it's genes.

In that case, both must have equal rights and responsibilities.

This is the issue. Some people want to automatically have the rights but not to automatically have the responsibilities. It doesn't work that way. It's either that the father has automatic rights and responsibilities to a born child or that he has neither.

If he does automatically gain these rights and responsibilities (as it stands currently), then he and the mother should have the same opportunities to abrogate them (as it stands currently). If he does not, then it won't matter if he wants to be a part of raising the child. That decision will be up to the only person with parental rights and responsibilities - the mother.

In that case, both must have equal rights and responsibilities.

This is the issue. Some people want to automatically have the rights but not to automatically have the responsibilities. It doesn't work that way. It's either that the father has automatic rights and responsibilities to a born child or that he has neither.

If he does automatically gain these rights and responsibilities (as it stands currently), then he and the mother should have the same opportunities to abrogate them (as it stands currently). If he does not, then it won't matter if he wants to be a part of raising the child. That decision will be up to the only person with parental rights and responsibilities - the mother.

Then 'as it stands currently' is moraly, ethicly, and evoltionary correct.

Why? The man did practically nothing.
If the man did practically nothing, I don't know why the woman would be fucking him.

If the man did practically nothing, I don't know why the woman would be fucking him.

Bwahahah, the only response that comes to mind is summit about liking stiffs!

Sticky slope mate.

What if the woman is a totaly inadequte mother, and because she has extended no rights to the father, the father has no right to take her to court to take an endangered child from her?

As far as a child belongs to anybody, it must surly belong to the couple, both man and woman, who provided it with it's genes.
Demi said exactly what I was going to say.

The reason I would so enthusiastically support the "unequal" option is simply because it would shut up some of the most annoying, repetitive, and ignorant arguments that crop up in this subject area.

Invariably, we have to put up with a small but loud group of poor set-upon males crying about how unfair it is that they can be "forced" into supporting their offspring. (Never mind that there is currently no nation in the entire world in which female human beings currently have the same legal right to bodily autonomy as male human beings. The real violation is when a man has to pay for his kid's braces.)

So fine. Let's make sure all men are completely and totally 100% safe from ever being "trapped" by slutty tramps and their evil pregnant ways. But I think we'll notice a certain theme among the men who actually jump at that option.

You know what will happen? The guys who are so angry over the injustice of being forced to support their offspring will suddenly flip sides. All of a sudden they will be furious about how women can DENY them the right to be fathers.

I'd love it, because it would cut out all the BS and just get to the heart of things: it's just about control. It's not about the kid at all. It's about the notion that a woman might have power that a man does not have. How dare she make him be a father?! Wait, no, how dare she deny him his right to be a father?!

Meh.

Demi's got it right. You can't have the rights without the responsibility. Want the rights? Then shut the fuck up and accept responsibility.

Meh.

Demi's got it right. There are two fair options.

1) Everybody has equal rights and equal responsibility.
2) Women have more responsibility, so they also have more right.

Unfortunately, our unequal biology makes it impossible for there to be the obvious third option (in which men have more responsibility and also more rights), but I would love it if one day we figured out how to even out the biology.

The problem is, you miss the obvious way to rectify this, with a simple clarification. Yes, everybody has equal rights and equal responsibilities. My argument has always been, consistantly been, men should not have to take responsibility to a child that he does not actively wish to take responsibility for, and consenting to sex does not equal consenting to responsibility.

The "flaw" you somehow see is that you erroniously assume I advocate a system where a man can say "nope, go ahead and give birth to it, but I don't want it!" but women are left with the option either to give birth, and thus be a mother, or abort. That somehow I advocate letting men walk away but give women no ability, that it's either birth and motherhood, or abortion.

Why would i advocate such a nonsensically stupid thing? If it is my position, and it is, that consent to sex is not consent to, at some future date, take care of a child that may result from sex, why should that change for a woman? Yes, men should have the legal ability to say "I don't want anything to do with this child" and that should be that. Why in the world would I wish to do anything differently for women?

Let's say you and I get together for one wild night and a little "oops" ends up with you pregnant. If I don't want it, if I want nothing to do with it, I should be able to legally remove myself from the role as "future father", but should only be able to do so in a time frame allowing you to, in turn, legally abort it, should you so choose.

Should you choose NOT to abort it, you are left with two options yourself. Raise it as its mother, or yourself say "I want nothing to do with it" and give it up for adoption/over to the state. Of course if I have the right to decide to not want to have anything to do with our future bundle of joy, so should you.

I say that I should only have until the time allowed for you to get an abortion, not because they should somehow compliment each other, but if I choose to bow out, you should still be allowed to have all your options available to you, and perhaps you are unwilling to give it up for adoption, and incapable of taking care of it yourself.

Conversly, if you decide to give birth, but want nothing to do with it, I can either accept it as a single father, or give it up for adoption.

My right to not be bound to any obligation I have not willingly taken on is wholy seperate from my right to bodily autonomy. I don't see this as a correlation or somehow "make up" for the fact that you can have an abortion, it's entirely seperate animal, and I would believe in it even if you couldn't get an abortion.

It is simply my right to not be bound to an obligation I didn't agree to. Which you certainly have as well, as our night of wild sex does not create an obligation for either one of us to do anything. I don't propose that we have unequal rights. I propose that we both have rights that are not recognized, or, at very least, to reconceive how we recognize those rights.

So please, give up this tired rant about how I want to have some control over you. I could care less about it. I want one thing and one thing only, to have the right not to be bound to obligations I did not willingly agree to. The same thing I want from you. It's not about being "trapped", it's not about being "manipulated" and frankly it's a tad insulting that you'd lump everyone who favors such a thing into raving mysoginists who just want to control women.

I am sure we both agree that nobody should be bound to obligations he or she did not willingly accept. We only disagree on at what point does a man accept the obligation to be a parent. I happen to believe that does not occur at ejaculation. Now you are free to disagree with me on that, but please, do spare me the rhetoric over the fact that since I feel that my obligation to a future child is not willingly taken upon at moment of conception that I suddenly feel the need to "control women" Frankly, my position is, I don't give a fuck what the woman has to think about it, I should have the ability to decide to accept, or decline, parental rights and responsibilities, entirely seperate from what the mother has to say on the matter.

You should not have any ability to either make me, or prevent me, from being the father to a child that we conceived any more so than I should have the ability to make you, or prevent you, from being the mother to that child.

your willingness, or lack thereof to take on parental obligations is wholy and distinctly seperate from my own.

*snip*

This still doesn't answer mine (or Bottle's) objection here. You want to automatically have more opportunity than someone else - more rights than someone else - to a child you father. However, you don't want to automatically have the responsibility that goes along with it.

As far as I'm concerned, the two go hand in hand. Either you automatically, by virtue of contributing DNA, get both rights and responsibilities, or you automatically get neither. Thus, in order not to be forced into parenthood of a child you wanted aborted, you shouldn't get automatic parenthood either.

As it currently stands, both biological parents are required to be a part of the child's life - at least through monetary support - unless both parents either agree to give the child up or another person is willing to take on the responsibility that one parent is getting out of.

What you want to substitute for the status quo isn't equal. Men, in your view, should be able to get out of responsibility for a child before that child is even born. A woman doesn't have that option. Once a child is born, she is responsible for it until she transfers custody of that child over to someone else. She is legally required to see to it that the child is taken care of, whether she does it herself or not.

What you want to substitute for the status quo isn't equal. Men, in your view, should be able to get out of responsibility for a child before that child is even born. A woman doesn't have that option. Once a child is born, she is responsible for it until she transfers custody of that child over to someone else. She is legally required to see to it that the child is taken care of, whether she does it herself or not.

That's nonsense for two reasons.

1) You can not "get out of responsibility" before there is a responsibility. I HAVE no responsibility to the child until said child is born. Any actions i take BEFORE the child is born would not take effect until my child is born. Although I may arrange for my rights and responsibilities to be terminated, I can not terminate something until it is. My termination of those rights would occur at the point of birth, even if I had arranged it prior.

2) The termination of rights and responsibilities sould be a form, signed, witnessed, and properly filed with the state. That's how it would be legally binding.

Why the hell would a man be able to do so and not the woman? She should be equally capable of taking all necessary legal steps before birth, which would then trigger after birth. At which point the child is delivered (sorry, I can't fix the part where the woman still has to give birth, but as we have said many times, that's biology) and taken to the natal ward of the hospital until such time as it can be moved to a state facility (or to the father if he is willing to take responsibility). She doesn't have to "take care" of the child until such alternative arrangements have been made. If she has taken steps to terminate her rights and responsibilities triggered at birth, then at birth the child is taken away from her. She shouldn't have to do a damn thing other than carry the child, and that's only if she so chooses to do that.

Once birth occurs, and those legally binding agreements she signs are triggered, that's the end of it. Once the baby pops out, she's not the mother anymore, she's not the guardian anymore, so it gets taken away.

Again, why would I want to allow the father to have nothing to do with the born child, but still grant some sort of affirmative obligation on the mother to take care of the child until alternative arrangements are made? Frankly speaking it seems the two of you have some built up preconceived notion of what I'm saying, and rather than trying to see if what I'm saying might not actually match up with that, you assume it does, and raise objections when none are there.

I said neither party should have any obligation to the child if they don't want it, at all. How in the world you interpreted that to be "but the mother should still have obligation to the child after it's born" is beyond me...

Requiring that a man pay for his debts does not impinge on his right to bodily autonomy. It's, frankly, pretty lame for you to try this angle. Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that nobody should ever have to pay for anything because that requires that they lift their hand, open their wallet, and take out some money, and that is a VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE AMG!!!!

My point is to defend abortion by citing the woman's right to her own body, which if granted should make it a man's right as well.

this "men should have the right to deny paternity" stance reminds me of a nation states style proposition where you think you are voting for male equal rights but you end up with a matrilineal society where men have no rights to their own offspring and only have responsibility for their sister's children.

making paternity optional might end up with it being nonexistent.

My point is to defend abortion by citing the woman's right to her own body, which if granted should make it a man's right as well.

a man has the same rights to his body that a woman has to hers. abortion has no effect on a mans right to control his own body.

But since the man is now separated from birth, since he has no fault for abortion or birth, he also has no responsibility.

EDIT: Other than resolving his responsibility for the pregnancy in the first place.

and the man's right to choose would give him an additional option as to how this responsibility may be resolved. done, resolved, don't have to worry about it anymore.

making paternity optional might end up with it being nonexistent.

That is, frankly, quite silly for a few reasons

1) many many many many couples have children because they want children. Many children are planned

2) from a maternal perspective, many women who don't want children end up aborting their pregnancies anyway.

3) options to make paternity optional (such as legalized abandonment) already exist, it has hardly brought the end of parenting.

Baseless assertion? Why you must be thinking logicly, and say that because you require proof.

Lets take our brains out of the equation for a bit and take us down to the same level as any other animal. It is true to say that most animals look after their young until a certian amount of time has passed, and then the young mature and are able to look after themselves.

There is a Darwinian reason why this is so, and it is about propergation and survival of the species.

Now lets get back to us wonderful humans and our powers of deductive reasoning.

Do you propose that because we are able to reason, and use higher brain functions, we are not subject to the rules of evolution? Or that we are something more than intelegent animals?

Some of what we do, is left over from such a time when we where closer to the animals, that such feelings are still present means that their is again a Darwinian reason for it. No matter how much we want to deny certian aspects of being human, we still feel the need for love, and to have sex, and thus to produce offspring. Part of that process is an obligation to make sure that such offspring survive.

Now please tell me why because we are able to use logic, that this is not the case?

What is all this?

Evolutionary predilections are irrelevant.

And you are going to verify that all of these signatures are genuine and were given willingly...how, exactly?

I dunno...the presence of witnesses?

a man has the same rights to his body that a woman has to hers. abortion has no effect on a mans right to control his own body.
It would however control his money and property. If we agreed to a project, say a fence between our respective houses that we both go in on, if I suddenly find out that to build the fence I'll have to move my house over about 5 feet and install a swiming pool, I'd think you'd be rightly pissed off if I decided to go ahead with it by myself and went after you for the money.

First of all, I am a male, so don't think I'm a woman giving a sexist perspective.

A woman carries that baby, has to take care of that baby in the womb, and give birth to it. And if she wants to abort it within the first trimester, it's her choice.

A microscopic piece of sperm does not give you a right to the fetus as a male. Neither does the woman's egg, but the woman has full rights because she carries it.

Demi said exactly what I was going to say.

The reason I would so enthusiastically support the "unequal" option is simply because it would shut up some of the most annoying, repetitive, and ignorant arguments that crop up in this subject area.

Invariably, we have to put up with a small but loud group of poor set-upon males crying about how unfair it is that they can be "forced" into supporting their offspring. (Never mind that there is currently no nation in the entire world in which female human beings currently have the same legal right to bodily autonomy as male human beings. The real violation is when a man has to pay for his kid's braces.)

So fine. Let's make sure all men are completely and totally 100% safe from ever being "trapped" by slutty tramps and their evil pregnant ways. But I think we'll notice a certain theme among the men who actually jump at that option.

You know what will happen? The guys who are so angry over the injustice of being forced to support their offspring will suddenly flip sides. All of a sudden they will be furious about how women can DENY them the right to be fathers.

I'd love it, because it would cut out all the BS and just get to the heart of things: it's just about control. It's not about the kid at all. It's about the notion that a woman might have power that a man does not have. How dare she make him be a father?! Wait, no, how dare she deny him his right to be a father?!

Meh.

Demi's got it right. You can't have the rights without the responsibility. Want the rights? Then shut the fuck up and accept responsibility.

I have to say, I support the ability to walk away, and I also support the non-automatic granting of parental rights to a father. If a woman chooses to keep the baby but not extend the rights, then tough shit for the man, if he wants to be a father. If a man wants to be a father, he can have kids with a woman with whom he is in a committed relationship and is therefore very unlikely to have parental rights denied to him. Now, I don't think the situation would be too common-- if the man offers to pay for the child and act as a father, most women will probably want the best (including financially) for their kids, and accept his paternity.

Of course he has responsibility for the baby. Women don't produce sperm. It takes a man and a woman to produce a baby.

What about the female who told the boyfriend that she was on the pill, she deliberately stops taking it so she gets pregnant in a hope to trap the man in a relationship. What about that males rights not to father or fund a child who he did not consent to.

no.
end of topic.
males have no right to control a woman's body.

I think we can find some common agreement here. Let me further this. What about birth control? What about if he informs the woman straight off "if we have sex and pregnancy results, I will not care for that child, if you disagree do not have sex with me"?That's the basic sense of what I'm getting at, yes.

I think men generally do not like the notion that they must make responsible choices before having sex because, for obvious reasons, this is likely to reduce the amount of sex they can have. Men want to say it's a free-for-all, but then if they get a woman pregnant they can just wash their hands and say, "Not my problem."

I really don't think that's just or fair. I think that if a man wants to state an intention not to have, or not to care for, a child that may result from having sex, it is his responsibility to state that prior to having sex. And if the woman won't agree to that... too bad, you can't have sex. Oh well.

Afterwards, I think it's too late to change your mind. You've already engaged in an activity that has consequences.

If I use birth control, have I taken sufficient steps to alleviate me of the responsibility?In itself, no. Because any idiot knows birth control is not infallible, so there is a chance that a pregnancy will result. You have minimized your chance, perhaps--which is the responsible thing to do--but you are still responsible if it happens anyway.

if I tell her to promise me that she will abort if she gets pregnant, have I taken sufficient steps?Yes, because she is in a position to take that responsibility on herself.

If I simply inform her that if she wants to have sex with me she does so on the condition I will take no part in the pregnancy that may occur, is that enough?Again, yes.

And you are going to verify that all of these signatures are genuine and were given willingly...how, exactly?Well, you have to get it notarized, obviously.

Don't you see, though, this is great. This eliminates spur-of-the-moment, take-advantage-of-you sex for irresponsible pricks everywhere. You only get to "hook up" casually, on the spot (which can be fun for all involved) IF you're willing to man up to the risks involved.

First of all, I am a male, so don't think I'm a woman giving a sexist perspective.

A woman carries that baby, has to take care of that baby in the womb, and give birth to it. And if she wants to abort it within the first trimester, it's her choice.

A microscopic piece of sperm does not give you a right to the fetus as a male. Neither does the woman's egg, but the woman has full rights because she carries it.

Right so how does that make me responsible for it...I just gave her that microscopic piece of sperm. What are rights without responsibility??

no.
end of topic.
males have no right to control a woman's body.

Way to miss the point of the debate...isn't about women's bodies it is about whether it is fair for men not to have a post conception choice. But hey what do we know I can tell you have put a lot of thought into your reply...it is so well crafted a piece of logic I fail to find a way to counter it.

Way to miss the point of the debate...isn't about women's bodies it is about whether it is fair for men not to have a post conception choice. But hey what do we know I can tell you have put a lot of thought into your reply...it is so well crafted a piece of logic I fail to find a way to counter it.

Except for where biology differs (ie, the choice to abort or carry to term) men have the same rights as women. Either the man or the woman can chose to retain parental responsibilites, at which time the other is "forced" to retain those responsibilities.

If a person is that afraid of having to face parental responsibilty then perhaps they should postpone having sex until they know a potential partner well enough to be certain they have compatible attitudes about what should happen in case pregnancy occurs. Simple really.

Hey, I made her orgasm repeatedly. That has to be worth something.

YOU're the "Mr Straughn" Verdigroth was talking about?
:eek:


Nice pix in the "Sexiest Poster" thread, btw.

A child is not the outcome of sex? How else do you have one?


... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis ?

Wow 18 year old girl just suffocated her baby after giving birth in her dorm room...Thank god her maternal instinct kicked in and she did what was best for the child.

YOU're the "Mr Straughn" Verdigroth was talking about?
:eek:


Nice pix in the "Sexiest Poster" thread, btw.

...or, you're the poster that Mr. Straughn sexed up with.
o.0

Some people like the look of their own words so much they quote themselves.

Wow 18 year old girl just suffocated her baby after giving birth in her dorm room...Thank god her maternal instinct kicked in and she did what was best for the child.

Hm. I hope for her sake the umbilical cord was still connected at the time of death. It's still a fetus prior to that point, I believe - from a legal standpoint, that is.

Hm. I hope for her sake the umbilical cord was still connected at the time of death. It's still a fetus prior to that point, I believe - from a legal standpoint, that is.

no clue it is on the news right now...she gave birth...killed it then went to her sports practice...told the coach she felt sick...eventually her roommate got a coach to take her to a doctor. It is on in the background...looks like she wasn't sexually assaulted.

Hm. I hope for her sake the umbilical cord was still connected at the time of death. It's still a fetus prior to that point, I believe - from a legal standpoint, that is.

I'm pretty sure once the child is fully removed from the woman's body is is considered born.

Way to miss the point of the debate...isn't about women's bodies it is about whether it is fair for men not to have a post conception choice. But hey what do we know I can tell you have put a lot of thought into your reply...it is so well crafted a piece of logic I fail to find a way to counter it.

nope.
your trying to redefine what is and is not a part of a woman's body.

nope.
your trying to redefine what is and is not a part of a woman's body.

No, you just need to learn to read. The argument is not "the man should be able to force the woman to have an abortion," it's "the man, having no say in the matter of whether or not the child is born, should not have the responsibilities (or rights, for that matter) that go along with the birth of the child, unless the mother chooses to extend the rights/he chooses to accept the responsibilities."
If you'd read the damn thread, you'd know that.

No, you just need to learn to read. The argument is not "the man should be able to force the woman to have an abortion," it's "the man, having no say in the matter of whether or not the child is born, should not have the responsibilities (or rights, for that matter) that go along with the birth of the child, unless the mother chooses to extend the rights/he chooses to accept the responsibilities."
If you'd read the damn thread, you'd know that.


Perhaps the thread is misnamed then:
Male Post Conception Reproductive Rights

This implies a male should (or does) have rights post conception, which includes during the gestation period. That is pre-birth. This mean rights over a woman's body. The answer still is no. Males have no rights over any part woman's body.

If UpwardThrust meant "post-birth", they should have clarified it.

That is still my answer,
as it reads as of THIS post,


I responded to the questions and statements of the first post.
One should not have to expect to read an entire thread for possible clarifications. If UpwardThrust meant something different, then UpwardThrust could have clarified it by editing in a clarification at the bottom of the post leaving the original to explain any other posts that might refer to it in its original form.
If UpwardThrust wanted to clarify but couldn't because there is a time limit for edits, then I appoligize for not knowing this.

nope.
your trying to redefine what is and is not a part of a woman's body.

So you're trying to say that a born baby is still part of a woman's body?

Because really, you're either not paying attention or severely dyslexic.

Perhaps the thread is misnamed then:
Male Post Conception Reproductive Rights

This implies a male should (or does) have rights post conception, which includes during the gestation period. That is pre-birth. This mean rights over a woman's body. The answer still is no. Males have no rights over any part woman's body.

If UpwardThrust meant "post-birth", they should have clarified it.

That is still my answer,
as it reads as of THIS post,


I responded to the questions and statements of the first post.
One should not have to expect to read an entire thread for possible clarifications. If UpwardThrust meant something different, then UpwardThrust could have clarified it by editing in a clarification at the bottom of the post leaving the original to explain any other posts that might refer to it in its original form.
If UpwardThrust wanted to clarify but couldn't because there is a time limit for edits, then I appoligize for not knowing this.

Welcome to NSG, where it is acceptable for a line of discussion to not follow the original post. Please try and keep up with the rest of us.

Welcome to NSG, where it is acceptable for a line of discussion to not follow the original post. Please try and keep up with the rest of us.

So others got it wrong then in assuming I was responding them and not the first post?

So others got it wrong then in assuming I was responding them and not the first post?

Again, welcome to NSG, where the topic doesn't have to be ON topic.

Again, welcome to NSG, where the topic doesn't have to be ON topic.

so no one has anything wrong with my posts towards the first post.


i'm still not going to start reading a 36 post thread all the way through before responding if the first asks a direct question.

so no one has anything wrong with my posts towards the first post.


i'm still not going to start reading a 36 post thread all the way through before responding if the first asks a direct question.

Well, that's on you, I suppose.

Well, that's on you, I suppose.


No reason to read all the way through.

If someone posts for a first time in a thread with no quote from another one, it is generally assumed they are responding to the first/starting post.

No reason to read all the way through.

If someone posts for a first time in a thread with no quote from another one, it is generally assumed they are responding to the first/starting post.

Not here it isn't. Most people have the good sense to quote the OP if they are, you know, quoting the OP.

Perhaps the thread is misnamed then:
Male Post Conception Reproductive Rights

This implies a male should (or does) have rights post conception, which includes during the gestation period. That is pre-birth. This mean rights over a woman's body. The answer still is no. Males have no rights over any part woman's body.

If UpwardThrust meant "post-birth", they should have clarified it.

That is still my answer,
as it reads as of THIS post,


I responded to the questions and statements of the first post.
One should not have to expect to read an entire thread for possible clarifications. If UpwardThrust meant something different, then UpwardThrust could have clarified it by editing in a clarification at the bottom of the post leaving the original to explain any other posts that might refer to it in its original form.
If UpwardThrust wanted to clarify but couldn't because there is a time limit for edits, then I appoligize for not knowing this.

I've quoted the OP (which wasn't UpwardThrust, that was just some Time Warpage. The fact that UpwardThrust is quoting another post in that reply makes it pretty clear that it is not, in fact, the OP. But you can be forgiven on this, as time warp is not an obvious ... feature to those unfamiliar with Jolt).

Should men have equal access to a post conception choice? Since I only no about abortion in the US my statements and conclusions are based on the mindset of American liberties.

Since the point of the feminist movement was to create a equal society without bias towards gender. Is it fair that women have a post conception option that men do not? If bolth genders are to be considered equal should not men also enjoy some form of post conception option?

Let's say for example that Mr Straughn and one of his female fans in the forum should go out one night, to enjoy some deep philosophical discussion and a few adult beverages, and in that state of inebriation decide to enjoy each others intimate company, for the sake of pleasure. Should Mr Straughn be held accountable for said pregnancy if the woman chooses to keep it instead of getting an abortion?

For those of you who are anti abortion let me save you the trouble. For purposes of this arguement it assumes that we do not withdraw the woman's right to have an abortion. Although that is a perfectly acceptable answer to ensuring that bolth sexes are treated equally.

Emphasis mine. This makes the OP's position clear, I think. This shows the danger in just reading the title of a thread and not even actually reading the body of the OP. Or the rest of the thread, for that matter. (Though, on genuinely long threads... I generally say 30+ pages, I'll sometimes just read the last half dozen or so to get a good idea of where the current lines of debate are going). If you browse the forum every day, it gets much easier to read the whole thread, because you can usually catch it when it's a dozen pages at most.

I've quoted the OP (which wasn't UpwardThrust, that was just some Time Warpage. The fact that UpwardThrust is quoting another post in that reply makes it pretty clear that it is not, in fact, the OP. But you can be forgiven on this, as time warp is not an obvious ... feature to those unfamiliar with Jolt).



Emphasis mine. This makes the OP's position clear, I think. This shows the danger in just reading the title of a thread and not even actually reading the body of the OP. Or the rest of the thread, for that matter. (Though, on genuinely long threads... I generally say 30+ pages, I'll sometimes just read the last half dozen or so to get a good idea of where the current lines of debate are going). If you browse the forum every day, it gets much easier to read the whole thread, because you can usually catch it when it's a dozen pages at most.



I read this post over a couple times and it seemed to contradict itself.
Sorry, And, with the thread title...only added to the contradictions

Seeing the first post:
title with a quoted something or 'nother, then what the person wrote,
i skipped the quote and read the rest.



As long as there is a sovereign person, the woman, whomever, no one else has any say over any part of her body.

I read this post over a couple times and it seemed to contradict itself.
Sorry, And, with the thread title...only added to the contradictions

Seeing the first post:
title with a quoted something or 'nother, then what the person wrote,
i skipped the quote and read the rest.



As long as there is a sovereign person, the woman, whomever, no one else has any say over any part of her body.

No, you don't understand. What you think is the first post is not actually the first post. The thing is, jolt forums are weird. And sometimes, they have problems where the timestamp doesn't quite match the time the post was posted. What this causes is that sometimes, posts will be out of order. This is called a timewarp. The "OP" with the quote in it is not actually the OP, but a reply to it that got timestamped before the actual OP did. The post I quoted was the actual OP.

Some people like the look of their own words so much they quote themselves.

Or perhaps they're just lazy enough to do what they did.

I thought we performed a late-term abortion on this thread?

responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand. as long as it remains within her body, a woman has full authority and thus responsibility. After, both parents are equal. This equality is trashed by the unjust laws that give women all the authority, but all the responsibility goes to men. a just system would allow either parent to place children up for adoption, or neither parent. both parents would be viewed equally responsible for the financial support of children, and both would be viewed as equally deserving of custody.

I thought we performed a late-term abortion on this thread?

Nice edit.
:p