A man's right to choose? Or Roe vs. Wade for dudes

[Aimless]

This is one of the most interesting articles I've read in a while, and it raises a very important question:

"Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do?"

Complete article here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...173414,00.html

Excerpt:

A Man's Right to Choose?

Should a man be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be? Yet another front in the abortion wars reopens now that the National Center for Men has undertaken a crusade to establish a "Roe v. Wade for Men." "Up until now, reproductive choice has been seen as a woman's issue: you're either pro-life or pro-choice," says center Director Mel Feit. "We're adding another element. If we expect men to be responsible, isn't it right to give them some choices too?" It's a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences, the campaign makes sense. Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn't get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn't he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?

Dubay and the center filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, which raises all kinds of confounding questions about rights and choice and what we really mean by equality, when we look at the social and biological roles played by men and women in the course of becoming parents. Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy — he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate — a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. "I'm not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they've committed to," Feit says. "I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed."

His argument gains force as more and more states pass laws requiring, as part of pre-abortion counseling, that pregnant women be informed that the baby's father has a legal obligation to pay child support. These rules were a response to evidence that the overwhelming majority of women seeking abortions do so for social and economic rather than medical reasons. Abortion opponents hope that by informing women about the legal and financial support systems available to them, including the father's obligations, they might reduce the number who choose abortion.

But solving one problem may just be creating another: pregnancy counselors find that another great source of pressure on ambivalent women is often the father of the child. As states crack down on "deadbeat dads," men have a greater financial incentive to pressure women into ending unwanted pregnancies. Some threaten to break up with their partner if she doesn't get an abortion. There is concern that violence against pregnant women is fueled by men trying to avoid a financial liability. So Dubay could argue that allowing men to shed their financial obligations for unwanted children might protect women from all kinds of pressure when they are deciding how to handle an unplanned pregnancy.

The larger philosophical argument is basically this: Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do? "Roe v. Wade really changed the world for women," Feit says. "It allowed them to separate intimacy from procreation, freed them from the fear of contraceptive failure. That kind of empowerment and security that women feel in intimate relations — well, men can't, frankly." The only sure protection is total abstinence. Feit contends that men who don't want to have a child and made reasonable efforts to avoid it should at least be able to choose a "financial abortion" that frees them from any responsibility for the baby.

[EyeKhan]

No, they don't. That's why you hear the often inflamatory observation that some girl 'trapped' some dude into marriage and/or child support by getting knocked up. That tends to really rile up the ladies.... afterall, if the dude didn't want a child, he ought to see to his own protection.

Interesting the argument is to let a man "opt out" of responsibility for the child early on in the pregnancy. Three cases I'm personally aware of involved one or several night stands, a resulting pregnancy that the father didn't find out about until after the child was born, then child support obligations ensue. Other cases involved marriage and lives of misery, but that's a different question.... A few involved marriage and happily ever after too.... There's all types.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's been a while, but the topic has come up before *over on Atari* And the simple fact is that men do not have equal protection under the law. We never truly will, either, so long as women get pregnant and men don't, but IMO we can come closer than we do today. A lot of people don't want us to come closer though, since it will certainly have undesirable social consequences.

[EyeKhan]

.., but IMO we can come closer than we do today.

I'm curious for some specifics on your ideas.

[GGT]

It's been a while, but the topic has come up before *over on Atari* And the simple fact is that men do not have equal protection under the law. We never truly will, either, so long as women get pregnant and men don't, but IMO we can come closer than we do today. A lot of people don't want us to come closer though, since it will certainly have undesirable social consequences.

That was a good discussion. I think we can get closer, too. If a man has had a vasectomy and surprisingly inseminates a woman, I think the courts could give him a "financial abortion". But he'd have to agree to give up any rights as well, including visitation. The tricky part comes if a child is born, and wants to find their genetic roots or connect with the father years later.

[EyeKhan]

That was a good discussion. I think we can get closer, too. If a man has had a vasectomy and surprisingly inseminates a woman, I think the courts could give him a "financial abortion". But he'd have to agree to give up any rights as well, including visitation. The tricky part comes if a child is born, and wants to find their genetic roots or connect with the father years later.

I think the doctor that botched the job should get stuck with child support. . Woops, frivolous accountability lawsuit!

[Catgrrl]

Is it that damn hard to put on a condom? You can't be trapped if you don't do the deed without protection. I hate when someone claims they were trapped.

Anyway, it's a tricky situation and I wish there were more "equality" for dads and dads-to-be but sadly I have no real ideas to contribute. It's a sensitive subject and opinions will always differ depending on the circumstance.

[RandBlade]

Is it that damn hard to put on a condom? You can't be trapped if you don't do the deed without protection. I hate when someone claims they were trapped.

Anyway, it's a tricky situation and I wish there were more "equality" for dads and dads-to-be but sadly I have no real ideas to contribute. It's a sensitive subject and opinions will always differ depending on the circumstance.

So you oppose abortion then? Because the woman should have ensured a condom was used?

Let alone considering that contraception fails. Don't condoms only have a 97% success rate? That's not too high when you think about it.

If a couple break up after the child is born then clearly the father should have his share of responsibility. If two people have a one-night stand and never see each other again, I don't think its right a year later to put in a child-support claim.

[EyeKhan]

So you oppose abortion then? Because the woman should have ensured a condom was used?

Let alone considering that contraception fails. Don't condoms only have a 97% success rate? That's not too high when you think about it.

If a couple break up after the child is born then clearly the father should have his share of responsibility. If two people have a one-night stand and never see each other again, I don't think its right a year later to put in a child-support claim.

That last scenario happened to two relatives of mine. Idiots.

[Flixy]

Well, condoms are uncomfortable, so if you both don't have STDs and she says she's on the pill.. If she lies about that, she is trapping you. And I do think that it is slightly unfair that guys can be forced to pay child support, without having a say about having the kid or not. On the other hand, if you don't do that, it leaves the door wide open for assholes to knock a girl up and then abandon her.

[EyeKhan]

Well, condoms are uncomfortable, so if you both don't have STDs and she says she's on the pill.. If she lies about that, she is trapping you. And I do think that it is slightly unfair that guys can be forced to pay child support, without having a say about having the kid or not. On the other hand, if you don't do that, it leaves the door wide open for assholes to knock a girl up and then abandon her.

The say comes in when he agrees to have sex without knowing he's protected.

I'm much more concerned that somehow this could be twisted into assholes preventing a woman from aborting if that is what she wants to do.

That's the other side of the coin, to be sure.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm much more concerned that somehow this could be twisted into assholes preventing a woman from aborting if that is what she wants to do.

[Draco]

I'm much more concerned that somehow this could be twisted into assholes preventing a woman from aborting if that is what she wants to do.

Such a thing would be immoral since once a woman becomes pregnant, it's her (or should be) right if she wants to abort the child, nobody else has the right to make that decision.

Anyway a man should have the right to not pay for a child that he didn't want (but if he's been the father of it for some years and then decides, then that's a different story). And above all the government/courts have no right to force such men into paying child support or giving up certain rights if they opt not to. If the guy didn't want the child to start off with, then why should his 'visitation' rights be taken away when he'll most likely not want to see this child in the future. But if he does, then he can get into contact with the mother/child and see if they agree.

But he'd have to agree to give up any rights as well, including visitation.

'Agree' sounds more like being forced to give up your rights. It is the right of the biological father to want to see the child, but that doesn't mean he will since the child could say no.

[GGT]

'Agree' sounds more like being forced to give up your rights. It is the right of the biological father to want to see the child, but that doesn't mean he will since the child could say no.

'Agree' as in legally. He'd be given the choice to revoke his parental rights, with a lawyer and a contract, maybe with a 6 month time window. (Mothers who think they'll adopt out an unwanted baby often change their minds; fathers might change their minds, too.) But if he decides he wants to be part of the child's life, with visitation and all that, he should be expected to pay child support (or share custody).

That scenario is only for a man whose had a vasectomy and is "surprised" by a pregnancy. Vasectomy is a clear intention to NOT be a father, ever. But vasectomies can reverse themselves (very, very rarely, but it can happen). Otherwise, men need to wear a condom EVERY TIME they have sex, even if the woman is using BC, because female BC can fail, too.

Infants can't express their wishes.

[Catgrrl]

I don't oppose abortion (I don't like it, but I understand the need for it in many situations), I was just stating my irritation toward people who claim a woman trapped them. If you don't know that having sex may lead to pregnancy, maybe you shouldn't be having sex.

And yes, women should be smart enough to ask their man to wear a condom or they should also protect themselves by using birth control. I'm not putting it all on the man here.

And I also just said in that same quote that I wish that there was more equality for men having rights when it come to children. But you can't make a woman have an abortion so you get out of paying child support. And in your scenario described, most likely that person wouldn't be found so how would they pay support? If there was no effort to find that person in a year's time, you probably shouldn't force them to pay.

The reality is it takes two to tango, so why should one person be saddled with the responsibility?
And paying child support, getting that court order, ensures that the father will get visitation. Many women try to deny visitation to dads, so you got to get that court order to protect your rights as a dad.

If you don't want to pay, I think that you can come to an agreement to terminate your rights and not have to pay, right? I might be wrong?

And if the roles are reversed, a women should sure as hell have to pay child support too.

[Angel_Mapper]

"Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do?"

Sure, but for men that right ends when you drop your glue. If you're not prepared to support a child keep it in your damn pants. I see this being seriously abused.

[GGT]

Angel, what do you mean by "abused"?

And to Rand......

If two people have a one-night stand and never see each other again, I don't think its right a year later to put in a child-support claim.

Why not?

[Angel_Mapper]

Angel, what do you mean by "abused"?

It would practically encourage men to be even more irresponsible, if they knew they could just say "pff you're on your own" and not have any legal obligations.

[RandBlade]

Sure, but for men that right ends when you drop your glue. If you're not prepared to support a child keep it in your damn pants. I see this being seriously abused.

This is really offensive language. You wouldn't use that sort of language to a woman so wwhy are you being so hypocritical? A woman's right's end months after sex, a man's rights end at sex even if they used (or he thinks the used) birth control? WTF!

And to Rand......

Why not?

Because a one-night-stand is not by any definition an intention to start a family and the fact that the woman chose to keep the child was not a choice of the father.

I don't oppose abortion (I don't like it, but I understand the need for it in many situations), I was just stating my irritation toward people who claim a woman trapped them. If you don't know that having sex may lead to pregnancy, maybe you shouldn't be having sex.

Maybe. Or maybe you should be less of a hypocrite. Again you're using nasty language towards men that you wouldn't use towards a woman. "He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn't get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition." If that situation quoted is inded correct, how was starting a family his choice?

And yes, women should be smart enough to ask their man to wear a condom or they should also protect themselves by using birth control. I'm not putting it all on the man here.

Except women get a choice and ment don't.

And I also just said in that same quote that I wish that there was more equality for men having rights when it come to children. But you can't make a woman have an abortion so you get out of paying child support. And in your scenario described, most likely that person wouldn't be found so how would they pay support? If there was no effort to find that person in a year's time, you probably shouldn't force them to pay.

Nobody is proposing that women be made to have an abortion. The proposed alternative is that men cut all legal relationships with the child. No visitation, no child support. Its as if the father (not the child) was dead.

In the scenario I described, I know someone who's had that happen to him. Twice. I know someone who has to be £7800 a year (was $15600 at recent exchange rates) in child support that is legally taken straight out of his wages. That is for three children, one of them he says is his definitely. That he'd "walk through fire" for her etc, etc - no problems with that just that he and the mother broke up.

But for the other 2 children, he wasn't even asked to pay for child support for years. One was with someone he'd had a one-night stand with when he was 'young and stupid'. One was with a married woman who said she was on birth control. When that child was born the husband was put as the father on the birth certificate, years later in a bitter divorce the mother said that he wasn't the father and this other guy is, so now he's forced to pay child support because the mother changed her mind as to who the father was.

The reality is it takes two to tango, so why should one person be saddled with the responsibility?

Because that person chose to have a child. Deliberately.

And paying child support, getting that court order, ensures that the father will get visitation. Many women try to deny visitation to dads, so you got to get that court order to protect your rights as a dad.

If you don't want to pay, I think that you can come to an agreement to terminate your rights and not have to pay, right? I might be wrong?

And if the roles are reversed, a women should sure as hell have to pay child support too.

No, you are completely wrong. That is in fact what this whole thread is about

The whole thread's point is should a man have a right to choose to have no relationship with a child that they didn't want. No rights, no obligations.

PS I once had to comfort someone else in tears because his girlfriend had got pregnant (again young and stupid) but she was "murdering his child" as he saw it. He was happy to have a child but she wanted and had an abortion. Obviously they broke up after that, he viewed her as a murderer, but he had no say in the matter whatsoever. I think that's right, but then why should a man not get the right to terminate their rights and not have to pay (in the same sort of window of opportunity as a woman has)?

[GGT]

Because a one-night-stand is not by any definition an intention to start a family and the fact that the woman chose to keep the child was not a choice of the father.

In other words, you think a one night stand that results in an accidental pregnancy should automatically also result in an abortion?

Maybe. Or maybe you should be less of a hypocrite. Again you're using nasty language towards men that you wouldn't use towards a woman. "He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn't get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition." If that situation quoted is inded correct, how was starting a family his choice?
Except women get a choice and ment don't.

Men always have a choice. They can choose not to have intercourse.

Nobody is proposing that women be made to have an abortion. The proposed alternative is that men cut all legal relationships with the child. No visitation, no child support. Its as if the father (not the child) was dead.

In the scenario I described, I know someone who's had that happen to him. Twice. I know someone who has to be £7800 a year (was $15600 at recent exchange rates) in child support that is legally taken straight out of his wages. That is for three children, one of them he says is his definitely. That he'd "walk through fire" for her etc, etc - no problems with that just that he and the mother broke up.

But for the other 2 children, he wasn't even asked to pay for child support for years. One was with someone he'd had a one-night stand with when he was 'young and stupid'. One was with a married woman who said she was on birth control. When that child was born the husband was put as the father on the birth certificate, years later in a bitter divorce the mother said that he wasn't the father and this other guy is, so now he's forced to pay child support because the mother changed her mind as to who the father was.
Because that person chose to have a child. Deliberately.
No, you are completely wrong. That is in fact what this whole thread is about

DNA is nothing new. Deal with it. If you don't want to, then don't have sex.

The whole thread's point is should a man have a right to choose to have no relationship with a child that they didn't want. No rights, no obligations.

It's more nuanced and complicated than that. Don't want to be responsible for a child you didn't intend? Easy---don't have sex unless it's the gay kind. Only same-sex sex has a 100% guarantee of non-procreation.

PS I once had to comfort someone else in tears because his girlfriend had got pregnant (again young and stupid) but she was "murdering his child" as he saw it. He was happy to have a child but she wanted and had an abortion. Obviously they broke up after that, he viewed her as a murderer, but he had no say in the matter whatsoever. I think that's right, but then why should a man not get the right to terminate their rights and not have to pay (in the same sort of window of opportunity as a woman has)?

What's that all about, your appeal to emotion?

[RandBlade]

In other words, you think a one night stand that results in an accidental pregnancy should automatically also result in an abortion?

NOOO!!!!!

Nobody in this thread has said that men should have a right to force an abortion on a woman. What has been said is that women have a right to choose if they want a child (carry to term) or not (abortion). Men lack that choice, so why not give that choice to have a child (visitation rights and child support) or not (no rights, no obligations)?

Men always have a choice. They can choose not to have intercourse.

So you oppose the right to have an abortion then?

If you don't want to, then don't have sex.

So you oppose the right to have an abortion then?

It's more nuanced and complicated than that. Don't want to be responsible for a child you didn't intend? Easy---don't have sex unless it's the gay kind. Only same-sex sex has a 100% guarantee of non-procreation.

So you oppose the right to have an abortion then?

What's that all about, your appeal to emotion?

No, just demonstrating the choice (rights) that women have that men lack.

[LittleFuzzy]

It would practically encourage men to be even more irresponsible, if they knew they could just say "pff you're on your own" and not have any legal obligations.

Tough shit. No taxation without representation. Men have ZERO rights or decision-making responsibility after conception, women do not, but can force recompense while denying men any say whatsoever in what happens. That's not equal protection under the law.

[Khendraja'aro]

Tough shit. No taxation without representation. Men have ZERO rights or decision-making responsibility after conception, women do not, but can force recompense while denying men any say whatsoever in what happens. That's not equal protection under the law.

The best part: They can also deny men the right to be a proper father. I mean, isn't that fun? You accept the responsibility, pay up - and still may not even see the child?

[LittleFuzzy]

The best part: They can also deny men the right to be a proper father. I mean, isn't that fun? You accept the responsibility, pay up - and still may not even see the child?

Just a teensy bit lopsided.

I think you two are assuming I'm pro-choice. I'm not.

You could be pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-eggplant; it is completely irrelevant to a 14th amendment issue. Your opinion about abortion is meaningless in a discussion about inequality.

[Aimless]

Pretty stupid are you against insurance? Are you against medical care? Are you against social security?

[Catgrrl]

How am I a hypocrite? It takes two people to make a child. Why should only the women have to be financially responsible? Also, as taxpayers we pay for far more of those kids who have to be on welfare because of deadbeat dads.

I also really thought there was an option to terminate rights and not have to pay, but I guess I am wrong on that.

I've said twice now I think men get short-shafted often in these situations. But there are morality and personal issues involved; you can't make a woman keep a baby and you can't make her abort it.

The reality is, sex has consequences. Don't sleep around if you aren't willing to accept that.

So, to throw it back on you, are you against abortion?

[RandBlade]

How am I a hypocrite? It takes two people to make a child. Why should only the women have to be financially responsible? Also, as taxpayers we pay for far more of those kids who have to be on welfare because of deadbeat dads.

You are saying that after sex women should have a choice (abortion) but men should have no choice. That is hypocrisy.

I also really thought there was an option to terminate rights and not have to pay, but I guess I am wrong on that.

No, that is precisely all that is being asked for.

I've said twice now I think men get short-shafted often in these situations. But there are morality and personal issues involved; you can't make a woman keep a baby and you can't make her abort it.

NOT ONE SINGLE F***ING PERSON HAS SUGGESTED THAT WOMEN BE MADE TO ABORT A BABY!!!

The reality is, sex has consequences.

No normally it doesn't. It can though, STD's if you're not careful.

Don't sleep around if you aren't willing to accept that.

How puritanical. No, I don't agree with that.

So, to throw it back on you, are you against abortion?

No. I believe sex is more for pleasure than for procreation and that we have an ability to deal with the consequences. I believe that 'protection' should be first and foremost for prevention of STD's and not just birth control.

I have never had unprotected sex and would not unless trying to procreate, but I also have a brother 16 years younger than me who was conceived while my mum was on birth control, so I know first-hand its not perfect.

[GGT]

I'm talking to GGT who doesn't realise that a woman also has a choice, she can choose to not have sex, she can also choose to have an abortion, which means that if she chooses to have sex AND to keep the resulting baby then maybe the man should occasionally have some say in whether or not HE should have to pay for HER choice.

Women have more choices because of the nature of their bodies. Unless science figures out a way for men to gestate pregnancy to term, that will always be the case. As Angel said, if men can always walk away from financial responsibility, that could be "abused", and it wouldn't make for "more equitable" scenarios.

I have no idea why she's willing to accept a situation where women can choose to have sex AND choose whether or NOT to raise a child, while MEN only get to choose whether or not to have sex. She may be pro-choice but she's clearly not pro equality. She's saying, "But you do have a choice!" when she SHOULD be saying, "You have ONE choice in this matter and women have TWO, where before they also only had ONE, and this is problematic because it is unfair and can also be unjust."

Women have more choices, yes. 1) abort, 2) give birth and adopt baby out, 3) give birth and keep baby. There's not much way toward EQUALITY when it comes to the gestation/birth part. Even if the father wanted the child, the mother would have to agree to surgical procedures to harvest and re-implant the embryo to a surrogate. That's just reality. Even that fourth option involves HER body and not his. No way around that.

WTF? No offence but are you even reading the replies anyone's put here? Have you even read any of my replies, or the opening post or in general any of this thread?

Yes, and all this talk of men's choice is financial, after insemination. Because he doesn't have a uterus, his only real biological choice is what to do with his sperm before insemination. I only point that out in when people rant about how men don't have a choice. They do, it's just not as comprehensive as they'd like. The inequalities are there because of biological limits, and we can't change those (yet).

Tough shit. No taxation without representation. Men have ZERO rights or decision-making responsibility after conception, women do not, but can force recompense while denying men any say whatsoever in what happens. That's not equal protection under the law.

Men also don't have the right to prevent an abortion, assuming they'd want the child. No, it's not equal, but how the hell could it ever be....until men grow their own uterus? The best we can aim for is how this financial recompense is decided and meted out, not getting rid of it entirely.

No, I don't think it's fair for a one-night stand man to pay the same child support as the long-term relationship man, or the divorced father man *or Fuzzy's custody example*. As I see it, that's the best place for negotiation and adjudication.

[RandBlade]

I only point that out in when people rant about how men don't have a choice. They do, it's just not as comprehensive as they'd like. The inequalities are there because of biological limits, and we can't change those (yet).

Yes we can change the situation, we could give men a financial right to choose.

No, I don't think it's fair for a one-night stand man to pay the same child support as the long-term relationship man, or the divorced father man *or Fuzzy's custody example*. As I see it, that's the best place for negotiation and adjudication.

That's the whole point of this thread, is it fair or not and what should be done about it?

[GGT]

Yes we can change the situation, we could give men a financial right to choose.
That's the whole point of this thread, is it fair or not and what should be done about it?

I gave my opinion. Financial Adjudication (with some type of sliding scale?) for men. More options in future BC for men (a pill, a shot, an insert, something more). I'd rather see men vocal and passionate about actually getting more choices in controlling their fertility, demanding research and innovation, than complaining how women hold too many cards.

I don't think a total opt-out for the one night stand is fair, that's why I went on to explain WHY. I think he should split the cost of abortion, or pregnancy and delivery, at the very least. Angel pointed out possible abuses in this man-walking away scenario, and so did Fuzzy--from the child's best interests.