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

[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.

[Catgrrl]

Of course it's not perfect, that why it says it right on the label.

Yes, in this day and age most people are only having sex for pleasure, but let's face it, the biological purpose for it is to procreate. So there is always a chance of getting pregnant unless organs are removed (uterus, ovaries, etc.) Don't always trust that your partner's form of birth control will work.

What do you want me to say, Rand? The only way to make it "fair" would be to say that abortions should be illegal, so women would have no choice either. In a perfect world, only people that want children would be able to have them. In a perfect world, health issues wouldn't force a woman to have to terminate a pregnancy. In a perfect world, rapists wouldn't exist.

But the world ain't perfect. It's hard to find a happy solution here.

Also, it's fine and dandy to think that if a man would want to keep a child but the woman doesn't, they might take over the responsibilities and take full custody, and pay all of the hospital bills. But we know that's a slim chance anyone is actually willing to do that.

If you think you're immune from being responsible for your sexual escapades, no one is. A child doesn't ask to be born. The least a man or woman can do is provide the essentials for him or her. The reality is child support is often inadequate anyway. A few hundred dollars a month does not provide well for a child, so that is why welfare is so rampant these days.

Yes, protecting against STD's is very important, so again it goes back to condom use. Because having a vasectomy won't prevent that. Hell, condoms don't always either. The same argument for protection against STD's applies with pregnancy. If it helps you at all, think of an unwanted pregnancy in the same light. The only way to 100% protect oneself would be not to have sex. But that's no fun. Maybe the moral of the story is to know one's partner before doing the deed. Again, that's not much fun either.

Anyway. Think me a hypocrite. My emphasis is that after a child comes into this world, he or she deserves a fighting chance.

[Catgrrl]

Okay, in rereading the OP post, I do agree that there should be steps that allow someone to terminate their rights as a parent, even financially.

I still stand by all of my previous posts. But I figured I should at least speak on the actual topic put forth to begin with.

[RandBlade]

Yes, protecting against STD's is very important, so again it goes back to condom use. Because having a vasectomy won't prevent that. Hell, condoms don't always either. The same argument for protection against STD's applies with pregnancy. If it helps you at all, think of an unwanted pregnancy in the same light. The only way to 100% protect oneself would be not to have sex. But that's no fun. Maybe the moral of the story is to know one's partner before doing the deed. Again, that's not much fun either.

Except that its not always necessary to use condoms to prevent STD's. I know I don't have any, nor does my partner, therefore there's no risk of transmission.

Anyway. Think me a hypocrite. My emphasis is that after a child comes into this world, he or she deserves a fighting chance.

So why should a woman get a choice but a man not?

Okay, in rereading the OP post, I do agree that there should be steps that allow someone to terminate their rights as a parent, even financially.

That's all anyone's ever suggested

I still stand by all of my previous posts. But I figured I should at least speak on the actual topic put forth to begin with.

WTF? What "actual topic" are you referring to? The actual topic is the OP that you apparently misread and that you've apparently been attacking an argument that neither the OP nor anyone here nor anything at all has actually brought up

[Catgrrl]

Those last two sentences should be reversed. I realized I hadn't actually addressed the OP this whole time. So I did that, but still think that people need to use a little sense, even in the heat of passion.

Trust me, women screw up the system many times. But it still takes two to make a baby, and no matter how much you want to believe sex is merely for pleasure, unless you are having sex with someone who has no ovaries or uterus, you can still have a pregnancy. Women getting pregnant after being told by doctors that they can't is more common than you think. And yes, birth control isn't 100%.

Even though the case in the OP is unfortunate, he took his chances with that girl. Is it shitty that she hit him with child support? Yes. I'm sure she is just as surprised as he is that it happened, but it did.

[Angel_Mapper]

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!

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.

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

[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.

[Catgrrl]

If you have a court order for child support, you do get visitation rights. If a father wants to see his child, the legal avenues are there. It's sad that one has to go that route, but unfortunately its often the only way to protect your right to see your child.

edit: I figured out that I am wrong-apparently you can terminate your rights if the step parent wants to adopt but not just for the hell of it.

[Khendraja'aro]

If you have a court order for child support, you do get visitation rights. If a father wants to see his child, the legal avenues are there. It's sad that one has to go that route, but unfortunately its often the only way to protect your right to see your child.

edit: I figured out that I am wrong-apparently you can terminate your rights if the step parent wants to adopt but not just for the hell of it.

Those "legal avenues" mean shit, at least over here. In Germany, it's very lopsided towards the women - I mean, they recently changed a law from "The mother has to allow access" (i.e. opt-in) to "The mother has to veto" (i.e. opt-out). Big fucking whoop-de-doo. This effectively means: If the mother doesn't want to provide access, she still has all the cards in her hands.

I really hope the European Court for Human Rights sorts that one out. I mean, equal rights are nice and all, but in some areas emancipation has clearly swung the scales into the opposite direction.

[Angel_Mapper]

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.

How so? You said:

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.

If women don't have a decision either it seems pretty equal no?

[Catgrrl]

Ya, it is still heavily weighted toward the woman often over here too, but they will at least award you visitation if you want it. I'm sure there are circumstances where one doesn't get visitation (abuse or whatnot) but I really don't know much about it. I do know the courts give visitation, it's in writing so that if one party does violate the other's rights to their child, they can go back to court to get it enforced or revised.

It gets messy when people try and make their own visitation schedules, and someone gets pissed off and tries to deny a parent seeing their child. And since there is no court order, you can't do shit about it unless you go to court and get it set right. (I'm not saying it can't be done civilly, but let's face it there are some people who after a break up aren't very civil to one another, and use their kids as pawns to hurt each other).

[LittleFuzzy]

How so? You said:If women don't have a decision either it seems pretty equal no?

Leaving aside the fact that court cases deal with the real world so postulating scenarios where abortion isn't allowed is pointless, it's not the only option and the father still gets no choice. Here's a common situation where the mother chose not to get an abortion. She gives up custody to her parents because she is in no position to take care of a baby. Neither is the father. Guess who is paying child support? The father, even though he doesn't really have the income to support doing so. Guess who isn't? The mother, because her parents aren't going to take her to court for it, and family courts *which are incredibly biased towards mothers* probably wouldn't make her pay anyway, due to exigent circumstances. It doesn't matter that the father is in the same situation as the mother, because someone really should be doing it, and in our family law system, both the baby's and the mother's rights and well-being trump the fathers. Remind me again where EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW is? You remember that the topic id about what you consider socially desirable but the constitutional assertion that the law is supposed to protect all people equally, right?

[Aimless]

If we're talking about constitutional rights then I am very surprised this problem hasn't been sorted out already



Cat, you keep saying that it takes two to make a baby. Given that the ultimate choice is exclusively the mother's, I'd argue that it takes only one to make or to unmake a baby. It takes two to fertilise an egg, and I suppose it might take two to pay for a baby, but in the world as it is today all it takes to make or to unmake a baby, ultimately, is the mother' decision to bring it to term or not. I recognise that, for some people, that's no choice at all--but under the laws of your country, that choice is guaranteed.

In light of that, maybe the onus should be on the woman that won't consider an abortion to be more cautious about having sex so that she doesn't expose herself--or men who don't want kids--to the risk of having an unwanted child. Or is that an unfair way of looking at things?

I agree with you in one respect. This is something that all parties should be very clear on

[LittleFuzzy]

If we're talking about constitutional rights then I am very surprised this problem hasn't been sorted out already

It's come up before. To date, the gist has been that there is a third relevant party, the child *who gets even less choice than the father* and when its interests and rights are added into the mix then a taking from the father is justified. To a significant extent, what really ought to be the case legally is ignored because it would lead to major socially undesirable results, to wit a LOT more kids raised on a single income.

[Angel_Mapper]

Leaving aside the fact that court cases deal with the real world so postulating scenarios where abortion isn't allowed is pointless, it's not the only option and the father still gets no choice. Here's a common situation where the mother chose not to get an abortion. She gives up custody to her parents because she is in no position to take care of a baby. Neither is the father. Guess who is paying child support? The father, even though he doesn't really have the income to support doing so. Guess who isn't? The mother, because her parents aren't going to take her to court for it, and family courts *which are incredibly biased towards mothers* probably wouldn't make her pay anyway, due to exigent circumstances. It doesn't matter that the father is in the same situation as the mother, because someone really should be doing it, and in our family law system, both the baby's and the mother's rights and well-being trump the fathers. Remind me again where EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW is? You remember that the topic id about what you consider socially desirable but the constitutional assertion that the law is supposed to protect all people equally, right?

If the mother has given up custody then yes, it is unfair to make the father pay.

[Catgrrl]

No, Aimless, you are right, that a woman should be careful as well in her decisions to have sex. Often doctors tell women that they have a low chance of conceiving due to medical reasons, and they hear it as "no chance". That's no excuse to have unprotected sex, as STDs are something people should be concerned about as well. It's amazing the number of ladies that were on the pregnancy forum that had "miracle babies" after being told it probably wouldn't happen for them.

And to clarify my position, I really don't approve of abortions being used as birth control. I wish that scenario would never have to happen. (Which is why I don't understand why people aren't using condoms and other forms of birth control. You really ought to use more than one form anyway for more protection). I am more sympathetic to those who have to terminate due to medical/health problems or rape victims. So in order for it to be legal to terminate on those grounds, I have to be accepting of those who use it to correct a "mistake". I am sure no matter what the circumstance it is a very hard and life-changing decision. I am so glad it's a choice I've never had to make.

I also did not see in the OP that the baby was living with the grandparents; in that case, yes, they ought to be going after both parents. I wonder if the baby was living with the paternal grandparents would the same scenario play out? Unfortunately, in the court system, you can choose to go after only one person for restitution matters. You see it alot on judge programs, where one person has to pay for total damages that he and his 3 friends caused instead of say 1/4.
Also I'm willing to bet he has the job that pays, and most likely the woman is unemployed, making her unable to pay anyway. You can't pay if you have no job to garnish wages from.

[LittleFuzzy]

I also did not see in the OP that the baby was living with the grandparents; in that case, yes, they ought to be going after both parents. I wonder if the baby was living with the paternal grandparents would the same scenario play out?

I wasn't talking about any specific situation, certainly not trying to reference the case in the OP. I was just laying out a relatively common scenario.

[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?

[Aimless]

EDIT: What Rand said

<snip>

Women can have abortions, yes. Why can't men have some sort of financial "abortion"? That's the question being asked there may be social consequences, and so another question is, should those potential social consequences trump fairness? A woman is free to abuse the laws, after a fashion, as they are now. Perhaps you are saying that men shouldn't be given the same opportunity? why not give everyone the same opportunities and then work to bring about social progress through other means?

You're talking about biological limits to equality, but we're not talking about biological limits, we're talking about legal limits. Everyone understands that women have uteruses and men have dingdongs, and everyone agrees that you shouldn't be able to FORCE a woman to either keep a baby OR have an abortion. Kindly look at the OP and the posts in this thread

[GGT]

In light of that, maybe the onus should be on the woman that won't consider an abortion to be more cautious about having sex so that she doesn't expose herself--or men who don't want kids--to the risk of having an unwanted child. Or is that an unfair way of looking at things?

Women have had the onus for BC much longer than men. By default. You're familiar with all the pills and devices, implants and patches, aimed at women. The other inequality against men is their lack of choice in BC options. Men can wear a condom or get a vasectomy, that's about it. Medical science has moved way too slowly on men's BC inventions, claiming it's not a marketable sector because (traditionally) it's women who have the incentive to use BC.

[Aimless]

Women have had the onus for BC much longer than men. By default. You're familiar with all the pills and devices, implants and patches, aimed at women.

Yes, and any of those may fail, so a woman who won't consider abortion as a final line of defense is exposing herself and her partners to the risk/possibility of having a child.

The other inequality against men is their lack of choice in BC options. Men can wear a condom or get a vasectomy, that's about it. Medical science has moved way too slowly on men's BC inventions, claiming it's not a marketable sector because (traditionally) it's women who have the incentive to use BC.

There are a couple in the pipeline. Reversible infertility for boys has been too tall an order in a world where we've had very effective methods for achieving reversible infertility for women. Boys are trickier

[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.

[Nessus]

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.

What I find objectionable is the implicit underlying attitude that it's the man who is a dick for "trying to walk away from responsibility" no matter what the bitch on the other end of the one-night stand did, as opposed to the (hypothetical) scenario where a woman is a cunt for bringing a child into this world with full knowledge that the sperm donor will not give one red penny to them. But that's not a legal issue, so

[GGT]

You're talking about biological limits to equality, but we're not talking about biological limits, we're talking about legal limits.

The legal limits for men ARE related to their biological limits! It's pretty clear. That's why (IMO) they should advocate for better male BC. Loudly and en masse. That could be their biological "equity". Between more men in charge of their fertility PLUS women in charge of their fertility, maybe this whole unwanted/surprise pregnancy and financial responsibility would be.....simpler.

[GGT]

What I find objectionable is the implicit underlying attitude that it's the man who is a dick for "trying to walk away from responsibility" no matter what the bitch on the other end of the one-night stand did, as opposed to the (hypothetical) scenario where a woman is a cunt for bringing a child into this world with full knowledge that the sperm donor will not give one red penny to them. But that's not a legal issue, so

No, that's not a legal issue. There are too many victims, including men. I've never denied that. And unwanted/unplanned children can get a raw deal, too.