Should men have a say about abortion?

[question everything]

Here, of course, in a civilized society, where we thrive for men and women to be equal partners in all decisions, the answer would be yes. We would like both would be parents to determine whether a pregnancy should continue or not.

The sad reality is, that in too many parts of the world, women have no say on anything. In many cases, the pregnancy is a result of a rape which, if the woman is not married will also result in her death. If the rape is by her husband, well, this, too is accepted.

In too many cases, the only way women can make a living is through prostitution where, again, being pregnant, means life long of poverty and misery for her and for her child.

And, in many parts of the world, a husband can just decide to change his mind and to divorce her while she is pregnant.

So for women to be the only ones in charge of their bodies is a matter of life and death. Which, of course, is why we should support world-wide organizations that help women who seek abortions in poor, patriarchal regions of the world. (I think that Reagan prohibited it, Clinton reversed it, Bush reversed it too and I am not sure about Obama).

Oh, and with all due respect, Mr. President, not every woman is agonizing over terminating a pregnancy. Especially for young, unmarried ones, often the only desire is to let "this thing" disappear. And, sadly, sometimes it is the newly born baby who the young mother makes to "disappear."

[MNDemNY]

1. Only if the effected woman wishes to bring one in on her decision.

[lamp_shade]

2. Good answer. n/t

[MNDemNY]

5. The only one I could think of that made any sense.

[question everything]

10. This is true in our "western" society

where men and women communicate as equals - more or less.

In too many parts of the world, the woman really has no choice in the matter.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

3. It's her body and her choice. No man should have veto power over

her decision.

If a woman is pregnant against her wishes and chooses NOT to include a man in her decision to have an abortion, there's probably a good reason why.

[Blue Meany]

11. Should a man be compelled to pay child support for a child

he did not want? Should a woman be allowed to abort a child that the father wants and is willing to raise himself? I don't think there is a simple formula about who has a say in this. I think that morally and ethically this is a much more nuanced issue than "her body, her choice."

[Scout]

12. you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong

it IS that simple.

it is her body, her life and health at stake, ergo her choice.

[Blue Meany]

13. The fact that the woman's health is at stake obviously gives

her a "say" that the man cannot have, but you did not address my point that the man's life is also affected. Clearly a man should not be able to force a woman to carry a child to term, if her health is threatened. But should he be able to compell her to abort a child (presuming this can be done completely safely) because he does not want a child or does not want ot support it?

[Scout]

14. nope. he can neither compell her to abort nor to carry to term.

many things affect our lives that we have no control over

:shrug:

[Blue Meany]

18. You don't seem to see the contradiction in your position

> many things affect our lives that we have no control over

True, like pregnancy sometimes. So why is it that women should have control that which affects their lives and men should not?

I know this goes against current popular opnion, but I just cannot see the fairness in the position that a woman can choose to compell a man to support a child that he does not want and can also choose to abort a child that the father wants to raise. I am committed to gender equality; this is not equality.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. From a legal perspective, the issue is the rights of the child

The mother is not allowed to sign away paternal responsibilities or rights. That leads to some of the perceived inequities you bring up.

The current legal framework is far from balanced and is rooted in paradigms in serious need of revision. Unfortunately changing them would be damn near impossible due to the entire business, government and private, that have grown up around it.

[uppityperson]

26. What if she gives the child to the father. Should she be responsible for child support?

It is equality, her having the say as to have an abortion or not since it is her body that is at risk.

[jberryhill]

39. Under the law, yes she is

Methinks you do not understand how child support works.

BOTH parents are required to contribute to the support of their children. States use a variety of formulas that take into account custody, relative income, and other factors to determine who pays what.

[uppityperson]

41. I understand how child support works, wanted to see if that poster did

Child support is support for the child, not for the guardian of the child. Or, as you put it "The child has a right to support from both parents."

My question was in response to this from that poster "a woman can choose to compell a man to support a child that he does not want"

[jberryhill]

40. Your basic fallacy is this idea that child support is something women get from men

It isn't.

The child has a right to support from both parents. Who ends up paying what to whom is entirely gender neutral, and is determined by factors such as custody, residence, relative income, etc.

Your understanding of child support is entirely false, and yes there are many mothers who pay child support to fathers. But the bottom line is that it is the child who is entitled to be supported by both parents. Period. It is not about who pays whom or what gender they are.

[Azalea]

43. Men shouldn't have to

I believe that if given the chance most men who fathered children OOW would gladly terminate their parental rights and not have their names placed on the birth certificates if it ensured they would not have to pay child support or be forced with visitation.

[Piwi2009]

65. This is a question for the antichoicers actually

Women who abort aren't the ones who do this to men. The woman who made the "beautiful choice to have the baby when she couldn't afford it" is the one who saddles the guy with payments he didn't want and can't afford. The equality in that situation, is that a woman has to support the kid too.

[Euromutt]

80. There's no contradiction

The man most assuredly has some measure of control, it just ends earlier along in the process than the woman's. Namely, right up to the point that he introduces so much as one spermatozoa into the woman's reproductive tract.

Arguing that you're "committed to gender equality" in this context is highly reminiscent of the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian where Stan (Eric Idle) declares to the other members of the People's Front of Judea that he henceforth wants to be known as "Loretta," because he wants to be a woman so he can have babies.

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA:

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

"Gender equality" doesn't really even enter into it. "Gender" is what you are mentally; "sex" is what that bitch Mother Nature stuck you with physically. And the bottom line is that member of the male sex don't have wombs, whereas members of the female sex do, and that's what gives the females the casting vote. You don't have to like it, but you might as well argue with a typhoon.

[beyurslf]

102. Both men and women have choices in pregnancy. A man's choice in the matter

simply ends before the woman's does. When a man chooses to have sex with a woman and chooses not to take the necessary precautions against getting her pregnant, his choice is made. He is saying, I accept that my choice may result in a child. His decision is made. A woman has a choice beyond that because it is her body and her health. This is not unfair or unequal. The man presumably knows how babies are made and what can be done to stop babies from being made. If he doesn't want to father a child, strap up or pull out.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

146. That's rather sexist...

The WOMAN also makes the choice to have sex with the man and not take precautions. That's a two way street my friend. Unless you're saying women somehow have no control over a man having sex with them - in which case, if women are that mentally incompetent, they should not have the choice of an abortion either.

[uppityperson]

147. "women are that mentally incompetent, they should not have the choice of an abortion"?

So "mentally incompetent" women should not be able to have an abortion because, after all, they will be able to deal with teh pregnancy, birth, being a parent soooooooo well?

Good grief.

Women get the choice, not men, being the pregnancy affects THEIR body and THEIR life. It may be sexist but things are not always equal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

152. Try reading the entire sentence in context

What I was responding to was the extremely sexist position that women had no say in the conception process - it was all the man's fault and he forced it upon her.

When that IS the case, we call it rape. That is a crime and an extremely rare occurrence relative to how much sex is going on.

And like it or not, if a woman is so mentally incompetent that she could not have consented to the sex in the first place, the decision to have an abortion is going to be made by someone other than her anyway.

[uppityperson]

153. "A woman has a choice beyond that because it is her body and her health."

What about this line in what you replied to?

I agree, that the argument shouldn't be about "he didn't use contraception" or "she didn't use contraception" so tough cookies. It is about the fact that "A woman has a choice beyond that because it is her body and her health."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

155. Yes it is her body and her health

Which is why she is obligated to make intelligent choices in her life.

Forcing another to be responsible for the outcome of her choices though is wrong. By obligating the man to pay even if he took precautions and does not wish a child, it is no different than allowing the man to say "No, you cannot abort it" and forcing her to carry to term.

I'm not saying the woman should not have the choice to abort - do not misunderstand that. I am saying if she makes the choice to give birth, the man should not be obligated to pay for her choice.

[uppityperson]

157. "forcing" child support is = to "forcing" pregnancy? No. It isn't.

Obligating a man to providing financial support to a child he helped make, even if he wishes nothing to do with said child, is not the same as obligating a woman to carry to term and give birth, a child she helped make.

It isn't equal. Until men become pregnant, it won't be equal. It is just how it is.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

158. You're right - it isnt equal...

Never said it was. However, true equality would mean that the man did not have to take responsibility for HER choice.

[uppityperson]

159. "true equality would mean that" everything about it was equal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

163. You're wanting equality of outcome

not equality of choice.

There is a difference.

The woman has the same choices as the man right up until the moment of conception. Why should the man lose his rights and be at the mercy of a woman just because of the choice she makes? How is that equal?

If the woman has the sole right to make the decision to get pregnant, then she should have the sole responsibility. Simple as that.

[uppityperson]

168. It isn't equal. Until men can get pregnant, it won't be equal. No, the woman doesn't have the sole

right to get pregnant. Unless you are talking about her using AI or raping a man.

Are you talking about "get pregnant" or stay pregnant? Here you are saying she has the "sole right to make the decision to get pregnant" which is absolutely false.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

174. She doesn't have the sole right to get pregnant?

Really? I'll be happy to introduce you to any number of men who were led to believe their partner was on birth control/surgically sterile/etc. and who now have children they are obligated to support. Yes, women can and DO choose to become pregnant. Believing otherwise is sheer stupidity.

And yes, by removing the man from the decision making process, we are saying that the woman has the sole right to make the decision to have a child (that better phrasing for you?). The man is forced to accept the consequences of the woman's decision regardless of what it may be.

[PeaceNikki]

177. I see. Here's a thought: maybe the men putting their penii into women like that should think about

that potential before they blow their wad. Your anecdote is the exception, not the rule. What magical tales will you tell of us next? Cadillac welfare queens?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

181. So you're saying basically...

women should have zero responsibility for their choices in the sexual act, but the man should carry a potential 18 year financial risk?

Just accept that what you really want is inequality in the process, or does it bother you to be forced to admit such a thing?

[uppityperson]

186. Who is saying women "should have zero responsibility for their choices in the sexual act" except

you? You keep harping on women not using contraception and they need to be responsible for that.

WE keep saying until men can get pregnant, it isn't equal. Simple fact. Not what "you really want" but simple fact. It isn't equal and won't be equal until men can get pregnant.

[PeaceNikki]

188. no, you're sorely and sadly and ridiculously misguided.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

191. What is misguided?

Are you or are you not saying that the woman bears sole legal right to make the choice to terminate or continue a pregnancy, while the man has the legal obligation to bear the financial responsibility for her choice if she wishes to keep the child, even though he had no say in the matter?

Are we unclear on that? Are you saying anything else?

If you aren't then I am not misguided. If you are, then enlighten me.

[uppityperson]

193. "Some" not "The" financial responsibility for "their child".

[PeaceNikki]

194. I get it now. A woman fucked you over and you hate them all now.

Sad.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

198. LOL Oh how wrong you are....

Nope - I'm just not one of those people who has a whole lot of tolerance for blatant hypocrisy.

Disagreeing with your argument does not in any way equate to misogyny. I'm sorry you equate disagreement with hatred.

[uppityperson]

200. Men don't get pregnant, women do = "blatant hypocrisy"?

I'd call it fact. Until men can get pregnant, things will be unequal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. Again, you're conflating pregnancy...

..with child rearing.

Yes - the woman should have the choice to have the child.

No question there. Is this part clear to you yet?

No, men cannot get pregnant. No argument.

WHY should the man be held responsible for a woman's choice to have the child? Why does HIS choice in the process end the second he ejaculates?

If he wants the kid and she doesn't, tough shit for him. If she wants it and he doesn't, also tough shit for him.

That isn't even CLOSE to fair. Don't pretend it is.

[uppityperson]

205. You conflate "equal" with "fair". We, including you, have been saying "equal"

Equality, ultimate equality, etc equality.

Finally you get to the word "fair". Rather like the yr old crying that his 10 yr old brother gets to stay up later "It isn't FAAAIIIRRRRRR".

[We_Have_A_Problem]

208. Its neither fair nor equal.

Bottom line is, the consequence is forced upon the man. Yes, that is a simple fact. Yes it is unfair and definitely not equal.

My issue is with the claim that it IS fair or equal and it somehow is an extension of "equal rights".

[uppityperson]

210. Who is claiming anything about "equal rights" except you? We acknowledge it isn't

"equal".

[We_Have_A_Problem]

214. Apparently you missed the comment...

...which led to this entire subthread.

I am afraid you and I have been talking past each other while essentially being on the same page. Probably my fault as I am sometimes not entirely clear.

[PeaceNikki]

241. Re-read the flipping OP that you are in. The question was whether men should have a say in abortion.

Are you arguing that they should because of a potential financial obligation? I think that's bullshit. If you think that they shouldn't necessarily be held financially responsible in every case, we can agree. But that wasn't the question asked. AT ALL.

[PeaceNikki]

243. The reply to me here told me EVERYTHING I need to know, dude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x6940#7804

[uppityperson]

197. Furthermore, as we have both stated

"Just accept that what you really want is inequality in the process, or does it bother you to be forced to admit such a thing?"

Not what "we want" but what is. Until men can get pregnant, it will be unequal. Fact. Objective fact. Not opinion. Not "want". But fact. Like gravity is a fact.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

201. It is not objective fact...

it is current legal obligation.

There is no reason that could not change overnight with the stroke of a pen.

Yes, the effects, short and long term, of sex are disparate. Never said they weren't. My issue is solely with the claim that the man should be obligated to pay because it is somehow fair.

[uppityperson]

203. What? The law prohibits men from getting pregnant? Huh.

Until men can get pregnant, things won't be equal.

You continue to confuse "fair" with "equal".

[uppityperson]

180. And men never lie about being fixed, or use condoms that "break"? I know women

who have experienced both of those. No, she doesn't have sole right to GET pregnant. She has sole right to STAY pregnant.


I'm not sure how a woman can get pregnant without a man's sperm, maybe in your fantasy "its gotta be fair" world? Sorry. That was snarky.

Until men also get pregnant, it isn't fair. It isn't equal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

183. Sure they do.

I used poor phrasing on the sole right to get pregnant part. Obviously I meant stay pregnant. My apologies.

I am not saying its got to be fair. I just want fairness in the argument. Is it so hard to admit that women want their cake and to eat it too? They want the freedom to abort a pregnancy without consulting the father, but they also want the freedom to obligate the father financially if they choose to have the child.

It really is that simple.

[PeaceNikki]

164. Your dream world of equality only works in a world where men can be impregnated.

Until then, your point is fucking moot.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

167. So then...

since you want the additional right for women to force their choice upon a man, would you support a man's right to force his choice upon you?

Of course not - that's the very thing your arguing against. At least be honest and admit that you only want female equality up to the point of pregnancy, then you want her to have superiority.

[uppityperson]

171. Until men can get pregnant, it won't be "equal". Simple physiology.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

176. No shit? Really?

I am not arguing that.

What I am arguing is, since the woman has the sole possibility of getting pregnant, she is obligated to accept the greater risk and take appropriate precautions. Yes, she can still take them and become pregnant. HOWEVER - if she does not choose to remain pregnant, she has the ability to make that choice. I have zero problem with that.

My issue is solely with obligating the man to accept the consequence of her decision to have the child. If she makes that decision without his input or against his wishes, she and she alone should carry the full responsibility for raising said child.

[PeaceNikki]

175. A pregnancy carried to term does not magically equate to financial support by the father.

If that were true, no 'deadbeat' parents would exist. Women do not have to seek financial support. You act as though this outcome is predetermined. If a man knows a woman well enough to put his penis in her, he should have a general idea of what type of person she is, no?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. Here in the United States

Yes, it does magically equate to a legal obligation to financial support by the father. She has to seek it of course - after all, it is reasonable to expect the woman to prove the man was actually the father, dontchathink?

To turn your own phrase against you - if a woman knows a man well enough to accept his penis inside her, she should have a general idea of what type of person he is, no? If she does not think he'll happily support her decision to support a child should one result from the liaison, then what is she doing having sex with him?

[PeaceNikki]

185. lol. As if. And then there's the real world.

For example, I raised a child without a fucking DIME of financial support DESPITE the courts ordering it. And that was a man who I was MARRIED to for 9 years and a planned pregnancy of a child he abandoned after those 9 years.

In addition, as I said, the courts don't just magically make it happen when the baby is delivered, you know? A parent has to retain counsel, appear in court, and prove a case. This is all very different to the biological things that happen to a woman when pregnancy occurs, no?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

196. Sounds like your problem is really...

...with the process. You're pissed because the state didn't make it easier on you. Sounds like you also chose a pretty shitty mate.

When I divorced my wife, child support was a foregone conclusion. I never questioned it in the first place. Hell, I was paying her child support even while we were separated without any legal obligation to do so, and in fact, I pay her far more than my legal obligation even though she is in far financial shape than I.

Here in Texas, when child support is ordered, it is garnished from your wages before you ever see the check. You don't have a choice short of being employed in an all cash, off-the-books job.

No, you do not have to retain counsel either. In a case such as this, the state will provide counsel. Yes, you do have to appear in court and prove the man actually IS the father, but anything else would be a travesty of justice to say the least.

[PeaceNikki]

199. My anecdotes are just as good as any of yours.

It is not a foregone conclusion that a man pay shit when they conceive a child. It is a scientific fact that a woman will either bear a child or have an abortion when they do. See the difference?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

204. Yeah so?

Its also a scientific fact that the average man is larger and stronger than the average woman. This doesn't mean we force everything on the planet to be of a size comfortable only to women, does it?

I am not saying the pregnancy is equal. I am purely discussing the financial obligation. It is not fair to require a man to accept responsibility for a choice made by the woman.

[Zoeisright]

110. There is no contradiction.

Her body, her choice. Life is unfair. This is really the only issue where men don't have a choice.

If you don't want a kid, get a vasectomy. THAT'S your choice.

[Kceres]

15. Cheers!

IMO, no XX = no say. Although, ideally, in a healthy relationship the woman MAY want to bring her partner into the decision-making. I've always thought the subject should be taboo to men. Kind of like lawmakers, husbands and boyfriends sitting around talking about which is better for girls and women: tampons or pads?

[question everything]

28. Right. Isn't it interesting that it is men: the Pope, priests

men in power who have told women how to live their lives? And I have often thought that banning abortion has more to do with controlling women, and women sexuality, that being "pro-life."

[Warpy]

17. He had his choice

He chose not to wear a condom and thus exposed both of them to the consequences of depositing sperm into somebody else's body.

Got that? You don't want child support payments? Prevent them up front.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. What if they had agreed to no children and that she would be responsible for contraception?

I'm being a devils advocate here, but the legal landscape is not nearly as binary as some would think. If the woman in the agreement is postulated also agreed not to request child support should there be a child and she chose to carry it to term, that would be ruled illegal...

[Warpy]

22. It's still the only time he gets to exercise his own choice

It's called a CONDOM.

Deal with it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. You missed the entire point...there are limitations on some choices when it involves children

[Warpy]

24. No, you're missing the point.

You get one time to make that choice. It comes when you either wear a condom or whine about it.

It's called a CONDOM.

[uppityperson]

27. Sometimes condoms fail. If he has sex, he takes the risk of pregnancy

same as with any woman who voluntarily has sex. If he doesn't want the risk of having to support a child, some have sex.

Or be prepared to deal with the outcome, if it happens.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azalea]

44. Is that why

So many children grow up with fathers who ignore them? I think the man should be able to *give up* his child as a mother would have been able to give up her child had she opted for adoption, only its open in the sense that the new father hasn't come along yet. NO ONE has a right to a mother and father, because no one has a right to be born and no one has a right to force parenthood on another. When our laws reflect those rights and do away with the best interest of the child fantasy, more parent-child relationships will be much healthier and without coercion.

[jberryhill]

37. Their agreement has no effect on other people's rights - particularly the child

Person A and person B do not get to agree what the rights of person C are.

The child has a right to support from both parents, and our society enforces the obligations of both parents to support their offspring, whatever those two parents might have agreed upon - because the rest of us are going to make them do that before we have to.

[ehrnst]

119. Consent to have sex does not = consent to parenting or childbirth

For either gender. I repeat that ad nauseum to any anti that says, "she made her choice when she spread her legs."

However, the decision to remain or not remain pregnant rests with the woman. The man can never take on the childbearing part, whether he wants to or not.

However once a child is born, it must be supported financially, and the state mandates that the biological parents do so, or find someone who will.

If consent to sex = consent to childbearing, then contraception would not exist.

[uppityperson]

25. Yes. He deposited sperm that made her pregnant. Yes, it is her body, her life at stake

And no, you cannot always tell when a pregnancy will go bad. The woman can die at any point. Even during delivery after a "normal" pregancy

[Book Lover]

30. If a man doesn't want to have a child, but wants to have sex, it is incumbent

upon him to use birth control to protect himself. Just like women do.

[ehrnst]

120. But no birth control is 100% effective, so celibacy is the only for sure option.

Not that people shouldn't take precautions - but it's not reasonable or realistic to make people choose between sex and childbearing.

[Lursa CB]

132. And THAT'S why there is choice!

People know these risks...and they choose. When they choose to have sex, they may need to face the consequences. Just like everything else in life (we hope).

A woman faces the consequences of a pregnancy/health risks/death,shortened school opportunites, diminished job choices, a child. Or an abortion. Yes an abortion is a difficult consequence, and no, a child shouldnt be seen as a negative thing, but it is still a reality.

A man faces fatherhood, child support, or....no problems if there is an abortion. No, an abortion is not a consequence for a man because he had no plans for a child in the first place.

So you do have to choose. YOu can take all the responsible precautions...we all do/did/will. But accidents do happen and you are still obligated to accept the consequences.

[jberryhill]

36. The answer to that is very simple

This question is frequently posed by people who quite simply do not understand the principle of child support, the public policy rationale for it, or how it works in practice.

The bottom line is that child support is about the CHILD's rights. Every child has the right to material support from BOTH parents. It is not something women "get" from men or vice versa (as it there are a number of factors that go into who pays what to whom).

Neither a mother nor a father can choose not to support their offspring. Period.

The public interest here is in seeing that children are supported. Our society requires that parents do that in the first instance. No, you do not get to opt out from supporting your offspring and making EVERYONE ELSE pay to support it.

[Iris]

46. yes because being pro-choice means you believe women should not be coherced into terminating

a pregnancy. Withholding financial support leaves the woman in a position where she feels she has not choice but to have an abortion and that's where the nuance lies.

[Lursa CB]

131. her body, her decision

Absolutely a couple should discuss this but in the long run, it is 100% the woman's decision. No man can tell her to risk the health complications, even death, that may accompany pregnancy and childbirth. Or being a mother for 18+ yrs.

And no a man cannot opt out of child support. Because he had a choice...before sex...and made it. He knows the risks and knows the consequences. He is 50% responsible for any child produced....if he defaults, then it falls to the taxpayer if the mother cannot support herself and child. And that is even less fair. There is no reason that I should have to support an unplanned child if the parents can...whether they like it or not. It's not my responsibility.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Of course men should have a say.

We just should not have the final say. That is between the woman and her doctor.

[Euromutt]

81. That's as close to the perfect summary as can be achieved

I was casting about for analogies along the lines of the woman having the "casting vote," but I like your summary much better.

[eShirl]

6. if they are willing to carry the fetus to term in their bodies, then yes. n/t

[Sal Minella]

16. Exactly. Any man who is pregnant should be able to decide whether or not

to continue the pregnancy. Absolutely.

[qb]

7. No. A man who impregnates a woman who does not want to be pregnant

owes her financial support to do what she chooses.

[pkdu]

8. IF asked/consulted - "I'll support you 110% in whatever you decide to do"

- thats the ONLY "Say" we should have.

[Warpy]

9. Oh, they can say what they want to and generally insist

on saying it at length.

However, until the fetus is in his body, threatening his health, finances, social support system and LIFE, the decision isn't his. Period.

Men and women are not equal partners in this.

[Libertyfirst]

19. The woman may consult, but the decision should be hers alone.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lyric]

31. When men are the ones who have to risk their lives to carry the child, yes.

Until then? NO.

[iverglas]

32. what's "a say"?

That's the question I always have to ask when this question comes up.

It can mean two things:

Voice
Vote

Having a voice means you get to be heard before a decision is made.
Having a vote means you get to influence the decision.

Well, whatever. The answer is no in both cases.

Nobody gets a voice in somebody else's business unless s/he wants to listen.
And most definitely nobody gets a vote in somebody else's business.

Just to be clear: the business here is the pregnancy. Period.

Pregnancy is a function of a woman's body. Therefore, and quite simply, the woman is the person entitled to decide what action to take in respect of her pregnancy, and whom she wishes to listen to before making that decision, if anyone.

Pregnancy does not impose obligations on a man. And any issues that arise if and when a child is born are entirely separate from, and have absolutely nothing to do with, women's fundamental human right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

[rd_kent]

33. I take exception to some of what you say here

"Pregnancy does not impose obligations on a man. And any issues that arise if and when a child is born are entirely separate from, and have absolutely nothing to do with, women's fundamental human right to make decisions regarding their own bodies."

I would agree with you if the state did not get involved after a baby has been born regarding child support. Our system is a bit flawed in this sense. If a woman has total control over whether she carries a baby to term or not (and I think she does) and then chooses to have a baby either against the sperm donors (my term) wishes or without the sperm donors knowledge, why is the sperm donor then held responsible for the support of the child? With responsibility comes decision making. Take away the decision making and you take away the responsibility.

[iverglas]

34. do you, now?

I would agree with you if the state did not get involved after a baby has been born regarding child support.

You would agree with what?

My statement that Pregnancy does not impose obligations on a man?

Is there some evidence or argument that pregnancy does impose obligations on a man? I've never seen any.

My statement that any issues that arise if and when a child is born are entirely separate from, and have absolutely nothing to do with, women's fundamental human right to make decisions regarding their own bodies?

Again, what is there to "take exception" with there?

It seems pretty bloody straightforward to me.

Pregnancy is a function of a woman's body. Decisions about it are therefore the woman's to make.

Children are members of a human society. Other individuals' responsibilities to children are decided by that society.


If a woman has total control over whether she carries a baby to term or not (and I think she does) and then chooses to have a baby either against the sperm donors (my term) wishes or without the sperm donors knowledge, why is the sperm donor then held responsible for the support of the child?

Because the society in question has decided that both biological parents can be required to contribute to the expense of meeting the child's needs, I guess.

Our societies make lots of decisions that lots of us don't like. We're all free to work to change the policies and laws that result.

Myself, I'd prefer to see a guaranteed minimum income that would cover the basic expenses of rearing children in decent circumstances, some of which would be provided in the form of adequate housing and good child care. Basic needs would be covered by transfer payments from equalizing income taxes, and parents would be responsible for whatever they liked over and above the minimum.

My concern, of course, is the children's welfare and well-being, which wouldn't be dependent on the parents', or either parent's, willingness or ability to provide for a child's basic needs, in my utopia.

Since we're not living in my utopia, someone has to provide for children's needs. The people who engaged in the actions that led to the child's birth seem like the reasonable candidates.

A decision not to terminate a pregnancy is not an action that leads to a birth.


With responsibility comes decision making. Take away the decision making and you take away the responsibility.

I had a bit of a hard time figuring that one out, but I think I'm getting it. If a father is to be responsible for a child's support, he should be allowed to make decisions?

Actually, that doesn't make sense. I think it's the "With responsibility comes decision making" bit that's the problem.

What you really mean is: Liability can only arise if a decision was made that led to the situation in which someone is to be held liable for something?

Pretty much. And the decision in question was indeed made and acted on. The man engaged in an act that he knew could lead to the birth of a child, if the foreseeable chain of events occurred and was not interrupted. He knew he had no power over the events once they were set in motion, and no authority to interrupt the chain.

Looks to me kind of like throwing a rock at someone's head. If someone else steps in and catches it, no harm, no liability. If the person it is thrown at is wearing a helmet, no harm, no liability. But if no one else is there, or the helmet breaks, and if harm results, liability.

Of course there is no analogy in the world for the birth of a new human being, and the situation of a party to the action that set the chain of events in motion that resulted in that birth, where the liability is to someone who didn't exist at the time the action occurred.

In reverse, maybe, if you kill someone you throw a rock at because s/he doesn't move out of the way or his/her helmet breaks, you are liable to his/her family.

The big thing is: a man who engages in sex with a woman knows that despite the best-laid plans, pregnancy may result, and knows that if that happens, he has no authority to cause the pregnancy to be terminated, and knows that if a child is born he will be liable for child support. And he makes the decision to engage in sex knowing all that.

I'm not really seeing the problem in terms of liability & decision-making.

Myself, I have great sympathy for men who become fathers when they did not plan or want to. Not because of the effect on their wallets, though.



typos fixed

[jberryhill]

38. "why is the sperm donor then held responsible for the support of the child?"

Because the child has a right to be supported by both parents.

It is the child's rights you are now saying can be abrogated by some agreement by two other people. It just doesn't work that way.

It is extremely basic public policy:

1. Children cannot support themselves and are necessarily dependent on others for support.

2. Children are the result of two parents, who may have differing economic situations and different ways in which they can support that child.

3. We have therefore decided as a society that, in the first instance, those two parents are required to support that child before the rest of society is going to be required to support that child.

You are essentially saying to everyone else - "Why shouldn't you have to pay to support my child when I'm capable of doing so?"

That's a pretty bold question. If you have the means to contribute to the support of your child, society is not going to subsidize your decisions, and nobody cares what kind of an agreement you had with whom.

[Hepburn]

35. Only if he is the woman's medical provider and that would be...

...to make sure it was safe for her then medical condition and if so, to arrange a time for the procedure. PERIOD.

[joshcryer]

42. Men should have a say about support, since that is one of the determining factors for abortions.

ie, a woman can decide that she cannot or does not want to support a child and that is a perfectly reasonable justification for abortion. A man cannot decide whether or not he has to support a child, it is mandated by law.

[Iris]

47. Think of it this way - if a man decides he will not support a child, he is essentially makeing the

choice FOR the woman if she believes she needs financial support in order to keep the child.

[Glory89fan]

45. No

It's the woman who's carrying the fetus, so it's up to her.

[Control-Z]

48. Only if the woman asks for

his opinion. That is solely up to her. Even then, she is entitled to reject his opinion.

[kaylynwright]

49. Absolutely NOT!

Men have a choice. That choice is whether they wear a condom or not. Regardless of whether it is decided that the woman will be on birth control, the man should still wear a condom if he does not want to father a child.

And for the users who suggested that men should be aloud to terminate parental rights and not pay child support, this is a ridiculous idea. If men could suddenly decide they didn't have to recognize a child as their own and did not have to pay child support, I doubt very many children would have fathers. Some would, but very many would not have fathers. I believe that allowing men the opportunity to ignore the existence of any of their unwanted children would lead to less condom use (since the men wouldn't have to worry about the outcome) and a lot more single parent households, most of which would be headed by the mother. What a completely ridiculous suggestion!!! Though I believe that most women would be a lot more careful about birth control, choosing sexual partners, and insisting on condom use.

And I agree that not every woman agonizes over terminating a pregnancy. I protect myself by using birth control, but I would have an abortion and I do not think I would regret it.

[Babykayx]

50. As if pregnancy was a detrimant to ones health

I see a lot of responses framing pregnancy as some sort of detrimental health affect-- that pregnant women are 'risking' their health. Yeah, sometimes pregnancy can be risky, but its not the rule.

Personally, I wouldn't want to make such a life and death decision on my own, I'd want a partner, not a consultant. Yes I do think men should have a say, ideally an equal say, but as the woman grows the baby in her body the risks are not equal. I dislike the idea that men are slaves to our decision about a child that is half theirs; you may say that they had their 'choice' when they had sex... but so did the woman-- so maybe we should just forget the whole abortion debate and outlaw it for EVERYONE who had the choice to have sex.

It's hypocritical up until the point of the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body, attached to her, dependent on her for it's life. If there were such thing as an artificial womb, to me this issue would be clear cut.... dude wants it he gets it, woman wants it she gets it... whoever wants it also gets the responsibility.

But yes, men should have a say, I just don't trust the government to say who gets to dictate what, when, how, whom, and why. I'd like the couple to be respectful enough of each other, their wants, and their child's needs... but this is the real world.

[Lars39]

51. A woman in perfect health going into labor and delivery can have any number of

things occur that threaten her health and life...all without any warning whatsoever.

[uppityperson]

53. Not to mention health issues while pregnant.

Typically diabetes, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, hypertension, seizures.

[uppityperson]

52. Maternal death rates. "men should have a say", do you mean morally or legally?

Dying in childbirth rates
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_Reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=47116

The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is the highest it has been in decades, according to statistics released this week by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, the AP/Washington Post reports. According to the figures, the U.S. maternal mortality rate was 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004. The rate was 12 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2003 -- the first year the maternal death rate was more than 10 since 1977 (Stobbe, AP/Washington Post, 8/24). A total of 540 women were reported to have died of maternal causes in 2004, 45 more than were reported in 2003, according to the report (NCHS report, 8/21).

Reasons for Increase
A rise in the number of caesarean sections -- which now account for 29% of all births -- could be a factor in the increased maternal mortality rate, some experts said. According to a review of maternal deaths in New York, excessive bleeding is one of the primary causes of pregnancy-related death, and women who have undergone several previous c-sections are at particularly high risk of death.

Some studies have found that race and quality of care also factor into the maternal mortality rate. The maternal mortality rate among black women is at least three times higher than among white women. Black women also are more susceptible to hypertension and other complications, and they tend to receive inadequate prenatal care. Three studies have shown that at least 40% of maternal deaths could have been prevented with improved quality of care.

The rise in obesity also might be a factor, some experts said. According to researchers, overweight women tend to have diabetes or experience other complications that could affect pregnancy outcomes. Overweight women also might have excessive tissue or larger infants, which could make a vaginal birth more difficult and lead to more c-sections. More women also are giving birth in their late 30s and 40s, when risks of pregnancy complications are higher, according to the AP/Post (AP/Washington Post, 8/24).

In addition, the report says the increase in maternal deaths "largely reflects" more states' use of a separate item on the death certificate indicating pregnancy status of the woman. According to the report, the number of maternal deaths does not include all deaths of pregnant women, but only those deaths reported on the death certificate that were assigned to causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management (NCHS report, 8/21). California, Idaho and Montana in 2003 changed death certificate questions, the AP/Post reports (AP/Washington Post, 8/24). (report available as pdf at link)

[Babykayx]

57. Men should have a say morally

Uppity person, I think men should have a say morally, I'm not arguing for legally at all.

[uppityperson]

59. got it. thank you for clarifying

[iverglas]

54. haha

I clicked, expecting your statement "As if pregnancy was a detrimant to ones health" to turn out to be mocking, as in "Sheesh, what kind of an idiot would say it isn't?"


Yeah, sometimes pregnancy can be risky, but its not the rule.

Tell that to my baby sister. Perfect pregnancy, she did everything right, she had doctors and midwives, she planned a home birth, the midwife in attendance terminated the process and took her to hospital, after long hours and much morphine, and just before a caesarian was started, the vacuum thing managed to suck out my soon-to-be niece's enormous pumpkin-shaped head. Not a high-risk pregnancy. Damned lucky to live close enough to a great hospital to still be there. You know how many women died, not too long in the past, and still all over the world, when they are unable to deliver?

Tell it to the woman in the next bed. The hospital was busy that night. That woman was draining their blood reserves dry. An epiosotomy or vaginal tear, I don't know which -- and she just refused to stop bleeding. For hours.

Tell it to my African friend's niece. Died of post-partum haemorrhage in Cameroon about 10 years ago. Twenty-two years old.


It does not matter an iota how low the odds are. The odds may be low, but if the risks materialize, the outcome can be fatal, or devastating. Stroke is one of the latter that springs to mind.

And unless the state / society can come up with JUSTIFICATION, it doesn't get to COMPEL anyone to assume risks of that nature that they do not wish to assume.


Personally, I wouldn't want to make such a life and death decision on my own, I'd want a partner, not a consultant. Yes I do think men should have a say, ideally an equal say, ...

Personally, I don't give a crap what you would want, and I find your notion that your opinion should be a determinant of another woman's choices appalling.


... but as the woman grows the baby in her body the risks are not equal. I dislike the idea that men are slaves to our decision about a child that is half theirs; you may say that they had their 'choice' when they had sex... but so did the woman-- so maybe we should just forget the whole abortion debate and outlaw it for EVERYONE who had the choice to have sex.

What is this dog's breakfast supposed to mean?

You mean, outlaw abortion for EVERY WOMAN who made the choice to have sex? You are aware that men don't get pregnant, right?


It's hypocritical up until the point of the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body, attached to her, dependent on her for it's life. If there were such thing as an artificial womb, to me this issue would be clear cut.... dude wants it he gets it, woman wants it she gets it... whoever wants it also gets the responsibility.

I always wonder why no one who muses about this scenario doesn't mention how they're going to develop the transporter technology they'll be needing to go with it -- to get that fetus OUT OF the WOMAN's body without interfering in her physical integrity.


But yes, men should have a say, I just don't trust the government to say who gets to dictate what, when, how, whom, and why. I'd like the couple to be respectful enough of each other, their wants, and their child's needs... but this is the real world.

It is indeed the real world, in which there are never-ending efforts to undermine and deny women's rights. What do you imagine you are contributing here, and to which side of that struggle would you be contributing it?

[uppityperson]

55. I know what this part means (and thank you for taking the time you have)

I dislike the idea that men are slaves to our decision about a child that is half theirs; you may say that they had their 'choice' when they had sex... but so did the woman-- so maybe we should just forget the whole abortion debate and outlaw it for EVERYONE who had the choice to have sex.

This means that if women didn't want to risk getting pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Period. There should be no abortions for anyone except for those who were raped. And those women will have to have 3 witnesses and go through a court and public hearing to get permission for an abortion.

Thank you for taking so much time to continue this with that poster and others. Appreciate you.

[Babykayx]

56. Your taking what I said the wrong way

Your taking what I said the wrong way. I did not say that pregnancy had a null risk, only that it wasn't high and that they way most posters were framing it made it sound like pregnancy was equatable to risking your health unnaturally.

Then...

"<bold>Personally, I wouldn't want to make such a life and death decision on my own, I'd want a partner, not a consultant. Yes I do think men should have a say, ideally an equal say, ...</bold>

Personally, I don't give a crap what you would want, and I find your notion that your opinion should be a determinant of another woman's choices appalling."

I never had the 'notion that (my) opinion should be a determinant of another woman's choices' so stop being appalled.

"<bold>... but as the woman grows the baby in her body the risks are not equal. I dislike the idea that men are slaves to our decision about a child that is half theirs; you may say that they had their 'choice' when they had sex... but so did the woman-- so maybe we should just forget the whole abortion debate and outlaw it for EVERYONE who had the choice to have sex.</bold>

What is this dog's breakfast supposed to mean?

You mean, outlaw abortion for EVERY WOMAN who made the choice to have sex? You are aware that men don't get pregnant, right?"

Wow, when I wrote this I thought that it just reeked of sarcasm and didn't note it, apparently I need to bite my tongue when I stick in in my cheek or put a preamble excusing myself to everyone for making fun of idiotic arguments. Oh snap, and I thought guys got pregnant all the time (don't cry, it was sarcasm lol)

"<bold>It's hypocritical up until the point of the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body, attached to her, dependent on her for it's life. If there were such thing as an artificial womb, to me this issue would be clear cut.... dude wants it he gets it, woman wants it she gets it... whoever wants it also gets the responsibility.</bold>

I always wonder why no one who muses about this scenario doesn't mention how they're going to develop the transporter technology they'll be needing to go with it -- to get that fetus OUT OF the WOMAN's body without interfering in her physical integrity."

The implied assumption would be that there would be a 'magical transporter technology' (the equivalent of invasiveness incurred in a surgical abortion) to go along with the artificial womb.

"<bold>But yes, men should have a say, I just don't trust the government to say who gets to dictate what, when, how, whom, and why. I'd like the couple to be respectful enough of each other, their wants, and their child's needs... but this is the real world.</bold>

It is indeed the real world, in which there are never-ending efforts to undermine and deny women's rights. What do you imagine you are contributing here, and to which side of that struggle would you be contributing it?"

I imagine that I'm contributing the recognization that the man should have a say as it is his child and he is totally at the mercy of the mothers choice in the suffering consequences of choosing either option, but implementing his opinion into action isn't something that you, me, or the government can make a rule for... nor should we want to or try to. Debate it till your blue in the face, but overall the issue contributes nothing because there is no answer to make it ideal for all parties involved. It's unfair now, but I don't see a way to make it fair or fairer without the magical transporter technology for the artificial womb lol.

[iverglas]

58. this is what we call

I did not say that pregnancy had a null risk, only that it wasn't high and that they way most posters were framing it made it sound like pregnancy was equatable to risking your health unnaturally.



That is, making shit up and pretending someone said it, and then demonstrating how wrong it is.


I never had the 'notion that (my) opinion should be a determinant of another woman's choices' so stop being appalled.

Well, you had just said:

Yes I do think men should have a say, ideally an equal say ... . I dislike the idea that men are slaves to our decision about a child that is half theirs ...

and those really are pretty strong words.

Wow, when I wrote this I thought that it just reeked of sarcasm and didn't note it

The bit I quoted above doesn't read like sarcasm. Maybe you should consider that if the conclusion you sarcastically reached from that doesn't sound right, there's something wrong with your premises.


I imagine that I'm contributing the recognization that the man should have a say as it is his child and he is totally at the mercy of the mothers choice in the suffering consequences of choosing either option, but implementing his opinion into action isn't something that you, me, or the government can make a rule for... nor should we want to or try to.

Oookay. So why are we talking about it? It's a private matter. The fact that a woman agrees or disagrees with you, about *her* pregnancy and the man in *her* life, really isn't something any of us are qualified to have opinions about, or have much business spouting opinions about.

You know nothing about any individual's circumstances, and yet as a general rule you are recognizing "that the man should have a say as it is his child".

And of course there's no way around the corollary, that if he should have a say against termination, he should also have a say for termination. Or vice versa.


It's unfair now, but I don't see a way to make it fair or fairer without the magical transporter technology for the artificial womb lol.

It's unfair that I was born with an hereditary tendency to coronary arterial disease, too. As a rule, there isn't a lot of point in decrying the "unfairness" of biology.



html fixed - and btw, use square brackets rather than pointy for your html tags, and they will work. Special code.

[uppityperson]

60. use square brackets to make things bold/etc.... here....

square bracket "<" then "b" then backwards square bracket ">" give you bold. This came out looking like < and > but it is actually square brackets, up top left on my keyboard to right of letter "p"

To stop the bold do the same but put a "/" before the "b"

[Iris]

67. Well, it certainly is now. Heard of H1N1?

[Iris]

75. Yemeni girl, 12, dies in painful childbirth

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/yemeni-girl-138001.html

[lovecanada56035]

61. Absolutely not

After all, the woman is carrying the baby.

[iverglas]

62. "baby"

:wtf:

Always nice to see a fellow Londoner, but might you show a little respect for the people already here by reading and considering what they have said before pronouncing?

[uppityperson]

63. You've met my new best buddy!

Looks like an interesting one, from other posts as well as here. Ah well.

[Piwi2009]

64. Men have a say in abortion

They get to say "What time do I pick you up at the clinic" or "how much is my share? "

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rj5690]

66. Absolutely not

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

70. what do you like on your pizza? n/t

[marshall]

71. I believe a man should have a choice the same as the woman

But that choice shouldn't take over the woman's right to her own body.

The man should havea window of opportunity (as the woman does with an abortion) to abrogate his responsibility over the pregnancy.

[Scout]

72. that window of opportunity exists before he deposits sperm

besides his responsibility is to the child that the woman might choose to have. he has no "responsibility over" a woman's pregnancy.

[marshall]

73. I think the best time for a man to "abort" his responsibility is during the pregnancy

That leaves the woman with time to decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy or not.

[Scout]

77. nope

not how it works, whether you think that's the best time or not.

[rd_kent]

74. So even if maximum precaution is taken

and the couple discuss BEFOREHAND that in case of pregnancy, it will be terminated, then after the woman changes her mind, the man is STILL responsible? By your logic, that "window of opportunity" is very small and subject to veto by the woman, which really isnt a "choice" at all, now is it?

[Scout]

76. yup, that's the way it is

too bad, so sad, sucks for guys. biology is a bitch, isn't it?

[Scout]

78. So you're pro-choice as long as the woman does what the man wants? n/t

[badacid]

79. It's a sad thing - But no, men shouldn't have a say.

It's a sad thing that neither person was responsible enough to protect themselves against pregnancy without first deciding what they'd do if the woman did get pregnant.

One quick note - People are referring to men as sperm donors, can we refer to women as sperm recepticles or egg donors as a way of objectifying them? It is disrespectful, especially to the men who would shoulder their portion of the responsibility (From monthly payments to helping to raise the child to marrying - depending on if it was in the future anyway).

Once the woman is pregnant, it is her responsibility and decision. Men have been known to pressure women to get an abortion only to leave her the next day and say "thank god". Women have been known to have a child, not tell the father and 5 years later ask for back child support for $40k.

It sucks on both sides, but neither example has any bering on the reality that the woman has to make the decision - Not gets to but has to. She either has the child or doesn't.

So no - Men should get no say, otherwise you are forcing women to either breed against her will or have an abortion against her will.

[Heidi]

89. That window of opportunity lies in his decision to have unprotected sex.

Have unprotected sex? Run the risk of a woman taking the medical steps necessary to prevent her life from being impacted by some of the results of your choice to have unprotected sex and her own choice to have unprotected sex.

Really. It's not that difficult. You know this stuff. Why do men continue putting themselves at risk of feeling this way?

[Amaya]

82. that is up to the woman

other then that-
absofuckinglutely not!

[PeaceNikki]

83. I think women can be generally trusted to involve the man if it's appropriate.

And not involve him if it's not.

Period. End of story.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

148. If you believe that...

..I've got a bridge I'd like to talk to you about...

[PeaceNikki]

161. wow. So, you think women, in general, canNOT be trusted?

I see.

[uppityperson]

151. Rather like teens informing their parents if it's appropriate. I agree. Mandating

they involve someone else is wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

84. I realize that there's a genuine opposition here to giving a man

anything other than a bill for child support, should the woman choose to have the baby, but what about notification after the fact?

Should a man who has made a commitment to a woman be kept in the dark about the fact that the woman he's having sexual relations with has snuffed the life of his child? Shouldn't he be able to base his decision to stay with her with that knowledge?

Or is it simply none of his business whatsoever?

[PeaceNikki]

85. Oh bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

93. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate

about why the decision to abort should be kept from a husband or committed domestic partner. I'd be interested to know why a woman who cannot trust a man with that knowledge should stay with him. I'm further curious to know what you think about the chances for success of a relationship where this sort of thing cannot be discussed.

[PeaceNikki]

95. Your hypotheticals are bullshit. Every word you said is bullshit.

Elaborate enough for you?

[customerserviceguy]

96. Ah, thanks, I figured you out

The word "bullshit" is the only argument you seem capable of.

Fair enough, I now know how to regard your opinion.

[PeaceNikki]

98. I contend that if you have sex and a pregnancy results, it's 100% up to the woman to

involve you or not. If she feels it's appropriate, cool. She's the one who has to deal with the emotional, hormonal and physical stuff.

[Heidi]

86. When it's in MY body, it's what _I_ say it is: fetus or baby. Once it's born, it MAY be your child.

What you base your decision whether to stay with/leave a partner on is your business. What I choose to do with my body and any fetus that may or not be in it is MY business.

And while we're having this discussion about your hypothetical commitment to some hypothetical woman bearing a hypothetical fetus which hypothetically shares your DNA, please consider your role in your hypothetical partner's medical choices. If you're going to claim that your commitment trumps a woman's right to make her own medical choices before, during or after the fact, then surely you must be willing to entertain the notion your involvement was taken into consideration by the woman as she was weighing her choices.

[PeaceNikki]

87. He should have picked a better hypothetical lover.

And/or used a better hypothetical method of birth control.

[Heidi]

88. Are you telling me that men DO have ways to prevent abortions?

Get outta here with that nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[customerserviceguy]

91. Thanks for launching into a screed

I didn't say anything at all about limiting any woman's choices. I merely questioned the possibility that a man who has made a commitment to a particular woman (be it marriage or domestic partnership) might be informed AFTER the fact of her decision. He might weigh his further involvement with that woman based on whether it was his DNA or not, and that might be part of formulating an adult relationship with her.

I have no dog in this fight, personally. I had my vasectomy decades ago.

[uppityperson]

90. Should approval of both partners be mandated before buying contraception?

Should approval of both partners be mandated before buying OCs, or diaphram, or foam, or condoms? Shouldn't she/he be able to base his decision to stay with him/her with that knowledge?

No.

[customerserviceguy]

92. There's a difference with most forms of BC

Other than the Pill, or sterilization, a man is going to know if there is contraception being used in a particular sex act. With a woman, the same is true except for the obvious example of the Pill.

Certainly, partners should consult each other about contraception prior to acts that might lead to conception. We'd all say that a woman who wants to bear children should know about her husband/partner's vasectomy. All I'm advocating is that perhaps a man who is more than a casual acquaintance be informed after the fact of the woman he has committed himself to, if she's had an abortion. I'm not talking permission, consent, or prenotification, just making the parties equal as to the knowledge of what went on as a result of their copulative activities.

[uppityperson]

94. Not necessarily. Diaphram, foam, gel, even condoms have been used withouth the other one knowing

Odd as it may seem to you, it is possible to use contraception without the other partner knowing it.

"wait a minute, I'm going to rub some lubricant on (while he quickly puts condom on or either uses contraceptive gel)"

It is possible to put a diaphram in, or cervical cap, and have the man unaware.

Saying people should act ethically is one thing, mandating it is another.

[customerserviceguy]

97. Its clearly mandated when the woman chooses to keep the child

and has the courts hand the guy a bill for child support, even if he's not a committed partner in a relationship.

Why not have parity in the other possible circumstance?

By the way, you made good points on the subject of contraception, clearly, it can be used without another partner's knowledge. But the use of contraception has way more benign effects on the relationship than dealing with the result of either their non-use or of their failure.

All I'm questioning here is the idea of letting a husband/partner know after the fact what happened. I've not seen any good reasons advanced for advocating the opposite position. Unless you think the word 'bullshit' is a stunning piece of oratory.

[uppityperson]

99. "the fact that the woman he's having sexual relations with has snuffed the life of his child"

This sort of crap is what leads to the simple reply of "bullshit".

If someone a man is having sex with snuffs out the life of his child, she, or he, should be arrested for murder.

That is why your statement "the fact that the woman he's having sexual relations with has snuffed the life of his child" in a discussion about abortion is bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

100. I'm talking about a situation where a man in a committed relationship

would be of the mindset that it was his "child". Legally, of course, only a woman gets to make the decision whether or not it's a baby or a tumor, but some men have feelings on this subject as well. I'm simply advocating that such a man be provided with knowledge after the fact, so that he can find someone more compatible with his views to have sexual relations with, if the couple cannot work out their differences of opinion over this.

Also, I'd sure like to cover the situations where that man in a committed relationship is NOT in a position to have sexual relations with the woman in question (such as being in the military, for example) and she has an abortion to cover up an affair. Under current law, if she were to have the child within the framework of a legally recognized marriage, he would be responsible for the support of that child, unless he were allowed by the jurisdiction where he lives to challenge the paternity of that child.

[HockeyMom]

116. It works both ways

After our 2nd child was born in 1984, my husband (as planned before we married) went to get a vasectomy. We were both in our 30s at the time. Do you know in NYC I had to sign my CONSENT to this, wait 24 hours, and be "counseled" by the doctor? What if something happened to our kids? What if we wanted MORE kids? It was totally humiliating and we both told this doctor we had LONG AGO talked about all this before we had any kids, and before we MARRIED.


If a couple is married, ok, INFORM the other spouse, but ask for CONSENT? NO. Just as much as it is a woman's body and her choice, the SAME must be equally true for a man, if HE want no/more children. This is why I do not believe that a man should have the right, even if it is his child, to tell a woman what to do with HER body; MARRIED OR NOT.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beyurslf]

103. I believe it is a woman's chioce what to do. SHe can decide who is important in her life

in helping her make that decision.

That said, this staunchly pro-choice man assumes women still want us like-minded men to stand up for your rights and exercise our right to speech in that manner. Our "say" in abortion is surely wanted then.

[ehrnst]

104. Only if the woman chooses to involve the man in the decision. (nt)

[rd_kent]

107. If she chooses to have a child contrary to what the man wants and she wants child support

should she take his opinion as well?

[ehrnst]

118. Child support is not pregnancy. They are not interchangable as rights or obligations. (nt)

[uppityperson]

121. "child support" is to support the child. It has nothing to do with "she wants" but

taking responsibility for the child you made. It is CHILD support. Why do so many people miss that part of CHILD support?

[PeaceNikki]

122. Don't expect a response.

Sleeps with the fish.

[uppityperson]

123. Huh, thanks.

that was has been on my watch list for the last yr. Thanks mods.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

109. No.

Her body, her choice. And she also has the last word in what happens to her body and the fetus during the pregnancy. That's basic medical ethics.

[cleanhippie]

111. Agreed.

And if the woman chooses not to take the input of the man, then she should not be able to force him to pay child support, right?

[uppityperson]

112. Fail. Then he should have not contributed his sperm.

It may seem unfair, but it is her body and her choice whether or not to risk being pregnant and giving birth. Under your logic, if he does not want her to have an abortion and she dies or have health problems, then HE should be held liable for murder.

[cleanhippie]

113. Your fail.

Nowhere did I assert ANY of what you stated. But nice try.

[Lars39]

114. You're the one confusing medical rights with child support.

Apples and oranges

[cleanhippie]

115. Am I?

More like lemons and limes, the same but different.

[ehrnst]

117. Only if the woman who is pregnant involves him voluntarily. (nt)

[ObsessiveAlchemist]

124. I feel the overall decision rests with the woman

However, I feel if the man is interested, the woman should take his thoughts and opinions into account before making the decision. It's her choice but she is not the only one affected.

[uppityperson]

125. Legally "should" or morally/ethically "should"? Welcome to Du

[musette_sf]

126. Um. So are you suggesting

that the woman's decision to not be subjected to almost a year of involuntary servitude, with a high degree of physical risk, followed by either unwanted and unplanned parenthood (compounded by an unwanted and unplanned lifetime relationship with the man), or into coerced participation in the quasi-legal human trafficking scheme of adoption mills and soulless independent grifters in the field, is not of sufficient intent and import on its own?

And if a woman has essentially made this decision, isn't it kind of insulting to suggest that the "thoughts and opinions" of the man "should... (be) take(n) into account"? As if, should the man's opinion be that he wants what the woman doesn't want, the woman should then accede to his opinion and do EXACTLY what she most emphatically does NOT want to do?

The situation is really like the old story about breakfast... the chicken is just a participant, but the pig is committed. The man is just a participant, but the woman is committed.

[ZombieHorde]

127. Men can offer their opinion and make an argument, but the final choice needs to be up to the woman.

Currently, there is no 100% fair deal in this situation. Since the fetus is in the woman's body, the best solution is to have the woman decide.

[wickerwoman]

128. There's no "a" say when you're talking about abortion. There is only "the" say.

Only one person, at the end of the day, will make the final, lasting decision to terminate a pregnancy and legally, morally and ethically that say must belong to the person whose body it is.

[Green_Lantern]

129. the guy who got her pregnant should be involved but beyond banning it

I don't see how he could make the final decision in a practical and ethical sense.

I'm betting most guys in this situation aren't that involved anyway.

I'm not saying women need the guy's support but anyone in this situation shouldn't face this alone. It shouldn't be all on the woman's shoulders.

[Politicub]

130. This is an easy question for me - no

Simply, no.

I have no place dictating that a woman bring a child to term. And I believe this is the case if a man is the sperm donor for the fetus.

Until there's a non-invasive way to transfer a fetus from a woman to some kind of crypto-womb in a man, the man gets zero veto power or say when it comes to choice.

[Devin M]

133. An advisory position

Not a decisive one.

[Scout]

134. ONLY if his advice is sought out by the woman ...

otherwise, he won't necessarily even know about the pregnancy.

whether he knows or not, his opinion is NOT required ... unless the woman WANTS it.

[clockworkgirl21]

135. Intesteing topic

I believe no man should be able to stop a woman from having an abortion, but I think mens' rights play a part in this as well.

My boyfriend and I decided that if I ever got pregnant, we'd abort. We used condoms, but things happen, and I found myself pregnant a couple months ago. But I could not bring myself to abort it. This was a dilemma. My boyfriend had used birth control, but according to the choice I made, might have to spend the next 18 years paying for a child anyway. Why does "parenthood by choice, never by chance" only apply to women? So I told him I'd appreciate it if he helped out, but I didn't feel like I had the right to make him, since we decided on something and I changed it after the fact. He decided he'd help out in any way he could. Sadly, I miscarried at about 6 weeks in.

Now, a lot of people would say he took that chance by having sex. But didn't I as well? "You knew the risks" is never accepted when you argue with a pro-lifer. Just because you had sex doesn't mean you consent to parenthood. But why does that only apply to women?

[PeaceNikki]

136. Because women put their health and lives at risk to carry and deliver children

Men don't. It's really that fucking simple.

Men should only be part of the decision if and when the woman wants them to be. End. Of. Story.

[uppityperson]

137. You mean everything isn't equal? Everything isn't "fair"? Indeed.

I tire of "it's not fair" when what is meant is "it isn't equal". Indeed, it isn't equal. Men should be part of the decision only if and when the woman wants him to be.

[PeaceNikki]

139. I think you meant to respond to the n00b

:)

[uppityperson]

140. hiya, indeed.

[clockworkgirl21]

141. I never stated that a man should be able to stop a woman from aborting.

That decision is still totally hers.

I'm just saying a man shouldn't be stuck with another person for 18+ years just because of a choice a woman made.

[Scout]

142. "just because of a choice a woman made"

well, how do you propose a man should be "stuck with another person for 18+ years"

your post says quite a bit about you, no?

so, if he can't stop her from aborting, then what is the point in her telling him, hmm?

[uppityperson]

143. A man shouldn't be "stuck" with paying child support because the woman chose to not abort?

Is this what you are saying? Otherwise, I don't understand how he is "stuck". Everything is not equal, is not "fair". Indeed, if a woman gets impregnated by a man, she IS the one who gets to chose whether or not to abort. If he doesn't want to be involved being a father, he still owes the child he made some support.

It may be equal, but is how it is.

[PeaceNikki]

144. Did said woman RAPE the man?!?!

If so, you have a point. If not, you don't. Not even a little.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

149. Did said man RAPE the woman?

If so, you have a point. If not, you don't. Not even a little.

See how that works?

The woman also makes the choice to have sex. She also makes the choice to use birth control or not. Pretending she was totally uninvolved in the process is not only stupid but rather insulting to thinking women who like to have sex.

[uppityperson]

150. Did you know every method of contraception has failures? How does that factor in with you?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. Same way.

Assuming both parties involved are consenting adults, the woman bears just as much responsibility as the man. Pretending otherwise is saying that men force themselves upon women and women are powerless to resist - it also assumes that women do not like or ever initiate sex. Both of these things are very obviously untrue.

So take this scenario: Both adult partners chose to have sex. Both used some form of birth control - lets say she used the pill and he used a condom. She gets pregnant.

Now, from here, she has total and complete control over this man's future. She can terminate the pregnancy and the man never knows he had a potential offspring, or she can have the child, which forces the man to be financially responsible for her choice for the next 2 decades.

Actual equality would dictate both the man and the woman have a say in the abortion, and if the woman chooses not to abort, the man should have no legal obligation to support the child beyond half the cost of the abortion. Saying the woman is the sole decision maker and the man must just deal with it is putting the woman in a position superior to the man - not as his equal.

Equality is just that - equality. It is not granting additional rights/powers/authority/etc. to one class over another. With equal rights come equal responsibility.

[uppityperson]

156. Actual equality would dictate he become pregnant. Since that doesn't happen, yes, she

gets the say.

"Equality is just that - equality." When men get pregnant, then there will equality. Until then, it isn't equal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

160. No, that isn't actual equality

That would be actual science fiction.

Yes, the woman carries a greater risk with sex if she does not wish a child, however, said risk obligates her to take greater precautions.

Distilling the emotional side out of it, consider this: I ride a motorcycle every day. I am not obligated to wear a helmet or other protective gear but I choose to so as to mitigate my risk of injury in the event that some idiot is paying more attention to his iPhone than to the road. I am taking the responsibility for my choices. However, I do not obligate others to take greater precautions such as installing a device in their car which would detect my motorcycle and force their car to lose the ability to move until I was safely past them. Why? Among other reasons because it would be fucking retarded and it forces others to take responsibility for my choices.

Same thing here - the woman is forcing the man to take responsibility for a choice only she makes. In short, she's like the guy on the bike expecting cars to be forced to be immobile.

[uppityperson]

166. Making things the same for both doesn't = equality? Huh.

True, men at this point aren't capable of becoming pregnant, bearing a child. It isn't equal. There isn't "true equality". The woman takes the greater risk and hence, gets the choice.

Not sure why you keep harping on "true equality" though. Or now, "actual equality". Is your beef really that it "isn't fair" isn't "equal"? You are right, it isn't "true equality". And won't be until men can also get pregnant.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

170. I recognize women have the greater risk.

I have stated as much. However, with greater risk comes greater responsibility. Why does the woman get to make the choice entirely on her own but yet force the consequences upon the man?

She should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy. What she should NOT have is the legal right to force the consequences of having the child upon an unwilling, and possibly unwitting, father.

[uppityperson]

173. Why?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

184. I have explained why repeatedly.

Better question would be, why should the woman have the legal ability to force the father to be responsible for a child he took all precautions NOT to bring into the world?

[uppityperson]

218. If he took "all precautions", did his vasectomy fail? Why should he be partially financially respons

responsible for a child he helped make? Because he helped make it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

221. I agree 100%

But if he is to be held responsible, why should he not have a choice in the abortion?

[uppityperson]

224. Should a man have a say about abortion?

You seem to be saying yes, he should, since he will be partially financially responsible for the child if she does not abort. Is that the only reason he should? To avoid financial responsibility?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

226. You keep focusing on the assumption the man will avoid responsibility.

What about the man who WANTS the responsibility, but the woman doesn't?

The man should have a choice because both the man and the woman decided to have sex. By making the choice to have sex, you are BOTH accepting the possible outcome.

Removing the man from the choice is saying the woman and ONLY the woman has any say - effectively reducing men to on-demand pleasure devices and wallets. That is no more right then expecting women to abdicate their choices and solely exist to be breeding and pleasure stock.

[uppityperson]

229. Should a man be able to deny a woman an abortion because he wants a child?

Should a man be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want to be financially responsible?

Regarding child support being high enough for most women and child/ren to live well on, that happens, granted. But more often it is minimal, frequently non-existent. I am sure you know that though so let's focus on the questions above, ok?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

231. Should he be?

Not to force her, no but he should be able to say "Hey look, I wore a rubber and you said you were on the pill. I don't want a kid. Thought you didn't either. Now you're sitting here saying you want to have one and you expect me to take responsibility for your decision? Look, you want to have the kid, fine - go ahead. Don't expect me to support it."

After all - the woman can force him to deny the abortion, or not have the child. If both parties are responsible after the kid is born, why do both not get a say?

[PeaceNikki]

162. Your dream world of equality only works in a world where men can be impregnated.

Until then, your point is fucking moot.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. No it doesnt.

You're equating equality of outcome with equality of choice.

I am not saying a woman does not have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Let me be CRYSTAL clear on that.

What I am saying is, if she decides to carry the child against the man's wishes, then the man should not be held responsible for her decision.

Take responsibility for your own actions and accept that nobody else is obligated to support your choice.

[PeaceNikki]

169. And you're acting as though equality of choice is equality of risk.

It's not. The woman risks getting pregnant and the man risks conception and, as a result, the potential consequences of the woman's choice - up to and including financial support of a child.

Yes, men, too should take responsibility for their choices.

[uppityperson]

172. but it's not faaaaiiirrrrr!!!111. Good grief, next thing you know he'll complain he's being "forced"

to vacuum the house or some such.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

187. I agree 100%.

Men SHOULD take responsibility for their choices.

So should women. If it is her choice to keep it, it should be her responsibility to pay for it.

Forcing the man to pay for it too obligates the man to be responsible for the woman's choice - not his own.

[PeaceNikki]

192. You keep acting as though a man's fucking MONEY is their body.

It's actually disgusting the way you keep equating a woman's body, health, and obligation to raise a child is somehow the same as a man's financial obligations.

In your crazy world, even if a man is ordered to PAY MONEY for 18 years and wants NOTHING to do with a child they helped conceive, they are somehow oppressed in some awful way. I get it, dude - it happens sometimes and I agree, there are a few terrible stories, but you do understand that THIS IS NOT THE NORM, right?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

206. You don't think losing as much as 25% of your post tax income is oppressive?

In that case, by all means, feel free to fork over 1/4th of what you make. I'll PM you my address...

[uppityperson]

207. You think a man should have no responsibility towards a child he helped make, simply

because he doesn't want to. It is that plain and simple.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

209. Why not?

If the woman doesn't want the responsibility, she doesn't have it. She simply terminates the pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

213. you are 6, your 10 yr old brother gets to stay up later. that isn't fair either.

So you do think a man should be able to have no responsibility for a child he helped make. Thank you for clarifying.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

215. For fuck's sake, no that is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, if the man has no input into the choice to keep or abort the child, why should he be held responsible for the choice?

[uppityperson]

217. No man should be responsible for a child he helped make unless he wants to.

Otherwise is isn't "fair". Gotcha.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

219. If things were to be equal, yes that is correct.

The original question of the OP was should a man have a choice in the process. If the man does not have the choice, he should not be responsible for the consequences.

Real life is of course quite different, but that is my opinion on the question as asked.

[uppityperson]

222. Life isn't about making everything equal or "fair".

"Here, of course, in a civilized society, where we thrive for men and women to be equal partners in all decisions,"

I think the more proper word there should be "strive" not "thrive".

If the man does not have a choice whether or not a pregnancy he helped create is carried to term, he is still responsible for the consequences. He is still responsible for providing some financial support to the child he helped create, if carried to term.

We are back to comparing choice of staying pregnant to financial responsibility if the pregnancy continues to term. And you are back to no man should be responsible for a child he helped make unless he wants to be. We do not agree and can continue to go back and forth, ending up at the same place.

How about going back to the OP's question, should a man have a say about abortion? What do you think?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

223. I never said it was.

I have been clear, a man should have a choice in the abortion because he is responsible for the outcome.

Back to my original question, why should be be responsible if he has no choice?

If I am somehow obligated to agree that the man should have no choice, then why ask the question in the first place?

[uppityperson]

225. Now you are back to equating pregnancy/childbirth issue to his financial support of a child.

Those aren't equal.

Yes, if she choses to not abort, he will be partially financially responsible for the child. He is responsible because he helped make that child.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

228. So then...

...the pregnancy exists in a vacuum, completely unrelated to the preceding or following acts?

To me, the pregnancy is not an independent stage. It is part of the entire thing. Yes, we make choices all along the path, but once you have sex, both parties are committing to the potential outcomes. If both parties are not willing to do so, then there should be no sex.

[uppityperson]

230. I like purple

oh, thought we were doing random statements that had nothing to do with the discussion. My bad. Carry on.

what?

[musette_sf]

240. So when each of the parties

gets to experience exactly and EQUALLY 50% of the risk of almost a year of a very dangerous and highly risky health condition that has possible side effects up to and including permanent disability and DEATH, and exactly and EQUALLY 50% of the limitations imposed by said dangerous health condition...

then get back to me on that "equality" thing.

[musette_sf]

138. The woman takes on ALL of the risk

therefore the woman takes on ALL of the choices.

The end.

And I also think that men who have an issue with their "rights" vis a vis women are, in a word, assholes. ALL of the millennia of recorded history until the last 100 years, and more specifically the last 50 years, men had ALL the rights. Any man who's got his boxers in a bunch about his "rights" re women needs to STFU, or emigrate to some patriarchal paradise, like, oh, Saudi Arabia.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

145. Of course he should

After all - he will be held responsible financially if she chooses to keep the child.

I am aware in the rest of the world, things are different than here. Here in the US though, by removing the man (you know, the other person involved in the conception?) from the decision, you're letting the woman make a choice affecting not only herself, but him as well.

If the man is not given a choice in the matter, then the man should not be responsible for the child unless he wishes to be. Otherwise, the woman has control not only over HER body - but his as well.

[PeaceNikki]

178. lol, his financal support is NOT "his body", but that's cute.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

190. Does she control where he lives, where he works, what he eats, when he sleeps, how fast he

walks, what entertainment he does, etc etc etc?

No. He is financially responsible for providing some financial support for his child. That is not "controlling his body".

[PeaceNikki]

195. And it's disgusting that he keeps acting as though it is.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

212. In a way, yes she does.

Anything affecting your income to that degree is most assuredly going to affect where you live, what you can eat, entertainment options, etc.

It was nothing but a turn of phrase. Feel free to ignore it, but I will spend no further time addressing willful misunderstanding.

[uppityperson]

216. Oh, I understand you. You think a man should have no responsibility towards a child he helped make

unless he wants to.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

220. In the context of the question from the OP....

which was about if the man should have say in the decision to have an abortion, if he is going to be held responsible if the woman has the child, he should have a say in the decision. If he has no say, he should bear no responsibility.

I am not saying I think a man should have no responsibility to a child he helped make. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying the man should have the choice to raise said child if the woman does not wish to.

It appears to me you're advocating the woman is in control of the decision process every step of the way and the man is obligated to accept her decisions no matter what.

Granted, that is how real life works when it comes to matters of sex, but the question was not how does it work, but how should it work.

[uppityperson]

227. Let's pretend the man does have a say. Should he be able to make her abort so he doesn't

have to be financially responsible? So she won't be able to "control his body"?

Should he be able to force her to bear a child, if he wants one?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

232. He should not be permitted to force an abortion

but neither should she be permitted to force him to pay.

He should not be permitted to force her to carry either, and the end result of that will obviously be the ending of the relationship.

[uppityperson]

233. Thank you for agreeing he should not have a say, not force abortion or non. eom

[We_Have_A_Problem]

234. I never said he should not have a say.

But if that makes you happy to believe it, then go right ahead.

[uppityperson]

235. You said he shouldn't force. What sort of say should he have regarding abortion or not?

Not child support, but abortion. Since I obviously mistook what you wrote, please clarify, what say should he have?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

236. One more time...

He should not have the right to force either an abortion or carrying to term. However, he should have the right to have input.

The woman should also understand he should not be obligated to support her choice, just as he cannot force her to take responsibility for his decision, she cannot force him to take responsibility for hers.

[uppityperson]

237. One more time...

What "input" should he have the right to?

Simple question. What input should he have the right to?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

238. He should have the right to...

..be advised on the matter and give his opinion. I thought "input" was pretty clear.

She still makes the choice, just now it is an informed one.

[uppityperson]

239. Her decision is not "informed" without the male giving his opinion? Would you like that

mandated? A law passed saying that a woman cannot get an abortion without (not spousal since may not be married, not sure what the right term would be, don't like "sperm donor" like some use, sexual partner doesn't work, "father" doesn't work, ok, the dude) signing that he was advised and got to give his opinion?

Going beyond what you'd like to have happen, and what should be mandated here. Thanks.

[uppityperson]

182. How does the woman control his body?

[Scout]

211. some men are just pissed because, nowadays, they can't get away

with fucking any woman who will let them, and then claiming "it's not mine, you slut" and then escaping their obligation.

they long for the good old days when they could blame the woman, blame contraceptive failure, anything but take responsibility for where they leave their own sperm.

EVERY man knows that it's possible contraception will fail, that it's possible a woman might be lying to him, and that EVERY time he leaves his sperm anywhere near a vagina a pregnancy could result. which means that the woman might decide she wants to carry it to term. which means he might then be asked/obligated to pay child support (which by the way the vast majority of women also earn some money, so quitcherbitchin' that you, mister mr., are the only one who has to pay).

fair? who knows? equal? no. but it's impossible to "equalize" every single situation in life. so suck it up, put on your big boy pants, and realize that you are responsible for where you leave your sperm. sometimes, shit happens. deal with it. get a vasectomy.

[PeaceNikki]

242. Exactly. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[ZenaD]

245. Heh. DNA testing has been a double edged sword

Sure, there are those Mary Povich instances where the guy turns out not to be the father. But when you are the dad, no amount of slut shaming will get you out of it!

[ZenaD]

244. An opinion, yes. Veto power, no.

IMNSHO I think we've done ourselves no favors with the "men shouldn't say anything about abortion" stance. This has led a lot of pro-choice men to consider activism to be the exclusive responsibility of women. On more than one occasion I've had a liberal male ask why women aren't out on the street protesting all these RW attacks on the right to choose. My response is why aren't YOU out there defending it? Women generally don't get pregnant without men and a return to the days before legal abortion and birth control (yeah they're after that too) means YOU are on the hook for child support for what will undoubtedly a big uptick in unplanned pregnancy and YOU get to enjoy condoms and the pull out method as your sole means to avoid pregnancy even if you're in a committed, monogamous relationship.

As for progressive guys who are opposed to abortion, I respect your right to express your opinion. I ask two things of you: that you support sex ed, contraception, and assistance to women who wish to raise or adopt out their children. And that you take every precaution in your own life to avoid impregnating any woman unless you are absolutely sure she wants to have a baby with you.