yes, about 18 or so...

you'll at least have to agree that they have the option, and that the man in the same situation doesn't.

How many pregnancies out there were actually planned? I know of many, many, MANY that were ooopses, and the fathers (who swore that they didn't want kids, weren't paternal blah blah) took responsibility and ended up being pretty damn good parents. Things happen in life and you deal with it - -by absolving yourself of responsibility from the get go, you might miss out on something pretty great in your life...

I would be a good idea except for the fact that no practicing MD would ever fix a childless person.

My brother had a vasectomy at age 25... He's 37 now, never wanted 'em at 25, still doesn't want them now - -he and his wife have their dog-child and are perfectly happy.

Most doctors will not give a vesectomy to a young, unmarried man. I want one. But I will have to make due with condoms for now.

As for the question, I think that men should have more rights. Obviously a man should have no legal rights over a woman's body, but he should have the right to "abort", on paper, all responcibitlies if he was not with the woman. If the baby was not planned a woman can simply get rid of it with out any consent from the father. I think it is only right that the father be able to deny the same responcibilities. I say this, even being raised by a single mother. And my father never once paid child support.

Poor choice of words I apologise. But the solution is readily at hand. I would imagine that a legal "abortion" would cause a similar doubt and "what if" anguish for a man that the woman goes through. Not as severe perhaps but still present.
This isn't about making a simple choice on a split second, this is, at least the way I think about it, a very serious decition made during serious circumstances.

Everything you are saying here can be flipped and used as an arguement against a woman's right to choose.

And it's also fairly presumputous to say that the after shocks of an abortion will stay with a woman for years(presumablely you are speaking of mental anquish) but not assume that a man wouldn't be bothered one bit to having signed away his rights to ever even see or be involved with his potentially only progeny just because he was young and stupid.

The ability to actually bake the child inside your body has nothing to do with equality of responsibility. Just because it's growing inside you, does not absolve YOU of YOUR HALF of the responsibility.

The unwanted child is JUST AS MUCH HER FAULT AS HIS. Just as a man can put on a condom, so can a responsible woman ask that a condom be put on. If you're so adult and mature, there's zero issue with asking a condom be used. Again- unless it's rape, the woman is just as at fault for the penis being in there as the man is.

As far as having a vasectomy goes: Vasectomies are less than 5% reversible. Most all doctors will stress to you to not plan on it being able to be reversed at all, so don't sit there talking like men can unload and reload the pistol any 'ole time they want to, as many of you are. Also, I honestly find the suggestion that a man should be "responsible and have a vasectomy" to be utterly ludicrous. I don't drag out a tank or a flamethrower every time there's a fly on the wall, like you're proposing. That's just horridly overkill of an idea. If a pregnancy happens, they were both being careless, or some crazy shit happened- in either event, fault is the same on both parties.

A. I'm not picking on you.
2. This isn't Tilted Parenting. We're talking about people who don't want kids.
D. "Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know, because i'll never eat the filthy motherfucker." - Jules, Pulp Fiction. People don't want what they don't want, and I find the constant assertion of parents that having a child is blah blah blah wonderful to be inappropriate and disrespectful. Just as uncalled for as hearing a person preach a religion you don't want to hear about, or if someone was trying to sell you on the idea of taking it in the ass when you had no intention of going there. It's crass.

Matter of fact, next person to preach kids to me will get preached on anal. That should be interesting. The arguments are all the same. "You just don't know, because you haven't had the joy yet," and "if you're ever in a spot to experience it, it will change your world." It's a feeling you can't describe... and when it finally comes out... you're speechless.

Many people are saying that it would be selfish for a man to just walk away from his partner and potential child, and you're right. But it is equally selfish for a woman to abort her pregnancy when the father wishes to keep it, and no one questions her right to do so.

But the problem is, your tubes aren't a life. The woman is carrying another life.

Technically, our tubes harbor about a few billion more opportunities for life during the reproductive cycle of our lives than any woman. So, your argument is moot. Also, AGAIN, this discussion is not about making women have abortions, but about the role of the father with respect to "responsibility". So, again, i'm unsure the point behind your post.

Of course, this all harkens back to the real point here, which is: conception is a two-person job. Equal cause, equal responsibility.

Pick on me all you want to darlin' I still think you are cute, and I still love ya ()crap I mean like ya bunches)... :D For the record, I AM NOT a parent. I never wanted to be a parent, I never played with dollls or house as kid, maternal is not a word that would ever be used to describe me. (and with my lack of patience it would be considered a good thing that I can't have children) So ptooey! :icare:

I am, however, an extreme advocate of responsibility, on the part of both parties. I think an abortion as a means of birth control or a matter of convenience is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny. I don't think that a person should have gotten into that situation, I think they should have been sexually responsible. Condoms are no where close to 100 percent effective, I'm not even sure they are 90 percent effective when used properly.

Birth control, unless falls almost entirely on the woman, if we are talking casual relationships, why would a man beleive a woman when she says she's taking precaustions, why wouldn't he be responsible and protect himself in any way possible, up to and including not having sex unless he was absolutely sure.

There's no good answer except to ensure that it doesn't happen to begin with.

Excellent. :thumbsup:

And I said I wasn't picking on you partly because I know you have no kiddies. And I like you bunches too. :D

I don't see it as sexist. I see it as the difference between a boy and a man or if you prefer child and adult. Since attempt at argueing semantics over substance. You are right, 'responsibility' is shared, that's why I'm not condoning men acting like pieces of shit and abandoning their kids.

Because I can't remember what you've posted on other threads about it, I'm not specifcally calling you out. However, there are many people that have drawn the sexist card here that love to complain about PC trends. Ironic hardly describes it.

I don't know what the hell you are saying there.

Is a man capable of breast feeding 10x per day in the first couple months and a few times a day for the next two years (the WHO recommends breast feeding up until age 2)? Have you ever read about the benefits of breast feeding and how superior it is to formula? Are you aware of the psychological benefits of breast feeding for infants?

Nobody is saying that women can't work or that men cannot provide love but for the first two years, unless the mother is a total fuck, the baby is better off with the mother. Other posters, however, are doing their best to spin it this way though.

Also, how is a woman taking care of the baby and working avoiding responisbility? Oh that's right, she IS the one taking responsibility while the man acts like a child saying 'it's not fair, it's my money and I don't want to'

Spare me the either for x or against it unless you plan on throwing in a 'you don't hate x' line in for extra humor.

If the mother bears the child, is willing to provide all emotional support and continue working to support herself and as much towards the child as she can and is only asking for money to assist with raising the child, how exactly is the man expected to give "100% responsibility for the production of the kid"? Financial responsibility is simple, half of all child related expenses: food, diapers, day care, clothes, furniture, health care costs, education costs, and an amount that would pay for half of the additional space required for the baby. Those numbers are easy to estimate. If that amounts to 1% of his income, fine, otherwise he needs to get a second job.

The fact that you don't like the analogy does not make it untrue. There are many men out there in the real world that have fathered children with multiple women and haven't done shit to make things right. If men are able to opt out of responsibility, not only the amount of useless fathers increase exponentially increase, it will be perfectly acceptable.

Also, I never implied that women are mindless sluts, you inferred that. It's not my fault that you thought that meant I said all women are sluts, maybe that reflects your bias.

Yes you are right. And if the child is carried to term and the mother keeps it she is devoting her life 100% to the child while working to support herself and the child. The man only needs to write a check. Exactly how is the man being given an undue burden?

Because until it pops out it's in her body and people have the ultimate authority over what is allowed to happen to their bodies.

No but the fact that women can have an abortion and men have no way to terminate their involement has been brought up several times so it is relevant. It may not have been part of the original thought but 100 posts and there are bound to be related issues dragged into it.

lol, if men who desert their kids were asked for equal responsibility they'd be forced to do more than write a check that covers half of the bills related to the child. At best, they are being asked to share 25% of the responsibility. It's an inconvenience for them. The mother is still devoting her life.

100+ posts and I haven't seen one reply from those who support deadbeat dads that doesn't boil down to 'it's not fair that she can choose an abortion and I don't have an out' Is it fair for the child to have a mother that cannot give it all it needs because daddy was a piece of shit?

Again, how would allowing men to skirt their responsibility make society better?

Because people keep bringing up "it a woman's body, it's her right etc." I think it is only natural to express concern from a pro-life point of view.

It is very much a part of the discussion and is highly relevant. People keep claiming, "what about the kid", but seem to have no problem with killing the kid.

As far as a father's responsibility? Well, that's between a rock and a hard place: I think men should be responsible for their actions but at the same time should also have rights. That's the tricky part. So far, I think the best idea thrown out here is the "legal abortion" (really needs a better term) option. Thus far it seems to be the most equitable and makes the most sense without trampling on anyone's rights.

That's because until the 'kid' is born (or maybe at least viable outside the womb), the kid is not a kid yet. At that point it is similar to a parasite.

Men have rights. If the woman doesn't want an abortion but doesn't want the kid he can take the kid. In that case the woman needs to provide child support.

This is an interesting point: So far no one has really addressed the issue from this particular angle. That's equality - same expectations as of a man. If the guy gets the kid, he gets child-support too. Although my guess is that it doesn't happen too often. But it is still one option out of a possible 4?

On your first point, I disagree (that of course is the controversy), I believe the the unborn child is a life. We'll have to agree to disagree or at least acknowledge the discrepancy, otherwise open up a new thread ad nauseum.

If by four options you mean:

abortion - mother's decision
adoption - doesn't this require the approval of both?
mom keeps, dad pays
dad keeps, mom pays

The only situation that doesn't involve the man is abortion. If the baby is kept, both parents are given the option of being a parent or a check.

I do not share your understanding of the ideal of equality, first of all - when two things are not equal, equality does not mean necessarily levelling, we do not seek to be impartial between the fire hose and the fire. Men and women do not have equal roles in child birth, from this they do not have equal rights or responsibilities.

In answer to your direct questions - no, I do not believe the relationship between a father and child is of the same worth as a relationship between a mother and a child.

A child raised by a man alone if not raised in a natural relationship... individual men may fulfill this role well, and care adequately for the child, but in general the man is not as "good" a parent as the woman. The same instinctual bond does not exist between fathers and children as exists between mothers and children. if all things are equal, it is always better for the child to be with the mother.

There may be exceptional cases where the mother is less capable a parent do to abuse or fitness issues - and of course these should be treated accordingly. if a mother is unfit to raise a child, the child should be taken into care of the state, or other relatives that are fit to care for the child - a judgement must be made in each case,

Some of the talk here seems to come from the view that children are objects, or possessions, that must be divided "fairly" - my concern is that the child has the best environment, and this is imo with the mother in 95% of cases... of course, the man has SOME degree of responsibility. If the mother is expected to make the HUGE "sacrifice" of parenting alone, the father should be expected to make a smaller "sacrifice" in terms of financial support.

Lastly, in my opinion, within a patriachal society, it is not possible to talk of sexism AGAINST men. Sexism is the exercise of power against one gender, and in all of the major societies I can think of, this power is exercised against women. The fact is simply that women DO NOT have the same career prospects, do not have the same power relationships, are more frequently the victims of violence by men than the other way round, are discouraged and discriminated against in many ways and so on...

It is possible for some women to be chauvenistic, bigoted, or anti-male - but a woman cannot be a sexist, and a pro-female attitude cannot be described as sexist in my opinion. The defence of reproductive and family rights as a laying within the female sphere is, in my interpretation, a defence of the natural order and a defence against a society that claims equal parenting rights for men and women (a concept which to me is sexist).

Equality means equal, such that skin, gender, race etc do not matter, a man is slightly less fit than a woman to raise a kid for the first two years (due to a lack of breasts however technology has pretty much solved them not being able to feed kids) however to say that a woman is better at raising kids is bulls**t, parenting is unnatural to both genders its only by doing it that you can improve.

Sorry for really heading off topic, the whole point is that one sex has a way out of a situation that the other sex does not, as this involves someone else's body you cannot dictate physically however there should be a non-physical option for removing your participation. The other way is harder (as forcing a woman to have a child is again problematic) however in general situations what rights should a man have to not having a child (as opposed to actually wanting one, people who did want their child and then abandon them are not covered in this topic), divorce is another interesting point when a male may lose all contact (or a female) and are not allowed to see their children at all should they still pay towards the upkeep of these children (or should they instead contribute to something like a trust fund that the child gets when it turns 18)?


edit- spelling
edit 2: Second Paragraph added

well, SF, the point is that your argument is NOT a pro-female argument.

Based on your logic, perhaps the reason women do not have these opportunities is because their "natural place" is in the home? And the "natural role" of the male is that of the breadwinner? Perhaps you have discovered why we have so many problems in society today. It IS those damn liberals! Women aren't equal to men - they're nurterers! The woman's job is to care for children, and clean house, and cook dinner. And the man's job is to throw money toward the woman and child. I knew it - we were wrong about all this equality stuff all along!

/sarcasm

Nor am I, but I am able to have a discussion in which I remain emotionally disconnected from the unnecessary, emotional variables. We are talking about rights and legality and multiple grey areas, where not every scenario involves your pieces of shit.

Indeed. I have also noticed at least one person in here whose posting is damn near the entire opposite end of the political spectrum with respect to how they normally post in Politics and other threads in general. I would say my bouts of sexist remarks are mild, few and far between. I think it would be difficult for anyone to claim a total lack of sexism. I hate political correctness, but that doesn't mean i'm an asshole, rude, disrespectful, or unfeeling with regard to women, other cultures, personal situations, or anything else being "PC" is determined to protect.


Sorry, not sure how else to phrase that.

1. Actually, yes, men can breastfeed if need be. It's well documented.
2. "Superior" is a bit of a lofty term. I'm curious what sort of horrible defects you're asserting bottle-feeding causes vs. the incredible edible breast? Can there really be that much of a difference in the way the child ends up in the long run? I doubt it. Just because natural milk is "best", doesn't mean that alternatives aren't "perfectly good" as well.
3. Studies conducted to relate the psychological impacts of the breast vs. the bottle do not accurately measure the relationship between the person doing the feeding and the child. Given the same attention, support, and embrace, there is no conclusive evidence that the breast is significantly, if at all, better than the bottle with regard to developemental psychology.
4. I think there are hundreds of thousands of fathers who would curse you out for saying a man is not as good at being a parent as a woman. Were I a father, I'd throw in the first obscenity. Also, i'm trying to find the figure, but I remember distinctly that infanticide (murder of a baby) is committed by the child's mother, not father, in over soemthing like 92% or 93% of the cases. And no, that does not include abortion. What does that say about the notion that mothers are better than fathers? And we're not talking about total psychos, or some small number, these are women who just couldn't take it and killed their baby.
5. I never said anyone SHOULD dodge responsibility, what I'm merely trying to say is that childbirth is a 50/50 deal, regardless. Women have numerous ways of getting out of their responsibility should they decide not to keep the child, men do not have such a choice. I hear a lot that a man is "a child" because he decides he doesn't want to be a dad, but NEVER would those same people say the same thing to a woman if she gave the child for adoption, gave it to the father and ran off, or aborted it.

"Adoption"? She's being responsible since she knows she can't handle it. "Give it to the dad"? She's making sure the baby is taken care of since she can't. "Abortion"? She's not ready, it was an accident, etc.

A man says, "I'm no dad" and it's "You stupid sophomoric fuck, you fucking child, you are leaving that poor woman alone to take care of that baby?? You insensitive prick, you bastard! I hope you burn in hell for abandoning that child and shirking your responsibilities!!" **note: I am not speaking from personal experience. This is not a personal issue for me. Just so you know.

THAT is where the inequality starts, and it permeates all areas of the topic.

I support equality, not "deadbeat dads". No one calls a woman a "deadbeat mom" if she leaves a child with the father. Just because one happens less than the other doesn't mean it's not just as bad when it does happen.

If we were completely, equally, 50/50 responsible for a car crash we had, and you had an extra car because you're rich and were virtually unaffected by the event, but I had to walk 4 miles to work for 9 months while I made enough money to buy another car, you are not more at fault or more responsible for the accident simply because I endured hardships afterward that you did not.

I'm curious how you could possibly think that. But not in this thread.

Also, in regards to your "sexism doesn't exist from females to males in a patriarchal society" bit, does that also mean that racism doesn't exist from a minority race to a majority race in a specific geographic area? If you were in China and went around calling the people whatever racial slurs there are for them, you would be a racist. If you went to a gay club and went around doing the same, you'd be a bigot. Hire only handicapped people, and you are still discriminating. Sexism very much exists regardless of the "society" it's living in, and regardless of who it's "from" and "to".

In my opinion, women tend to be superor in the workforce. Although men are better suited to some menial manual labour intensive jobs, do to better than average physical strength. I dont really see your argument applying to me, purely because being a mother and having a career are not mutually exclusive - there are many childcare options, and these should be extended and subsidised, to allow even more mothers to play an active role in the workplace. This is of course resisted by patriarchal power within work bureaucracy, which attempts to exclude women from certain area's.

And in any equal relationship, cooking and cleaning and the getting of financial resource should be shared equally.

I do not believe it is possible for an anglo saxon white to suffer from racism, the only reason the examples you give dont ring true, is that I view them from a global perspective. Because we understand that China has been a victim of Western colonialism for very much of its recent history, the Chinese people do not have the same power as the Western people. For the gay adult, the gay club is a sanctuary from a deeply and legally hostile state - a state where discrimination is not only openly preached by moral leaders, but enshrined in law - the power of the gay person is less equal because they are the victim of massive prejudice in society. To hire only less abled people may be discrimination in the literal sense of the word (in the same way as we discriminate between the fire and the fire hose) - but again this may be seen as an act of empowerment within an environment when people who are not as physically able face many difficulties and prejudices in the workplace.

It is possible for a Chinese man, a gay woman, a disabled child - all of these - to be prejudiced, and bigoted. But concepts like sexism and racism are not based on individual prejudice, they are based on the exercise of power on a societal level against one group. A woman in America cannot make a man the victim of sexism, although she may be prejudiced against men. A white man cannot suffer racism in America, although there may be some groups or individual who are prejudiced against white men,

There are very few issues that I see as black and white. This is one of them. If a child results from your sexual activities you need to be an adult about it and play a role in that child's life. Although it's best to be there as a parent emotionally, I will accept a simple financial contribution. If you refuse to do either, it makes you the lowest form of life possible.

1. Although yes, it's possible in some cases, after extreme work it is possible for men to lactate in small quantities. However, the volume is not sufficient to sustain a child.

2. and 3. Best is still better than perfectly good. There are many things contained in breast milk that cannot be properly reproduced in formula. I'll leave it at that since there is no point in digging up sources that can be refuted by other sources and then re-refuted by other sources and on and on.

4. I never said that men cannot be just as good at parenting then men, I'm sorry if you interpreted my post as saying so. Men can do just as well, however women are designed by nature to take care of infants with no outside assistance. Men are not. It's a fact of nature. Once a baby moves past that time they are completely equal.

I can't believe you brought up infanticide. It is so rare that it is statistically insignificant. There are a lot of babies born each year, out of several million births each year I'm sure there is much less than 1,000 cases where a parent murders the child. You can't base any arguement on statistical outliers.

5. Women do not have 'numerous ways of getting out of their responsibility' There is abortion, adoption (if both parents want out), or giving the child to the father. If the father wants it, the mother is bound to provide financial support at a minimum. Men have adoption (if both agree), or giving the child up to the mother and providing financial support. My math tells me women have one more option. That's hardly numerous, right? If the two can reach an agreement that one takes all child raising and financial responsibility, that is their right.

If she leaves and provides no financial support, then I sure as hell do.

Strange Famous

I think you are way off there. White men are able to experience racism and sexism. If a black boss denies you a promotion because you are white, that is a form of racism. If you want to say that one person projecting that on another is prejudice, not racism you are splitting hairs. The end result is the same.

Racism is defined as "discrimination or prejudice based on race".

Sexism is defined as "discrimination based on gender".

The prejudice or discrimination you speak of IS the racism and sexism of which I speak.

Thinking "globally" is all well and good in many instances, but I think many would agree with me in my opinion that you're just plain incorrect on this one. Your opinions on the inability of a white man to suffer racism, etc., do not factor into the reality of law and ethics. They can endure racism, some do, and your personal appraisal of society as a whole does not change that it's racism, nor how wrong , illegal, or immoral it still is. Same goes for sexism.

To anyone else who's still in this thread:

I never buy the "slippery slope" argument unless there's some sort of backing to it, and i'm not seeing that here. People have argued an innumerable amount of times that certain things would bring about the complete and utter downfall of society- gay marriage, microwaves, TV, radio, movies, cellular phones, robotics, that jar of peanut butter that also has the jelly mixed in with it (the jury's still out on that one ;) ) - lots of things.

Therefore, to say that making things fair would really only be giving the so-called "deadbeat dads" a way to ditch their responsibilities, and that society would collapse from all the unwed single moms, seems farfetched at best.

[unpopular opinion]

And who knows, maybe women- since they comprise the other half of this very important unplanned birth debate, and it's just as much their fault as the man's- would see the new ways of truer equality and step up to the plate and close their legs once in a while (mild sarcasm). Maybe if women weren't so flippant about their baby-maker, knowing there ARE repercussions to being unsafe or unprepared, they'd rethink their unsafe sexual practices. Lots of men think about it constantly. Many women don't care, since they'll get their free ride if they conceive- if not from the man, from the government. Many people will say what a shame it is the man ran out on her, what a slimeball he is- I say she should have been more careful, and it's just as much her fault. She brought it on herself.

If you see a 20 -year-old unwed, single girl with 4 children, you are not looking at the poor, unfortunate victim of 4 bastard men, you are looking at a girl who has been horridly irresponsible at least 4 times.

[/unpopular opinion]

Bottom line: If you're not ready to be a parent, regardless of your sex, don't put yourself in a situation where it could happen- and if that means abstaining completely from sex, THEN FUCKING ABSTAIN. That especially goes for those irresponsible teens.

Ding Ding Ding - -We have a winner!!! Absolutely the truth... Just because you don't think it could happen to you - -doesn't mean it can't....

Men are talking about it not being equal, but they dont have to carry the child for 9 months and give birth. Their bodies aren't changing. I dont think it's equal that guys get the easy part while women get the big belly, pregnancy symptoms and labor.

It is her body. If the father could say 'i want her to have an abortion' and be able to do that legally, we'd be taking huge steps backwards. It'd be a slap in the face to women's rights.

While it is not equal, not many things in life are.

Well it's good you feel that way, because NO ONE in this thread has suggested the notion that a father could cause the mother to have an abortion. Not one person. We're talking about a father being able to absolve himself of the child and the responsibilities therein.

Also: If carrying the baby is so difficult and so painful and so inconvenient, THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT. Every pregnant woman is just as at fault for her pregnancy as the man involved. "Responsibility for your actions" applies to both. Refer to my last post. Abstain.

Analog: I must've read something wrong then. My bad.
So you're saying men shouldn't have to pay child support ? It takes two to tango, that baby didn't make itself.
It might be the woman's choice to keep the baby, but he's also responsible for that human life because he helped create it. Consequences.

However, because women have the one extra choice it makes men all butthurt. The whole thread revolves around the fact that women have one more choice than men and as a result men are oppressed.

What exactly is 'making things fair' other than giving irresponsible men a free ride?

Didn't he bring it on himself also?

What you aren't seeing is the 1-4 men who were irresponsible also. The fact that she was irresponsible once should have been a warning to the others, right? How are things made fair if the men don't have to be responsible?

I'm done with this thread. When my statements are argued against by offering not more than a question that simply contradicts what I'd said, that marks the beginning of the end of reason.

Now that it's reached that point, I absolve myself of the responsibilities of this thread.

Parting shot: Saying "we" feel oppressed is a bit over the top. Seriously. To begin with, not all the men in this thread are even on the same side. If you want to debate, do so. If you want to resort to calling names, taking sarcastic shots at the "other side", we'll leave you alone in the playground so you have the swings all to yourself.

Kutulu you keep mentioning basically that men have one fewer option and that this is basically fair, however its not really one choice, its the choice. Its not a choice that involves both parties, its not a choice that gives both partners an option its a final choice in which one partner has significantly less choice than another. Giving men the option to "abort" the child gives them a less significant choice (they are not removing the choice from a woman to have her child or not) however it gives them the option to express their opinion on this child and to ensure that a "pre-fuck contract" is actually upheld from at least one point of view.

'pre-fuck contract'? Are you kidding me? Is this contract signed and notarized?

I'm done with this thread too. 134 posts and not one proponent went beyond 'it's not fair'

I think we have gone beyond "its not fair", being forced into supporting a child is wrong, being forced to live below the poverty line to provide for a child you do not see is wrong, I think the other side of the arguement has given fewer credible responses other than "suck it up, you are men!"... Equality needs to recognise that Women are not incompetent and need additional rights to protect them, either that or recognise that men are equally incompetent and need the same rights to protect them. :thumbsup:

Not seeing the child is entirely your choice, if you make payments then you have every right to be involved in that child's life and should be as well. It doesn't matter if you think the mother is a crack whore, that child is still part of you.

Until the time comes where men do have the option to absolve themselves of all responsibilities when it comes to children they father. The answer is quite simple... Protect yourself beyond a reasonable doubt, do not let yourself get into that position of fathering a child.

Maybe you've completely missed the point. Child support payments are not about the mother, they are about providing for the child that THE FATHER played an equal role in creating.

Was the man forced into having sex?

Is it right for a child to be forced below the poverty line because his father didn't want to inconvenience himself?

You still haven't gone beyond it's not fair.

There is certainly legal precedent for relinquishing the responsibilities of the genetic father. For example, in Florida (and many other states):

As far as "abortion" is concerned, in the U.S. the legal question is: How broad is the right to privacy? Roe v. Wade itself extended that right to include "distress" resulting from unwanted parenthood in general. Since both fathers and mothers can experience such "distress" then according to Roe v. Wade both sexes are similarly situated in regard to this privacy construal. Hence it could be argued that the equal protection clause applies here. The only difference in applying it to men would be to broaden the concept of "abortion" to include not physical abortion, but relinquishment of parental rights/responsibilities.

Here's the pertinent section of Roe v. Wade opinion:

Reverse the gendered language in this Supreme Court opinion, and it is equally true.

Certainly there is a double standard here, I don't see how that can be disputed. Planned Parenthood lists nine reasons why abortion is legal. Here's a summary of their reasons. Again, reverse the gender terms in this quote, and it is equally true:

I'm not arguing that there should be any law requiring women to have abortions at any time. That would be absurd. However I do believe that if men's role and contribution as a parent are to be fully respected, then the potential mother needs to take the father's opinion /feelings /beliefs /desires about parenthood absolutely as seriously as she takes her own.

I think the point is Raveneye, that men dont give birth.

You are right, and you even said it yourself, its not fair and we haven't given more than that. Women have another option men don't have. Well, I don't know about you, but that seems like a gender bias in the laws, women have another option. Aren't we all supposed to be guaranteed equal right under the law, regardless of Age/Sex/Race? We found an inequality(gender bias) in the laws: those who say the men should be able to opt out are choosing to correct the inequality.

"It's not fair" is all we need to establish when our laws are built on the principles of equality. I know everything in life is not fair, but the legal system is someplace it's supposed to be fair. Unless of course my picture of what the government of the US is, is completely wrong.