Abortion: a father's rights.
 

This is not a personal post, however I was wondering what you think (sorry if this is the wrong forum, could not think of a better one).

A child is concieved (whether by accident, design or just plain bad luck), a mother has the right to abort the child under most countries laws, however the father has no rights, once the deed is done he is stuck with the choice even if he does not want to make it.

Personally I think that the father should have the right to an abortion as well (legal rather than physical... forcefully performing medical procedures or a woman seems rather harsh to say the least), basically absolving him of the responsiblity of the child (its not legally his at all). Do you think that this would be fair as it seems unfair to hit a guy for child support when a woman essentially has a get out of jail free card on similar payments. The man cannot physically abort the child so should he have a way to show that he does not want a child and so if he was a woman would abort?

Similarly for the other situation, a woman can abort the child even if the father does wish the child, how could and should this situation be handled, because as they say it takes two to tango.

/me dons his asbestos, TFP is a very flame free area but never can be too sure when voicing what may be unpopular.

You know, I think this is a great topic. Consider the amount of females that deliberately get pregnant, reasons exist from 'making him marry you' to just wanting to live on welfare and child support benefits...

If men could 'abort' pregnancies then perhaps people would be a little more careful with their actions.

Please clarify your position, because I am finding it difficult to pin your position down. Are you saying that the father of an unborn child can insist on an abortion and/or reject the mother's choice for an abortion?

There are no right answers on this one, or it wouldn't be debatable. It should be a shared decision, but life is not perfect & easy.

I can't really vote because I'm not sure I understand what "No, however father's rights should be altered" means.

I understand that this is in regards to the idea that not paying child support can be a felony. You have to understand that the vast majority of times when any child support is mandated by the courts is after a divorce. It's not as if a man fucks a woman then is stuck with payments for years down the road. He made the decision to have a child with his wife. If he backs out of that deal, it's not like the kid stops existing, or the wife can suddenly handle it on her own. Of course not paying should be a felony. It's akin to murder.


Now, in the situation you're describing, where a woman has a child without the consent of the father, things are a little different. In all likelihood, a method of contraception failed, or the woman decided to stop using it without informing him. (Note: I understand these are not the only possibilities, I simply use them for argument) In that instance, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the father to be absolved of the responsibility to the child. If the woman then still wishes to raise the child, it should be her responsibility. There should be a legal process, however, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father did not consent.

HOWEVER. Before anything like this happens, we MUST make abortions 100% legal and safe. If a precedent is set that a man can simply knock up a woman then drop her like yesterday's news, even more women will be stuck as unwilling single mothers. Unless they then have the option to deal with that, that is simply unfair.

Do women still get pregnant to make the man marry them? I thought we'd have farther than that as a gender.

If men were also held more accountable than they are (they are only deadbeat dads when they get caught) maybe they would be a little more careful before having sex.

There are some women out there with ulterior motives, but there are more men out there who abandon their responsibilities, even if it's a one night stand. If a man doesn't want to have children, he has himself snipped, problem solved, until he's done that, when he has sex, if his sperm makes a baby, he's responsible.

Well, it seems to me that your position is to suggest that men should be able to give up their parental rights if they didn't want to have a child.

My position regarding that sentiment is simple: if the father is allowed to do this, I (the tax payer) will be paying for his child. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Sounds to me like the guy needs to consider

a) condoms
b) controlling his penis so that it doesn't come into contact with anything that could create an unwanted child.

In Washington State in the early days after Roe v. Wade, the husband needed to consent to an abortion irrespective of the wife's wishes. He could be a raving Viet Nam nutcase that the wife wanted to escape, but that wouldn't matter.

Not that I'm speaking personally or anything. :(

This is a tough question but very interesting. I also find it interesting that the poll assumes people are generally in favor of abortion as an option.

I'm pro-life and adamantly opposed to abortion so this question poses a twist.

On one hand, I think the idea of father's rights is interesting but the problem is who or what would be the tie-breaker?

You can't make a blanket indictment of all men. You're acting like it's the man's fault the pregnancy happened. It's 50% the woman's fault. After all she could consider
a) birth control
b) controlling her vagina so it doesn't come into contact with anything that could make it pregnant.


And how many times have both the man and the woman agreed before having sex that they will abort the pregnancy if it should happen, but then after she gets pregnant the woman changes her mind. It's very easy to think about the abortion in the abstract, much harder when you actually have to make the call.

But should the man be held responsible for that? He had sex with the clear understanding that no child could be produced by it. Then the woman switched it around on him, and he's still expected to finance the kid? That's ridiculously unfair.



The father should not have the right to order the abortion - it's HER body, not his.

The father SHOULD have the right to make the ultimatum that either the abortion happens, or he withdraws support.

Now the woman has a clear choice. Have the kid and pay for it yourself, or don't have the kid. If she can't live with the consequences of either choice, then she should not have had sex.

Unfortunately, where I live, I have seen and heard females who do this often. This is the mentality that I am surrounded with. At the deepest end of the scale we have 13-15 year old girls who aspire to retire from school early and have kid after kid rather than job. It's too easy for them and some of them have as many fathers as they do children. It's very sad, and the perpetuation of this mentality only makes me shudder more! In this instance I feel very sorry for the 'males' that are caught up in this (they seem to take it as a given these days that they pay child support for multiple children), but the real sufferers are the children they are bringing into the world! Imagine growing up with this mentality - It's wrong in my opinion.

Unless he was sterile... No man should be foolish enough to fall for that.

the woman is responsible as well -- but if a man doesn't want ot have children-- he's got to protect himself -- otherwise welcome to 18 years of payments...

Heh...My father believed he was sterile. :) Sorry, topic silliness.

This is an interesting thread and a very personal topic. Obviously it wouldn't be an on-going debate it if wasn't so far from being cut and dry.

AngelicVampire, you propose something I have never thought of but have no opposition to as a pro-choice woman. I would agree that the world might be a fairer place if men gained legal rights to NOT be responsible for a baby they helped to conceive. I imagine some kind of system where either a man is allowed rights to see the child and required to pay child support, or where he pays a one-time "abortion" fee (in the neighborhood of half of the total costs of an abortion in the area, including costs of transportation and compensation for the woman during the expected recovery period) and does NOT have rights to see the child. I would feel really strongly about those two going together in particular: the rights to see the child and the obligation to support it. That would seem fair in my book... at least more fair than the current system. I'm glad you brought this up. Learn something new every day.

Yes. Yes they do. I would be just as surprised as you are at the notion if it weren't for the fact that I personally know one of those women... she is now part of the family. :rolleyes:

I have on several occasions put myself in the terrible hypothetical situation where I, the father, have to fight for my son or daughter against a system basically set up to protect the mother. I LOVE kids. I love my daughter in ways that I can't even comprehend. If there were a situation where the mother didn't want the child, MY child, I would fight to the death for my baby. I would do anything and everything necessary to ensure my child's safety. It's not about being for or against abortions, it is about the child belonging to both the man and the woman. If the woman doesn't want the child, so be it, but she shouldn't have the right to just go and destroy a life that does not belong solely to her. The father should have an equal say.

While I don't ever condone abortion, I would be willing to say I think that an abortion should have the consent of both parents. As the choice above says, "It takes two to tango."

Males should have a set time after legal notice of pregnancy/child to abort their responsibilities as a parent.

Not that is an honourable way out, but at least it balances the scales.

Maybe abstinence-only education is actually getting somewhere..

I think he's saying something that is entirely true, if a women doesn't want to take the responsibility she doesn't have to. I mean, she can get her tubes tied, she can use contraceptives(and these do fail) even though she should take responsibility too before she jumps in the sack, she still has an out if she wants it. If her egg makes a baby she's responsible...only she isn't, well doesn't have to be.

I think what he is asking is why shouldn't men have the same right? Equality demands the same out women have.

The man is the one who is claiming he doesn't want children. His responsibility to prevent them. Why should he trust someone else when it comes to the next 18 years of his life?

The woman is the one claiming she DOES want children. Her responsibility to provide for them. Why should she rely on someone else to pay for them for 18 years?

I feel simpathy for men concerning their rights to children. After divorces especially , they should have equal rights to seeing and caring for the children, I see no reason for judges to put the rights of the woman above the man.

But the issue of abortion is different..because it involves the womans body. What is happening is happening to the woman herself physically and therefore the ultimate control of events MUST go to her.She should be able to have the final say in whether she carries on with the child.

I think this is a separate issue to after the child has been born and whether the man must contribute to its upbringing.Once the child exists then the man needs to contribute fully to its upbringing, He took the decision to have sex and needs to accept responsibility .he has the choice to step back from personal contact with the child , but should always be made to be there financially .

I would never personally have an abortion and find it horrific that some people would have a situation where I could be 'forced' to have one.

It is simple, women can absolve themselves from any responsibility with an abortion, if she doesn't want the child she has a bailout.
The guy on the other hand has no such thing, he is forced to dance after the womans wistle, so to speak, when it comes to the legal aspects of having children.
This is not equality in my opinion.

I have never encounterd the mentality that women get pregnant just to get married but I know of women who get pregnant to live on childsupport and welfare and I know of women who keeps a baby against the wish of the father when contraceptives fail.
If a woman has the right to abort a child she does not want (where I live that is pretty much given) a guy should have the same right. Not in a physical sense but in a legal, responsibilitywise and financial sense.

It is an old question turned the other way. Should a woman be forced to have a child she does not want or should she have the right to abort it? Should a man be fored to have a child he does not want or should he have the right to legally abort it? (With "have a child" I mean all the responsibilities that comes with it)

A legal abortion should be formed much the same way as a regular abortion, the man has a certain period of time after the pregnancy has been confirmed, preferably a month shorter than the allowed time for an abortion, to make up his mind about wether he want the child or not. If he doesn't, the woman still have time to concider her options A) to abort the pregnancy, or B) keep it and provide for it herself, or C) go through with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption.

There should be a fee, somtehing like Supple Cow suggested (half the cost for the abortion + loss of income during the presumed recovery period + all legal fees) for a legal abortion to discourage any missuse. And like an abortion it is an irrevocable decition. Once the legal abortion has been executed the man has no right to retract his decition ever.

personally while in a perfect world the guy would have some say in it..it is over all her body...if he was tricked then i think maybe he should pay a small amount of child support..really small..then lose all rights to the child...

personally however i feel more for the father when the situation is reversed..if the father is the one who wants to keep the child ..and the mother wants to have it sucked out... still a guy cant force a woman..its her body and shes the one that would have to deal with those 9months of pregnancy and the pain of labor...and after...

Cervantes - Well put, I couldn't agree more :thumbsup:

Mooseman3000, No, however a father rights should be altered means that you do not agree that a father should have a right to "legally abort" his child however feel that the current system is unfair to fathers, they should have some kind of rights but I have not covered them.

I agree that there should be some cost paid for the "abortion" to stop it becoming a simple way out however that money should not go to the mother unless she actually has the abortion (as she has not actually "lost" anything unless she goes through with the procedure). I was assuming of course that the guy loses all right to the child, as he is aborting it it is no longer his so he has no visitation rights etc if the woman does decide to keep it.

KinkyKiwi, how would you feel as a male if your wife, girlfriend or Fuck Buddy had a kid (without agreeing previously that a child would not result from this) suddenly decided to abort your child (which you wanted)? While you cannot force a woman to have a child there should be perhaps some system in place where by men are not punished unfairly.

Cimarron29414 you say that the tax payer will support these "aborted" children, should a woman who agrees to raise a child on their own gain anything above and beyond a two parent family, after all they have assumed sole responsiblity. Again I feel here that a single parent family who decided to raise a child themselves should essentially be treated as a two parent family as it was their choice not one that they did not choose to take.

After a divorce etc of course a man cannot abort a child (thats what we call murder...) however if he loses all contact with his children should he still be forced to support them (say he has been denied access to his children), if he has access to them (even if he chooses not to use it) then he should of course support them however again the courts generally rule in favour of women in these cases.

Thanks for the answers so far, its very informative to see what people think on this topic.

Seeker - Thank you, this is an ongoing discussion i have had with several of my female friends so I have had some time to think about it.

-----------------------------------------------

I see that there are several posters here who didn't bother to read the first post through and think that it is about a legal way for men to force the woman to an abortion.
Please read it through before posting since this is a very interesting discussion.

I believe the "donation" falls under the category of a gift, not a contract. Once the "gift" is given, the mans rights to it dissapear.

You totally nailed it Will.

in my opinion, a man has no moral, and is entitled to no legal, rights in regard to abortion whatsoever. No one in my opinion has the right to control or claim rights over another persons body.

This discussion is in no way about forcing a woman to have an abortion.

(emphasis mine)
We are talking about giving the man a right to legally absolve his relationship with a child. Perhaps abortion is a bad word choice, but in a sense it is the same thing, only "legal rather than physical". Women have the right to do this with a physical abortion if they do not want to take responsibility for a child, by equality men should have the same chance but don't. This seems to me it is about giving them that choice, and whether or not you agree.

On a man being able to force an abortion on a woman or force her to carry the child to term:

Sorry guys, but us men are not the ones who have to put our bodies through hell to deliver a child. It may not be 'fair' but like always, life isn't fair. Sitting around complaining about what is or isn't fair is non-productive.

On being able to free yourself from financial responsibility:

I have to say no to this again. YOU chose to have fun. Protection or not, YOU have to stand up to the responsibilities of your actions. This isn't a fucking puppy, it's a human life. Only a true piece of shit could abandon a child.

The rights issues are easy:
Men's rights end at conception. Women's rights end after delievery. After that, it's about the child's rights. The child has a right to the full financial support from both parents until the age of 18. If you don't like it, watch a porno, go gay, get fixed, or stick to oral/anal.

Wrong, A child's rights begins at CONCEPTION. Period.

A person that has not been born is not a person, how can they have rights if they don't exist?

In the interest of understanding; could you please elaborate, because I fail to see how that double standard is easy come by.

:confused: That's all I have to say about that.

You and I will not be able to "resolve" (prove or disprove) this controversy so to avoid a potential flame bait war, I am not going to engage in the debate over life (I realize I kind of started it, but I think it prudent to not go down this path. Either that or start another thread).

Back to the original contention, I agree with the "legal abortion" concept. It has a few kinks to wrok out but the concept is interesting. Because this really isn't about "my body, my rights" it's about the guy having to pay no matter what.

Which brings up another point: How did our society deteriorate so far? (obviously prudence, good sex education, personal responsibility) but there's an underlying root problem: the decay of the moral fabric of our culture. The break up of family values and the obsession with me me me me me me me first culture that is running rampant throughout this great country of ours. Socailly, we are devolving which is the single largest contributing factor to our contemporary problems.

My now ex-wife got pregnant and had an abortion against my wishes. If the kid was born he/she would be about 10 months old now. I told the ex that I would raise the kid by myself (I already am raising a daughter we had together by myself), and, even if I didn't, we were aware of a family in a good position to raise a child (they were unable to conceive for whatever reason).

Much is made of the mother's mental condition after an abortion, but there is nothing of a father's condition. Is it assumed that the father just does not care? I don't know. But in this case, the father cared VERY MUCH and thinks about this each day.

I am largely pro-choice, mainly because I don't like the thought of the governemtn regulating things in that regard, and the inevitable proliferaton of "back alley" abortions, but I admit I have trouble reconciling my own emotions with being pro-choice. I guess I am pro-choice for others, if both parties involved are fine with the decision. However, it is nothing I would ever suggest, ever.

I had no rights in this decision, and the result will hurt me mentally and spiritually for my entire life, I'm not sure if this is an even trade so the ex would not have to deal with being pregnant for less than a year (as a side note, she had one kid before I met her, and one more with someone else AFTER her abortion, so she has been pregnant a total of 4 times). I do know that if she told me, before we had sex, that if she got pregnant she'd abort, I would not have had sex.

Perhaps the only solution to this is to make sure both people are sure they are on the same page before they have sex.

Dude, if there is a period, then there was no conception.

Hmmm...let's take a glance over at my white-trash in-laws. Yup, looks like they still do that.

*clavus backs slowly out of the trailer park*

That sounds like a perfect solution for a perfect world, but...

It does not change the fact that a man is literally held hostage by a woman's decision to keep a baby. If a pregnancy occurs and a woman decides to keep it, the man has absolutely no rights whatsoever to free himself of the situation. There should be some kind of legal steps to be taken before a child is born to let a man obsolve himself of a child that he has no desire to raise or support for the next 18 years. It would be interesting to see child births drop like a stone if this ever happened, but the good ole system will be there with open arms to take in these women and give them the support that they need.

Afterthought... Following your logic regarding "if his sperm makes a baby, he's responsible." Well, correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't it her egg that makes a baby too. So, if women go and get themselves sterilized, problem solved.

how about not a single bloody cent?

That's funny, a nice comic relief! :lol:

I think you are missing the point. If the only change we make in the system is to allow men to reject financial responsibility, then someone WILL be paying for the child for 18 years - you and me. It would be naive to think that anything other than this will happen.

Again, a man is 100% in control of his destiny as to whether he will be financially responsible for a child - he can wear condoms or chose abstinence. If he doesn't trust condoms or REALLY doesn't want a child, he should choose abstinence.

Consenting to engage in sexual intercourse implies consent for ALL consequences of that act - including the creation of a child and the financial responsibility of the child. You might not LIKE those choices, but there are choices.

Cimarron29414 - The problem isn't that of taking responsibility for your actions it is that women have a bailout from this responsibility while the man hasn't.

It is a clear double standard, women are given the option to bail from the rigors that follow a child while a man just have to sit down and accept the concequences to his life in whatever the woman decides.

It is as if a woman isn't expected to take responsibility while a man is to take full responsibility no matter what.

Cimarron29414, in addition to the above (Cervantes post), what of the married couples that have decided they do not yet want children? If the woman changes her mind and tricks the pregnancy, what then? Is the husband at fault and responsible because his wife pulled a sneaky on him? This could be said for longterm bf/gf as well.

Do you really think that guys should not have sex until they want a child? I think that is a little unfair...

wow, i'm kind of surprised by the results. i didn't think that the votes would swing the way they are right now. this is something that i have tried to resolve in my mind for quite a while, and as of yet, i haven't been able to come up with a clear decision. in an ideal world, which this world is VERY far from, two people would be able to work something out so that if the woman didn't want to get an abortion, and the father did, then maybe they could resolve to not have the man be responsible for the child. but everybody is different, and there will never be a consensus, so someone usually ends up getting screwed, whether it's the mom, dad, or child. there is just a really slippery slope when trying to determine what the equal rights would be for a man under those circumstances. and honestly, until we can ensure that a woman will ALWAYS have the right to get an abortion, i think we are kind of getting ahead of ourselves.

You raise a good point, because there are gender equality issues involved. However, I believe the father should take responsibility for his child. The baby may be an accident, but the sex wasn't.

Of course, this argument does opposes abortion as a whole...

The physical deed marks the consent. If children occur, the vote is solely with the one who bears the physical responsibility. Period. This is why I had a vasectomy.

So if a woman has a child with obvious malicious intent, you'd expect the man to pay for said child, but forfeit all rights to the child?

I'll try not to point out how sickeningly distorted that idea is.

Anyways, back to the topic... saying that the man consented to having a baby just from the act of sex itself, well, that's a double edged sword, for you see, the woman had sex too, so she also consented. Does that mean that neither of them have the choice to abort? Sure, it's her body, but it's also his life.

Personally, I think abortion should only be legal for rape victims and underage women.

of course the man should have to contribute - should children really be punished for the sins of their parents?

edit - also, my mother would probably have died if she did not have an abortion the 4th time she was pregnant (this was the medical advice she was given)

Obviously under your terms, abortion would not have been a legal option for her - while I suppose it is possible to argue that the right of that fetrus to live should be more important than the right of the mother to live (after all, if it was a straight 50/50 choice - the baby has a statistically better chance of a longer period of life)

Personally however, denying abortion where it is known childbirth will result in the death of the mother is extemely difficult morally, and I do not believe it would be acceptable to society.

Obviously, personal examples are emotional and not necessarily the best basis for cold moral logical judgement... but when it is someone you know who would basically face a death sentence... I could not support any state who would create such a law.

No it isnt that simple. She doesnt always have a bail out. For religious or moral grounds she may be stuck with the pregnancy.
I could not abort a child once pregnant and it seems unfair in my opinion if the man could then deny me help other than half the money for an abortion.

The Father may also not be able to abort due to legal or moral grounds, I know I would feel bad about a child of mine being raised without me (remember "legal aborting" is giving up all rights to the child), I am not religious however I know many guys who would also not abort their child even if they hated the mother because the sins of the mother are not the sins of the child. However n a vast majority of cases women have a get out card.

Yes it is that simple. Just because she has religious or moral issues with abortion it doesn't give her the right to mess up a guys life with an unwanted child. I am talking in a stricly legal sens of equality putting aside individual stances to abortion. The moral/religious aspects of abortion/"legal abortion" is soely up to the individuals to decide for themselves.

I don not think that such things as religious/moral qualms with abortion gives someone the right to interfere to that degree (or any degree for that matter) in another persons life.

Getting a baby is something that, when abortion is a given right, is completly voluntary for a woman but not for a man. That is not euqality in my book.

Im pretty sure it takes a man, who is fully aware of what he is doing, to make a baby too

I have to say again that children are a logical and foreseeable consequence of having hetero sex. If guys don't want to deal with the inherent risk, they have the responsibility of cutting off the flow of sperm, however they choose to. No man can say that job is someone else's responsibility.

You can apply any number of different standards and talk about "equality", but the biological facts are there for everyone and anyone to see. Once the life is "born" inside the body of the woman, the pregnancy is inside her body and is hers. The man has played his part in the conception, and the rest of the story is about his willingness to face his responsibilities. (Lord knows how many men duck that responsibility (fatherhood), monetarily and otherwise.) What is the alternative? Making the child pay for the bad judgement of the parents? Fuck that.

Men's choices about pregnancy end sooner than a women's, but that's the way it is, and it's no surprise. As men, we still have complete control where our sperm goes. Men, we simply need to act that way.

This has been a really interesting discussion. As far the issue at hand about what rights does the father have to "legally abort" the child in the case where the father wants an abortion and the mother does not, I admit that I support the idea at first glance. I'm also a hard-line pro-choicer, and from reading others posts it seems like pro-choicers are more willing to accept the idea of a "legal abortion."

The biggest problem this solution poses though, is what implications does this have in the case where the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not? Should the consenting father have the legal right to prevent abortion (except in cases of medical emergency) by agreeing to pay the mother medical expenses, lost wages, etc, and agreeing to release the mother from any financial obligation to support the baby after birth?

Bottom line though, I agree that consenting partners need to share the responsibility of a pregnancy and that current laws do not make this possible.

Once the baby has been born, both parents should absolutely have the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to access to and financial responsibility for the child. Both parents should be held financially responsible for the child's upbringing, regardless of who has physical custody.

Both parents should also have equal responsibility when it comes to the part of reproduction that happens within their bodies. The man's part occurs with the production and release of sperm. Once he's deposited his sperm into the woman's body, everything else happens there, and the woman should have the right to determine what happens within her body. It's entirely consistent to grant each partner the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

The moment that gestation can occur outside the woman's body, I'll agree that the man should have equal say in continuation of the pregnancy; until then it's her body, it's ultimately her decision.

I think that this topic treads a fine legal line, and it has nothing to do with responsibility.

Granting the father of an unborn baby rights over the decision to abort or not undermines the basis for which abortion is a legal practice. By giving the sperm donor parental rights, you are in effect intoducing three entities into the situation: the mother, the father, and the fetus, which is now subject to a custody battle before it can even survive on its own. By admitting that there is a "child" involved, the issue is no longer a women's body and her right to choose.

although I think the decision to abort should involve the father to some extent, I'm still pro-choice, and in order to keep legal abortion legal we have to keep the father out of the equation under the current precedence.

I agree, for the most part. A father's legal right to the fetus exists only within the purview granted by the mother, because the status of the fetus lies solely within her control. It's her body, and therefore her decision as to whether or not she wants to go through with the process of birth. After a baby is born, then both parents are involved, but until that point in time, it's solely the mother's ballgame, unless someone wants to argue that it is a woman's duty to act as a brood-mare for her husband, regardless of her opinion on the matter?

So Matadon if your girlfriend (whom you are sleeping with) told you that she wanted no kids (and you are not after kids now), however she gets pregnant (changed her mind without telling you), you cannot support the child + survive yourself and have no interest in the child. Essentially you are happy with a woman playing you to get money?

She's not "playing him" to get money for herself. He helped make that child. If he truly didn't want to have children... ever... well, he should have had himself fixed. No birth control is 100 percent effective and accidents do happen...

His sperm helped to create that child, how is it fair to the child that he should just throw away his paternal rights?

Not at all; it's still her body. I think that's a much bigger issue compared to the financial obligation. If a woman is not physically and mentally prepared to carry a fetus and then give birth, and she does not even WANT a child, then she retain the right to have an abortion. However, given the special rights women have concerning the fate of fetus while it is still part of her body, my sense of fairness makes me amenable to the idea that a man should not ALWAYS be held financially responsible. I mean, if we're talking about better legal systems to make both sexes behave more responsibly, that would surely do it.

Say a woman does decide to have a baby - she carries it in her body for 9 months (give or take) and that often leads to later scenarios where she wins custody battles but also where she is left with the responsibility of pursuing legal measures to care for the baby when the father is being a deadbeat (that refers to both welfare programs for single mothers and suing the biological father for child support). To say that the responsibilities of both parents are equal is a nice idea, but it's simply not the truth because women clearly have greater rights and responsibilities, as it should be.

I happen to think that physical rights and financial responsibilites (though they often go together) are separate issues. In cases where the man and woman want different things, this is how it breaks down:

A man never has a right to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but he always has a responsibility to pay child support for it if the woman decides to have it. The woman always has the right (let's hope) to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but she does not always have the financial responsibility for it because she can always sue the man for child support. This system has a built-in incentive for women who don't have physical concerns about having a baby to behave irresponsibly about birth control.

That being said, it seems reasonable to me to allow a man being sued for child support to counter sue the woman for either lying about birth control efforts or breaking a verbal agreement to not have the baby. This does not stop her from having the baby if she wants to - it has nothing to do with her physical state. It merely recognizes that women should also behave responsibly and protect herself when choosing to have sex. The current system just gives men a lot of reason to distrust women.

all and all, the father should have some rights to an extent, this would not even be an issue at all without the man present

The trouble is that you want your cake and eat it too.

You have a viable option - abortion.

You CHOOSE not to take that option. Doesn't matter why you choose not to take it - the fact is that you have made the choice not to have an abortion.

That puts the ball squarely in your court. If you choose to have the kid, then you need to be responsible for your choices.

It is simply not fair to the man to tell him "I'm having this kid, and there's nothing you can do to stop me. And by the way, you're going to be paying for my choice for two decades."

If abortion is an ugly prospect for you, then perhaps you should not be having sex with people unless you are willing to accept the possible consequences.

You can't have it two ways. You can't say "It's my body and therefore the abortion decision rests solely with me," while at the same time saying "Hey, it's HIS fault I'm pregnant." You had control of your body when you slept with him. If you didn't want the financial responsibility of a child, then you should have remembered that you're correct - - it IS your body and you should have kept him away from it.

If you expect someone to be responsible for something, they have to have a say in how it goes down.

Thanks Supple Cow, this IS what it's all about.

I agree with Shakran. Though in a perfect situation, before sex, everyone would talk about contingencies if there was a pregnancy and not have sex if they didn't agree.

I think the father should have the right to legally abstain from being the father, but he'd have to do it before the child is born, unless the father can prove that the mother left and secretly had the child. However, it would be permanent like a real abortion, doesn't matter if he wishes to be the legal guardian later in the child's life (to keep from inhereting money if he outlives the child).

I don't exactly like it, but I believe in choice. In this case the choice not to be a father.

This made me laugh until my sides hurt and i wanted to abort my funny bone.

See, abortion can be funny. Next up, cancer.

Read the opening post. It has nothing to do with being able to physically cause an abortion, only the removal of responsibility.

I am a religious person, but that's bullshit. If she's got agendas or is hindered by an internal decision struggle, that's her fuckin' beef. She HAS the ability to opt-out. This whole argument is about what people CHOOSE to do, and that includes factoring in their personal bullshit.

Boo fucking hoo. I wonder what the founders of N.O.W. (National Organization of Women) would have said if they knew their pioneering spirit and hard work towards gender equality would actually have resulted in... equality?

Equality is 50/50. The same. The current ability for a women to opt-out, but not a man, directly contradicts all notions of equality. That is wrong. All the women in this thread need to stop their tubes from getting in a knot over the honesty of some of the males in here. You have the total, unwavering advantage. 100%. If you can say "no thanks" to a baby, then men should be able to as well. Men do not create babies, nor do women- it requires both together, and so should the laws reflect that fact.

My uncle spent years in the courtroom spending God knows how much money on lawyers, trying to get and keep the rights to his son, my cousin. Mother's rights FAR outweigh a father's. That bitch was an alcoholic, multiple alcohol-related offences, used hard drugs, also multiple offences including cocaine and LSD, AND... AND... AND... child endangerment, neglect, abuse. Also, she has never held a job. Ever.

Yeah. She'd leave him home alone, at one to two years of age, all day or all night, and leave out a bag of chips for food. My uncle was away when this happened. She locked him in a closet once for 3 days. No food, nothing. She just left him. She went and partied in atlantic city for a long weekend. He almost died.

Despite all this, he STILL had to fight to get custody, and then had to fight to lower her ability to see him. She used my cousin as leverage to get money from my uncle for child support on the kid HE was raising! And he had to fight to get THAT overturned.

As it stands, men's rights don't begin at conception- they never have any, at all, ever. Women can do whatever they please and the laws will protect their stupid asses, even should they be drug-using, alcoholic, child-neglecting, -abandoning, -abusing whores. There is no equality.

Well put. Damn well put. :thumbsup:

It's so hard to take this seriously but at the same time this thread makes me ashamed to be a man. All I can see are other men here bitching about what is fair or not. I thought we were men. A real man doesn't hide from responsibility. Get over yourselves and realize that there are differences. Women are not there for our control.

People saying women have abortion as an option for emergency birth control are looking at abortion in a very rosy way. It's not that simple, it can have very serious side effects and cause a woman to be sterile for the rest of her life. Aside from that, it's a decision that can get people kicked out of their churches.

Hell if you are going to say that the woman can have an abortion, maybe the man should have had a vasectomy performed. That can be reversed sometimes if the man wants kids later.

The hypothetical situations are laughable. All these images of strung-out women malicously plotting to trick the man into having a baby so she can have some meal ticket. Sorry, but life isn't a soap opera. Seriously, how often does this happen?

Compare 'evil woman' conspiracy theory to the amount of unplanned pregnancies that just happen because of lack of birth control, improper use of birth control, or failure of birth control. Maybe I'm crazy but I'm pretty sure that these situations have to outweigh the 'evil woman' situation by at least 10,000:1.

It sucks that men can be taken advantage of but radically changing the laws to accomodate an extreme circumstance is never the right thing. The fact is that in virtually all circumstances both parties were consenting and both need to live with the consequences.

Look around at the country. How many kids are fucked up because they didn't have the guidance of both parents? When a man DECIDES TO BE A SCUMBAG and deserts his kid it forces the mother to work more and as a result, the kid doesn't even end up with one full-time parent. Giving men the right to be a scumbag and have no legal responsibility will do nothing but make the country worse.

If you aren't ready for a kid WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM. It's that fucking simple.

Be a man. Don't neglect to take preventative measures and then sit back and cry that you don't have control over someone else's body.

First of all, that dig was totally unnecessary. Second of all, it's not even true. I'm a woman. Did you read any of my posts in this thread?

The problem is many-faceted. I think Supple Cow is onto something... In my utopian world, this is what I'd like to see happen:
True, real-life sex education for everyone. Especially in the poorer areas, rural areas, etc. Education and free condoms for all. You can’t stop people from having sex. But if we had some real education that covers all the options – abstinence unless you’ve had ‘the talk about the possible outcomes’, condoms, sponges, etc, etc, etc – perhaps that might help. And education about what happens after the sex.

I’d like to see a legal/social agency who is there to help mediate between parties to arrive at mutually acceptable resolutions.
The examples: the father wants to take care of the baby himself and the mother does not want the baby – now, I do think that she should have the ultimate decision because it’s HER body. However, perhaps there would be fewer instances of this if there were mediation, someone to help with a little perspective – maybe help a woman see that if she is generous with 9 months of her life, she can give that guy who actually wants to take responsibility what he wants and then she’ll be done with it. Unfortunately, part of being a male is that if you have sex and a pregnancy results, not only do you have to deal with the possible child, you ALSO have to deal with the possible abortion. Just like she does.
What about fiscal responsibility? Well, if we continue with the idea of mediation, we could use that as a channel of finding a balance that both parties can live with. Perhaps have the 50% cost of abortion/recovery be the minimum allowable contribution from the man. Even if she has the baby, she’s going to have costs that that money can contribute to. And depending on the relationship and circumstances of how she ended up pregnant in the first place, that can be the basis to determine how responsible the man should be. All mediation should be resolved within 2 months of conception so that the options are not limited. This way, he has to be a least partially emotionally and fiscally involved, and can have a discussion about what to do next. Because it’s her body, the mediation would not be legally binding (as in she would HAVE to do whatever they agreed to), but if she chooses to go a route other than the agreed-upon resolution, then she will have total fiscal responsibility.
How does that sound?

Actually, I thought everyone was pretty measured and calm. Pretty impressive considering the topic! :thumbsup:

Kutulu, so you are saying that a man who takes protection and uses it properly and has it fail has no option? Clearly he was being protective of his "seed" and did not want a kid, the woman clearly agreed (otherwise he would be riding bearback and trying for a kid)... if the woman then decides to have that kid is it really the guys fault? He was taking precautions to not have it (and don't say he shouldn't be having sex, many women have sex who don't want kids either).

That sums it up. Hey life isn't always fair. Either accept the possible consequences or abstain. It's a well known fact that birth control methods are not 100%.

Are you completely ignoring the effects that single parents are having on kids growing up these days? Do you really think society will be better if we have more deadbeat dads out there?

AngelicVampire - I think this is touching on a bigger problem. I'm all for sex and people enjoying their freedom of "expression", but no one talks about what the possible outcomes are. If more people thought about "gee, I could catch something from this random encounter" or "hm, we've only been dating 3 months - I'm not ready to be a daddy, maybe I should tell her that"... but not enough people do.

I do, Sex != kids for me, if the woman is iffy on this then that hole is a no go area... however if she changes her mind wtf... we agreed nothing comes of this so why should her rights exceed mine?

Hmmm...
Working under the premise of things are between two consenting individuals...
I'm getting the vibe from some of you that...

Men should have vesectomies but women should not have to have their tubes tied if they don't want kids.

Men should be "men" and wear condoms if they don't want kids but women shouldn't be responible and MAKE their partner wear a condom if they want to have intercourse.

Men should have NO say in their future or the future of their offspring but women should have the say in their future,the future of their sexual partner, AND the future of their children. Now who is controling who again here?

Men should "know better" and if they want to play they potentially have to pay but women shouldn't have to know better and if they want to play they really in the end don't have to pay if they REALLY don't want to.

Are any of you taking yourselves seriously when you are saying "be a man and take better care of what you are doing...if you aren't willing to pay you aren't mature enough to be having sex...." However when this exact SAME arguement is stated as to why women should have no right to abortion when her desire is based upon it not "ruining" her life it's roundly yelled down as being sexist.

It's a sad situation when "equality" has become better described as screwing the other side worse than they have traditionally screwed you in the past(no pun intended).

No, both parties are equally responsible for birth control, if being child free is that important to you and you need to have sex don't place all the faith in preventing pregnancy in the hands of someone else. Also, realize that every method of birth control (even vasectomies and tubal ligations) have been known to fail. Everybody knows someone who had an unplanned pregnancy after one of those procedures took place.

I'm 100% serious on that. It is the woman's body and abortions are not pretty or mentally easy. I'm sure that most pro-choice people (like myself) are in favor of having that option available for those who want it but could never personally do it. You can't fault someone for not doing what most people couldn't do themselves.

Does anybody actually think society will be better if we make it ok for men to run around impregnating women freely and then be completely free of any financial obligations?

Very interesting.....but

The woman's right to control her own body over-rules a man's right to be emancipated from the resposibilities of having a child. SO.....what to do........

Kids need both parents as much in their life as much as possible, so the courts need to start at 50/50 for visitation and financials. As long as, each parent is deemed a person resoposible enough to care for a child.

Perhaps this would influence some men from becoming "dead-beat" dads......they could say hey, i have just as much right as she does, maybe I'll stick around and do the right thing for the child.

Perhaps this would influence women not to "trap" men, as it is a common occurrence.....if he don't want to stay with me, then he'll pay for it....kinda thing.

And since i'm thinking about it......hmm...maybe i should start a thread??

If the woman wants to carry the baby to term, and the father wants no part of it BEFORE BIRTH, then I think that it should be the woman's responsibility, should she choose to give birth. AFTER BIRTH is a completely different animal, of course, but until that fetus can exist separate from its mother, it is not a lifeform. Basically, up until birth, either party can opt out, with the mother having the ultimate veto (e.g., no father can force a woman to give birth), but after that, they're both in the ballgame together.

Does this help clarify my viewpoint?

Yet that type of thinking isn't applied all that often to young foolish females who get pregnant and one of the large arguements for pro-choice is that the woman(though I wouldn't call a girl that gets knocked up while screwing around a woman any more than I would call a guy who ran out on his kids a man)should not be penalized by having a baby she does not want.

However it's still one more option than the male in the situation has and that is not "equatable". At the end of the day if she doesn't want it she doesn't have to have it. That's not something a male has the benefit of and it's not right if you consider both parties are equally responsible.

I suppose not however I don't think this stance of women can get out of it(even though it's damaging) but guys shouldn't be let out of it on a "moral" stand point really is right.

No but neither do I think society is better off by making it ok to terminate a life/potential life based purely on whether or not it will interupt their lives(rape,incest, and cases of saving the mothers life not withstanding).
Frankly on the scale of detestable behavior loss of life is worse than not being a parent(fiscally at least) in my book.

In cases of abuse, i think no one would disagree that the child should be removed from the absuive situation by the state.

However, in general what I am saying is that the male partner does not in my opinion have any moral rights over an unborn fetus. It is not a case of saying you want "equality" in rights - because the fetus is carried within the body of one person and not another.

Until the child is born, I believe the decision to seek abortion is entirely that of the women, although education and all available options should be there, it is ultimately her choice and no one else should have any input. It is the women who has to carry the fetus, who has to go through childbirth (which as I mentioned, would have killed my mother if she had been forced to go through with it in one occasion), and so on.

After the child is born, I would also agree that - as the natural relationship is between mother and child - the mother should have a automatic right to custody - unless unfit to care for the child. This is not about placing people in abusive situations, but if there are two fit parents, the mother always takes priority, because she is better able to care for the child than a man.

The male should provide some level of financial support for the child. and also should be entitled to some level of supervised time with the child. At the point where the child is able to make an informed decision, then they may decide if they want custody to be changed to the father.

In an ideal world, I probably would support something in line with the aholition of the family altogether, that children are raised in group homes and not in families - which causes many emotional and mental problems in my opinion... but if we are talking about the world and the way it is today, if my opinions were not clear, I will re-state them.

The mother is the sole person who has the right to make a decision on abortion. It is not correct for the potential father to either force an abortion on a woman who doesnt want one, or attempt to deny an abortion to a woman who does want one.

Care of a child will automatically be awarded to the woman, unless she is judged as unfit.

The man shall contribute financially to the upkeep of the child - this is fair, and when you have unprotected sex any adult should understand the potential consequence. However, in a real and moral sense, I believe the child "belongs" to the mother more than the father, that the mother has more right to custody of the child. While the father is asked only to contribute financially - to ensure the standard of living of the child, the woman is asked to contribuet time, love, dedication - therefore with right goes responsibility. The woman is asked to GIVE much more t the upbringing of the child, because her right and responsibiolity is greater,

No, it was totally necessary. There is a lot of weighty estrogen being tossed around in here, and OF COURSE it doesn't necessarily apply to EVERY female in this thread. Obviously if your posts were what they were, then it doesn't very well apply to you, does it? :) To answer your question, yes, I have read every post in this thread, as I read every post in EVERY thread I post in, unlike many people who don't even properly read the FIRST post (i'm not talking about you, so relax), even if it means drudging through multiple pages.

You do realize, of course, that the entire idea of "being a man" and "accepting responsibility" is a totally sexist comment, right? It's about as close to total inequality as one can get. You want to talk about responsibility? Unless the woman was raped, "responsibility" is a fifty/fifty split down the middle.

And I have to add, as a person who dislikes children in general and will never have any-

It is thoroughly hilarious to me that all parents will argue to their death what a wonderful blessing/experience/unparalleled joy, and what a special thing it is to have a child and blah blah blah... but when it comes down to talking about other people and whose "responsibility" a possibly (though perhaps not mutually agreed upon) unwanted pregnancy is, and suddenly it's the dirtiest little act, reduced to simple penis & vagina hump talk. Some people are sooooooooo quick to reduce or inflate the significance of an event that's exactly identical to another's experience, simply because it happened to them. Many of you have taken what you consider wonderful and boiled it down to filthy lust just because it wasn't planned- lest we forget that many parents have had unplanned children and are insatiably happy with their decision to keep the child. In all sincerity, bravo for them.

As you've all so wonderfully elaborated in this thread, sex is sex, and having a baby REALLY IS just a sperm shaking hands with an egg. No more. Just because i'm pro-choice and dislike children, doesn't mean I want everyone to abort every unwanted child like it were a form of alternative birth control.

I'm not sure why you quoted my entire (lengthy) post... it doesn't seem to be relevant to what you've posted...

However, with all due respect, I am very curious how you consider what you've said here to not only be correct, but not incredibly sexist? Are you trying to insist that a father is not a "natural relationship" to a child? Are you trying to insinuate that a man cannot rear a child properly without a woman, or that he could never do as "good" a job as a woman? Lastly- are you, in fact, totally unaware of how completely one-sided, disrespectfully and illogically anti-male and unequal your comments just were?

Equality. How can anyone claim anything besides equality is "unfair"?
INequality is "unfair", but men have been dealing with that since this topic first came to bear.

It seems that it needs to be said again: no one is proposing that men can force or forcefully prevent an abortion.
Analog is right. Perhaps you don't realize this, but your statements here are incredibly sexist. "The natural relationship is between mother and child?" Seriously. Perhaps you've missed the ungodly amount of studies done showing the importance of BOTH parents in a child's development? Not to mention, the mother is better able to care for the child and the father has a financial responsibility? I thought most people arguing for women's rights were trying to get AWAY from this sexist and terribly wrong 1950's Donna Reed stereotype. Just like women are just as capable of handling finances as a man, men are just as capable of being loving, caring human beings.

Some of the posts in this thread - no offense - just baffle me. The men should take responsibility for their actions? They had sex and knew a child could come of it, so they should be responsible and face the consequences? How, exactly, does the female's role not apply to this argument as well? It would be great if abortion weren't used as birth control and if people only had sex when capable of facing the potential consequences, but it's just not the case. Yet, while women can "opt out" of responsibility, men cannot. This is not equal responsibility. Responsibility is 50/50 - both people willingly had sex, knowing of the possibilities of pregnancy. The current arrangement is not only sexist against males (which I think has been sufficiently pointed out here), but it is also sexist against females. Under this logic, sex is something that happens TO females and they simply choose whether or not they want to live with the consequences. The male has "responsibilities" for the pregnancy. The woman? Oh, well the male "got her pregnant," so she can choose to not have the child if she so wishes. She's not a person in control of her actions, she is a person to whom things happen. She needs the protection of choice because she is less capable of taking responsibility for her actions than a man is. This view is terribly lacking in dignity to BOTH people.

Case in point. The man, because he is fully aware of what he is doing, must "take responsibility for his actions." The woman, on the other hand, despite having the same ability as the man to choose to have sex, is somehow apparently not capable of being as "fully aware" as a man, because she still needs to be protected from being responsible for her actions.

Either women are morons and incapable of making intelligent decisions, or the situation needs to change. Personally, I think women are just as intelligent as men.

i don't think its right..and if without any stress to the woman it coul dbe moved to the guys body then i woul dbe all for that. but its her body, its the woman thats gonna have to deal with the actual pain of lador, the marks, the veins, the swelling, the hvaing to replace her entire shoe collection...

i love how some men are all for keeping it when its not their life that will get fucked up. after all most of teh time it still ends up being the mother who takes care of it.

men just dont get what a woman would have to go thru..lol and imma lil worked up over this because my best friend just told me that if he ever got a woman pregnant he "wouldnt let" her have an abortion and he "wouldnt let" her be drugged so that "his kid" would have a "natural" birth...*goes off to rant*

As far as the 'use a condom', 'use birthcontrol' arguments go... Drop those, wouldn't ya? The point of this thread is not to prevent it, but what to do when it *has* happened.
And besides, the controls are never 100% effective, so even if you 'do the right thing' you can still have it happen.
I would agree with Maleficent in saying if you really, really don't want to have children, get yourself fixed, whether you're male or female. But that's not the point here, we're talking about afterwards.


As far as the abortion goes, you only have 2 stances here it seems. You're either for equality or you're against. Not saying in general, but in this scenario specific.

To me it doesn't seem worth it to try to talk analog or Strange Famous out of their ideas. They're different stances on the subject and not really reconcileable (if that's even a word).

So I would agree with Analog in saying that equality is a noble goal which we should try to achieve.

Now...
4 scenarios:
Father wants the child, mother wants the child --> no problem
Father doesn't want the child, mother doesn't want the child --> no problem

Father wants the child, mother doesn't want the child... In this case, you're forcing the mother to go through a painful process and 9 months of discomfort, you're controlling her body physically. Something that doesn't sit well with the controlled party, in this case women.

Mother wants to keep the child, father doesn't... In this case, the legal system forces the father to pay for the support of the child for 2 decades. Which may not be physical control, but at the very least mental control of a person. So in this case, you're controlling the man. Which, again, doesn't sit well with the controlled party...

So you've got 2 possible problem-situations.

Want a hard-ball opinion? With all the studies going around that show the influence of both parents in the raising of a child... Abortion unless both parties agree to raise the child (either together or separately).

Sure it may sound harsh. But in this case, it's not the father's rights, or the mother's rights that should come first.

It's the child's right to a good, decent and lasting upbringing. If you can't guarantee that, why go with the laissez-faire attitude and see what the result will become...

Stop and abort, do not pass Go, do not collect your alimony, and do not control anybody. Just pass by City Hall, the 2 of you, and put down in writing that both of you agree to raise the kid, problem solved.

Neither of you bothered to do so? Then either raise the kid on your own, or don't go through with the pregnancy.


my 2 cents.

PS, Kinky Kiwi: as far as the actual process of childbirth, there I agree with you, it's her body, it's her pain, the man shouldn't really have a say in that. The woman knows her pain-limits and should be able to use a painrelief if she wants to.

nisses- great concept...but for some people.. like me for instance..not so applicable...like if i had an abortion i would need to be on antibiotics....lil issue there..lol i wouldnt need an abortion because i would be dead. severe. allergic. reaction. plus i know LOTS of kids that have one parent and are happier then kids with 2. and whos to say that even if you start with 2 parents who both want a kid that in a year down the line one wont run off? its easier to say you want a kid when you have no idea what that means then actually dealing with one.

I know, and I agree totally that the possibility exist that later on, one of the might think a second time... But the point then is that he or she legally committed him/herself to it, and then deserves to get a big fat alimony deducted from the salary. And it would also do away with the woman not wanting to go through the pregnancy unless she wanted.

also, please explain?

"but for some people.. like me for instance..not so applicable...like if i had an abortion i would need to be on antibiotics....lil issue there..lol i wouldnt need an abortion because i would be dead. severe. allergic. reaction. "
--> severe allergic reaction to what? and antibiotics for what?

i'm deathly allergic to antibiotics..like if i take them i swell up and my joints turn into giant red lumps..i cant breathe..and i end up passing out and i lose all control of my body...lol didnt know it till 2 years ago either...

oh and antibiotics because they make you take them after you get an abortion..just liek any other surgery

In a perfect world, a descision of the magnitude should be made by concensus. We, unfortunately do not live in that world. That said, the woman will always hold the trump card here, as it is she that carries the risks, and the true responsibility of the childs health within her. Perhaps this will help shed light :

How would the men here feel if a woman you were involved with, TOLD you to to get a vascectomy. It is your body, yet she demands you undergo surgery that will prevent you from ever having a child.

This isn't about forcing women to have an operation, that point was made earlier on, but all the people harping on about equality should stop to consider that we are (male and female) different, opposites in many respects. True equality can only be applied if the parties involved can truly be treated as equal in every respect, this is why sexism will always be present because there will always differences.

Until men can actually get pregnant and give birth, or even have a more goof proof birth control than condoms, there will never be equality. This goes further than than the rights of either gender, what about the child that results. It's not fair to a child of an accidental pregnancy to not be supported just because the father wanted to absolve himself of his paternal rights. If he didn't want kids, he should have been responsible and had a vasectomy.

Sorry, but if she doesn't want it, there is no ethical or logical way to excuse his will over hers being okay.

Pregnancy is something that takes over a woman's body forever, not for just the 9 months. It makes permanent changes, and that is something that a woman has to live with, not the man.

I was rather shocked to see the percentages in the responses, two to tango, eh? Not quite. If a man can have a say, then women can never own their own bodies...we are just vessels that the rest of society can use to their will.

You can't judge the decision to have a child against those women who have kids to anchor or trap a man. You can't justify condemning the many because of a few assholes. That is what our country is based on anyways, innocent until proven guilty.

A prenuptial type situation before sex then?

so can premarital sex, but she wasn't thinking of that when she was in bed with that guy was she?

Yes, obviously, anything you do has consequences. What's your point. If a woman feels that an abortion has consequences which are too unpleasant, she needs to be prepared to deal with the consequences of THAT decision as well.

The way you're structuring it is this:

Man has 0 say in whether or not the kid is had.
Man then has 0 say in whether or not the kid is kept.
Man has 100% responsibility for the production of the kid.
Man has at LEAST (often more) 50% financial responsibility.

That doesn't make sense. If I have no say in whether something happens, then I shouldn't be held financially responsible when it does.

And your comment about men being allowed to run around impregnating women is ludicrous. You talk about being equality minded, then in one sentence you tell us all women are mindless sluts who have their legs open to any man who happens by. The woman has a brain too, ya know, and she can decide whether or not to be impregnated. I don't know how it works where you're from, but in my country you're not allowed to have sex with a woman unless she agrees to it. This image of men running around impregnating people is stupid - for every man that's legally impregnated a woman, there's a woman who allowed herself to be impregnated.

And if the woman doesn't want kids she should tie her tubes right? This line of reasoning is very narrow and exclusive. What about if a man/woman doesn't want kids at the moment because of his/her present finacial/social/relationship situation but would like to have kids later in life (like most males and females aged 14-25 I know of)?

A vasectomy isn't foolproof and it is far from always reversible, tying your tubes hold the same risks. Do you seriously expect a man to go through with the operation with the risks involved to aovid pregnancy at the moment? Do you expect a woman to go through with tying her tubes with the risks involved just because she doesn't want kids at the moment?

What happends when a lot of young men and women go through with a medical procedure that sterilizies them? My guess, more unprotected sex, more STD's and a major setback in the fight against HIV.

I don't know how it is in the US but where I live you are not even allowed to tie your tubes or do a vasectomy unless you already have kids since it is a high risk that you will remain sterile for the rest of your life. Though it wouldn't suprise me if there is a similar policy in most states to avoid lawsuits.

So whats better? that you can leave the woman and kid no strings attached because 'You didn't wan't it', thats a bit selfish, an accidental pregnancy is just that - an accident - other accidents you are involved in require that you bear financial burden why not this, I'm surprised you can't get accidental child insurance (although it's probably only a matter of time)

Because an accidental pregnancy has a very safe (safer than going through with the pregnancy according to latest statistics) and simple solution for a woman. Whereas there is no such solution for men.

Abortion is not a simple solution.. ask any woman who has been thru one. It often stays with them for years...

The morning after pill perhaps (basically a mini abortion?)?

Also have you asked many fathers? How do they feel having nearly had a child and having then had that child removed from them? While they do not have the physical pain/trauma they do have mental anguish as well.