My Sperm... My Choice, too? Please?!
 

I love Roe vs. Wade. It was one of the huge liberal victories and was possibly one of the most important occurrences in the entire women's rights movement. I would never ask that it be overturned.

That said...

Fathers' legal rights have, unfortunately, stagnated. In this country it would be totally legal for a woman to provide a purposefully broken condom, get pregnant, have a baby, and possibly even get child support... and the father can do absolutely nothing. Likewise, if a man and woman make love and the woman gets pregnant... she can have it aborted whenever she wants. The father doesn't have a say.

I know men aren't pregnant. I can't carry a child to term in my womb. Does that really mean that we are not a part of the process? It's odd to fight for men's rights, I'll admit, but this is a conversation that needs to happen.

Are fathers just sperm machines?

You reap what you Roe.

The pro-abortion crowd seems to operate from a 'woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body' and 'until its capable of independent life, a fetus isn't a human being'.

A father CAN'T have any rights if this mindset is to be valid.

Its not that you are a sperm machine, its that its not your body (so not your choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body) and its not even a baby yet.

Really the next logical step in this mindset is for fathers to have no rights or responsibilities, not more rights. Then you will just be a sperm machine.

Pretty much. An unfortunate reality created by the physical process of human gestation.

The "spin":
The setted law:

The "spin":

The harrassment and intimidation by anti-abortion activists, and the interference of religious doctrine in the practice of medicine and provision of medical reproductive health services to the least of us:
willravel, I'm sorry, but I view your thread viscerally, as offensive. I don't see why you want to go down this road. The obvious right for a woman to do what she wants with her own body, without being harrassed and deprived of medical care, products, and services, is fundemental, and should be a given in 2008.

Yet, as we observe here, advocates of this are painted as the "pro-abortion crowd", as if there is something flawed about the concept of a woman's inherent right, privately, and all by herself, if she wishes, in the same low key, manner, without oustside intrusion, as any man would expect to determine, what processes go on, internally, in one's body.

Observe how "newsbusters" determined that approval to build a medical clinic, suddenly becomes "illegal", if if is not disclosed, in advance, that the clinic operated in the new building will have ten percent of it's predicted activities, related to medically approved abortion procedures.

Isn't there enough interference in what should be a confidential process of a woman choosing what involves the most intimate and private parts of her body, and certainly in making unambiguously legal ones and seeking, depending on the medical options chosen, to seek and obtain safe and legal clinical care?

This has been settled law for more than 30 years. Responsible men are not the victims in these transactions. This thread seems, on the face of it, just another way to challenge a woman's right to choose, whether it is intended to be, or not. No birth control method is totally reliable. If you decide to ejaculate semen in the vicinity of a woman's reproductive organs, you give up control of where that semen goes, and what effect it has.

An alternative is this preposterous "road":
Wouldn't it be fair to word the headline, "Loses Bid to convince Court to Force Full Term Pregnancy and Birth"?

In my honest opinion if you don't want to risk having a child then you should keep your wang in your pants (its not hard.) A man's sperm is his until he gives it to the woman, at which point it's her property.. no matter who's DNA it contains. What she plans to do with that gift is up to her.

The only problem as i see it is the laws forcing men to then pay for the result of that gift. It's like saying, "you bought me this car so you're responsible for filling it with gas/oil and keeping it in working condition until its 18 or drives off on its own."

Keep in mind that if i were to have a child i would do my best and more to make sure it grew up in the best home i could help provide. I find it sad that some men think differently.. but then these are the same men who were too stupid to realize that sex leads to babies...

The courts have ruled that a mother does not have the legal right to waive payment of child support, because it is payment for the sustenance of the child, until it can work to support itself.

The development of DNA science and tech, along with much more aggressive enforcement of child support orders and collection methods by the states with cooperation of the federal government, should impress men with awareness that they are unlikely to escape payin g support of any child that they father. Also, what is the difference today, vs, the long period when legal, safe abortion was unavailable? There was much more likelihood, that, if you were involved in the initiation of a pregnancy, the pregnancy would result in a birth. Men had no more control in that climate, than now, a period in time when a pregnancy might not result in a birth. A woman today has greater choice and less burden, but it doesn't follow that a man does, to. Why should it?

I thought it was simpler than all that.

If a man and a woman disagree as to the outcome, how can a man demand a woman to either abort or give birth to his child?

I agree with this sentiment and, like Will, I have qualms about the practice of abortion and think it's a regrettable practice that we are still depending on in this day and age. But to force a pregnancy on a woman because the man who had sex with her wants her to have it is not a very progressive idea, in my opinion. In fact, I imagine such a thing could have very perverse and backwards consequences.

I know there are cases where injustices have been done, but I think on the balance, it's appropriate and right to have the woman have more rights than the man. She's got WAY more at stake than he does. And the courts seem to feel the same way, so far.

Let's not turn this into an actual abortion thread, okay? I'm SO bored with that conversation. I'm sick and tired of being called "pro-abortion". As if ANYBODY'S dancing around in the streets singing, "yay! abortion!". It's a regrettable thing any way you slice it. In an ideal world, we would have no need for it. But in a free society, people have to have the freedom to choose it. That's my last word on it--I'm not rising to any more bait in this thread.

I have to agree that it should be a woman choice and the man should keep it in his pants if he is not willing to support a possible outcome.

However I will tell you of a sad lady that I know of. She wants a child very badly and literally on her first date will have unprotected sex if the guy wants and will talk about children the minute she meets a new man. So much so that after sex with a guy where he wore a condom, and after when he went to the bathroom she took the condom and tried to impregnate herself (do not need to go in to more details then that I hope). Now imagine if she had gotten pregnant (she didn't), she could then claim child support. Now this is a woman who is probably bi-polar and have other psychological issues and is a rarity, but the man in my mind would be screwed (well twice).

So I 99.99% agree with women having that control aspect it is their body and we can not force them to have an abortion, and if we have sex we should be prepared for all possible outcomes. But like the example above, which is only a case I know of, and there is probably a lot more craziness out there, the man would be in my book getting the shaft.

Hows this scenario:

Married for years
Happily have three kids
Wife decides she wants another Man
Wife leaves and takes away everything that matters in life
Pay wife monthly for doing so

Shit Happens!

You get offended easy, no idea what you were trying to say in your post, but I'm right, you are wrong. You post really had nothing to do with wills question and was just another wild tangent of spam.

Thanks.

A woman can do what she wants with her body, but if an ovum is a part of a woman's body then sperm are a part of a man's body and with it are a link to a legal right of some sort over any child produced with his sperm. The pregnancy is impossible without the sperm, and considering the various paternity tests and child support payments, it's clear that the father bears just as much responsibility without getting any choice. That's not fair.

Let's go back in time. Say you're 23-24, unmarried and have a girlfriend you plan on marrying. She becomes pregnant. You want the child, she doesn't. Guess what? You can't do anything about it. She can go get an abortion and you have no legal vehicle by which to stop her. There are no father's rights, but there are father's responsibilities. In the same situation if she wants the child and you don't, she gets to have it and as the sex was consensual you are responsible for it.

It should be a man and woman's right to choose.

If we're not talking about rape (which shouldn't be included in this thread, frankly), then she is just as responsible as the man for having sex. More so, actually, as sociologically speaking the woman more often is the one who decides where or not sex is going to happen. If a man who has consensual sex with a woman must be responsible for the child, why not the woman?

You're giving the sperm to the woman. Once it's left your body it's no longer yours, and since it's only half of your genetic code it's not clearly "you". Yes pregnancy is not possible without your contribution, but you've implied consent to the consequences by engaging in the reproductive act. It's not fair if you consider each choice made after the initial decision to screw individually, but taken in context the diminished volition is all a consequence of that initial choice.


The male role in the reproductive cycle is one of insemination and as a provider. That's your job. Tough luck. There a plenty of trade-offs and you're not taking on a risk of death after carrying a parasite in your body for nine months. Those few women who actually abandon their young are actually doing their children a favor by leaving, and it's still the father's role to provide for the young.

So only men make a choice to reproduce? Or is the woman's choice negated by the fact that she happens to be the incubator? And who decided that "once it's left your body, it's no longer yours"? Why is ownership attached to location? If a baby leaves a woman's body, is it no longer hers? Or better still, if I eat your jewelry, is it now mine?

We're still seeing a glaring double standard.
The males role? Provider? Now who's outdated? I could have easily been a stay at home dad, and then what? Would I be in defiance of nature?

I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.

There is a tendency in this culture to blame pregnancy on the man but the truth is it takes 2 people to get pregnant. Comments like 'the man should keep it in his pants' are just offensive as 'the woman should keep her legs closed' and do nothing but create rifts in the conversation. They both chose to have sex (i'm not talking about rape here) and now they both have to deal with it.

Ok here is a little fuel for the fire, why do many clinics require the man to get his spouses permission in order to get a vasectomy?

I asked a lady friend of mine who is very adamant about "My body my rights" and she said good they should have to get permission. That seems like a major double standard there.

QFT. This is basically my entire point.
Because "my body my rights" only works on vaginas. It just slips right off balls. :no:

Rekna, that's probably the smartest statement I've seen in this whole argument. I'd like to join this debate, but fear emotions will defeat any purposeful argument I try and come up with.

I have strong feelings about this situation, but don't see any easy way for all parties involved to reach a fair resolution. Should a situation like this be left to the courts to hear both cases and decide for the mother what should be done with the child? Then, we have anti-abortion activitist parking their trucks with dead fetuses displayed on the side outside the courthouse, and accusing judges of being murderers. We also have the problem of court cases taking time, and by the time a resolution is had the birth could have taken place and everything could have changed. You also have the difficulty of during this time the mother's hormones are fluctuating wildly and something could be said one day that is the complete opposite of what was meant.

I don't think our current system works, I have NO idea how it could be fixed. So, continue on, I'll keep reading.

They should have been aborted. Nothing excuses behavior like that on either side of this. Protests aren't meant to be displays of hatred. They're supposed to be about making a public case for what you believe in.

Shame on anyone with a hateful message at a protest.

Uh, actually, no. This is a state issue (and very few of them, I believe) and in the states where there is a law demanding spousal consent for sterilization it affects both males and females.

Yes I don't think it is necessarily the law that enforces the permission (at least in the US) but more of the policy of the clinics.

I agree with the "sperm is a gift" sentiment, such that it's no longer your property and you have no claim to it, just as you wouldn't have claim to own part of a person after you spit on them.

What I do think should occur, however, is that the father should be able to provide a signed Statement of Intent prior to the second trimester of pregnancy.

He can either declare his intent to support the child to term and until the age of 18 or declare his intent to NOT support the child until adulthood.

Armed with this information, if the woman decides to conceive, she will be very well aware of the potential consequences. Knowing that there is a signed statement of intent to NOT support the child, she may be more inclined to not bring the child to term. If she does, though, and the man has declared intent to support, then he should be legally liable for support.

In my mind, a man only has rights to a fetus after he has declared intent to support.

Really this is something that should be discussed informally by people having sex, but in the event of a one-night stand that results in pregnancy, a legal Declaration of Intent would suffice.

I'm not going to be pedantic and spell this shit out for you. Yes, it's a double standard, one that's imposed by biology and social contract. I understand the sentiment you're trying to convey, but it's wrong. A man has a choice to give the sperm to a woman, and she has the choice of what to do with a fertilized egg. Should she carry it to term, the man's responsible for the child as a provider. Our socieconomic climate has certainly allowed for role reversals to occur but it's still the man's legal and social duty to provide for his kid.

I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the possible legal coercion of women to stay attached to men they want or need to stay away from. I could see a law like this easily being used to control and manipulate women in unhealthy relationships.

This does not take into consideration the considerable emotional effects of bearing and having a child. And what if the father cannot afford to do these things and still wants the baby? Or, is this going to be a law designed for the privileged?

I think life sometimes just isn't fair. And if men want to have children, they need to find someone who wants to have them with them. Last time I checked I didn't notice any shortage of kids running around. Pushing an issue like this will only be detrimental to women's rights to privacy and control of their reproductive systems. Backwards.

I would agree to this.

I can't imagine the courts forcing a pairing of any kind. There's basically no modern precedence, and it would possibly be a violation of the 14th (if you're a good lawyer).

Now that I think about it, one could argue the male's side of parental rights from a stance of the 14th Amendment. Hmm...

What, MM, do you think about the situation described by Rekna in which a father wants the baby and all responsibility, whereas the mother wants to abort? Obviously there is someone more than willing to take full responsibility, but it would require the woman to be pregnant. I see this as a weighing: is it worth 9 months of a woman's life for a man to be a father to his child?

Not an easy question, but no questions worth asking are easy.

That's great in principle. But what price does the father pay for the next nine months? Or if the woman's prepared to have the baby and the guy doesn't want it, she's forced to abort?

Perhaps there could be some requirement to name the father, be sure (legally?) he's notified and hope that an agreement between the two parties can be reached. The mother still makes the ultimate choice.

"If you're pissed, don't post." This thread has the potential to become very heated, so please leave your anger at the door. This goes for everyone.
A woman has a choice to allow her eggs to become fertilized and a man has a choice to fertilize them. She carry's it to term, but she is not the only parent. The man is only responsible as a provider if both parents agree that's his role. As I stated, there are plenty of stay-at-home dads out there, in fact there are so many that the idea of a rule or law concerning a man's role as the provider is antiquated. I'd say that saying a man's place is in the workplace is tantamount to saying a woman's place is in the kitchen, which is something I'm sure you'd never say seriously.

Yes, it's a double standard.

This would be a good question for pro-choicers. As someone who's more in the pro-life camp, I'd want to err on the side of not aborting, but that would be a function of my bias towards my philosophy on the subject.

For those who do believe that abortion is okay, it's obviously okay or a woman to have a baby aborted, but a man has no say?

I find it interesting that in some cases when DNA testing proves that a man is not the father of a child, the court rules he must pay support anyway because he assumed (was told by the woman) the child was his until later when he suspected something.

You don't seem to be taking into consideration that women don't pop babies out like jujubes. Carrying a baby to term and then giving them up to someone you have negative feelings about could be very...emotionally complicated.

I did address it with this:

At the same time you aren't considering the emotional affect of someone else aborting your child could have on you. As for affording I believe that all health care involving pregnancy should be covered by the government for everyone. For fathers who can't afford the lost wages I'm sure the right to life people would love to do some charities that would help pay for those costs in cases that people can't afford it. Also just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't help anyone.....

This is a bad idea because it encourages abortions. Dead beat dads would be jumping all over this to get out of paying. The government shouldn't ban abortion but they should have incentives to lessen the number of them that happen. For example, free pregnancy related health care and better adoption agencies which are FREE.

I think I'm fully considering that having your child aborted when it is still just a mass of tissue is far different than carrying a child for nine months and handing it over to someone you didn't want to have children with.

So, in effect, you are agreeing that privileged men should have more rights over something as keenly important as parenting than under-privileged men?

BTW, for the sake of this thread we're not discussing rape or ineffective prophylactics. This is unprotected sex between two consenting adults. We can have other threads about those other situations.

MM, I'm not suggesting that pregnancy is easy at all. Quite the opposite, which is why this is so complicated. The point I've been trying to make, though, is that the woman and man both decide to have sex. The woman decides right there along with the man. Just as a man should have to pay child support for his child, a woman should bear some level of responsibility. A function of said responsibility should be bearing a child that she helped to create if the man is willing and able to take care of it. I'm sure it's very emotionally and financially painful for a man to pay a good part of his wages to a woman he obviously doesn't want to be with and who he may not want raising his children. I've seen this drive a man to near-suicide, in fact. Just because one is a man doesn't mean that one is incapable of being hurt. Anyone, regardless of gender, can be emotionally damaged.

I cannot begin to imagine the pain of having someone I don't love steal my children and raise them without me. Or worse, have them killed before he or she is even born. That would likely scar me for the rest of my life.

If people irresponsibly have unprotected sex, they are both running the risk of being put in a situation where they are emotionally damaged as a direct result of their own actions.

You're assuming so many things in your support of an option for a male to "have his say"...

Substitute the word "state" for father, read the NY Times article I linked to at the bottom of post #4.

The first thing in the court proceeding is the judge appointed a "guardian" to "represent" the fetus....

This is a thread, whether by intent or design, about publicly exposing matters extremely sensitive and private, for a woman who becomes an object of a man resorting to some legal mechanism that does not currently exist, courts say it is settledl law, to seek redress in court to "preserve a pregnancy", with the goal of directing the authority of the state to force a full term pregnancy and birth.

Let's look on how it can "be done right".

Requirements would include a viable, timely, notification "process". Any woman who becomes pregnant would be required to notify any man who she has reason to believe has a probable paternity interest, in a timely way, via a "proof of notification" mechanism, acceptable as timely and verifiable in a resulting criminal or civil proceeding.

In the case where several individuals could possibly have a paternity interest, notification to multiple individuals would be neccessary.

To respond to issues of health risks associated with pregnancy, and to the possibility of changing fortunes of someone with a paternity interest involved in contesting termination of a pregnancy, posting a bond, early in the court proceeding, to fund medical expenses and protect against resulting disability or other temporary or permanent debilitating effects of the contested pregnancy, including birth defects, as well as to partially or fully fund reasonable child support for the ensuing 18 years.

Doesn't even the discussion, in recent posts, of commitment to provide financial support, and pay for lost wages and medical expenses, confine this "male right", to males of some significant financial means?

Do we really want to go there? A procedure to force an unwilling woman to endure a pregancy to full term and delivery at the insistance of a man who can afford financially, to qualify to do that?

Don't wealthy males have enough "rights", at the expense of the rest of us, already? For women living in poverty in rural areas, and in all of South Dakota, aren't "forced pregnancies", already the norm?

That is her choice, I am anti-abortion personally, but if you are willing to have sex you have to consider all possible consequences.

Sorry got to veto that, if you get or get someone pregnant why should my hard earned dollars go to support you.


I can agree with adoption agencies. I think they need to be better promoted, since there are a lot of people out there who would love to adopt. But again this should be the agency responsibility and not the government.


It is to me still a Child you are aborting whether month 1, or at the end.

Flip side of that argument: If they disagree as to the outcome, how can the woman insist on having the kid and then require the man, who didn't want it, to help pay for it?

If you want to argue the sperm-as-gift idea, then the logical extension of that is that if I have a girlfriend, and I give her $2,000, and she uses it to buy a car, I am 50% responsible for any future costs (oil changes, repairs, wrecks) related to that car.

We really need to have two versions of this thread. One for pro choice, one for pro life. Having both people discussing the same issue without being up front about it is going to lead to some serious miscommunications.

If you do not believe there is anything morally wrong with abortion, JinnKai's plan is the best possible one, although it still doesn't address the circumstance for "Father wants, mother doesn't" in which case there should be some sort allowance of pregnancy support paid (3 months of the mothers wages paid to allow her to stay home during 3rd trimester + all medical expenses, etc).

If you do believe that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, then this isn't even an issue you can intelligently discuss, as there is no set of circumstances which the mother should be able to abort.

If we're viewing the issue as policy makers rather than as potential participants, there needs to be a solution that allows for both the Father and Mother's beliefs about life/conception/etc.

Sorry if that came across as "mad." I think of it as "gruff" but I'll try and pay attention to my tone.

The social contract in these United States stands opposed to your opinion, so while you're entitled to that opinion you're also subject to the law and customs of the land. While I know that rationale has been used to defend social inequities in the past, the inequities of reproduction bolster the social standard. The father is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether he wants to be. I never said the mans' place is in the workplace, I said the man is always the provider. When the woman is earning the money, he's ensured the child is provided for. Should she, for whatever reason, stop earning the money, it's still his responsibility to ensure the child's provided for.

Yes, it's a double standard. Double standards aren't always a bad thing, and sometimes there's no reasonable alternative.

It's the woman's body. I know pro-lifer's want to blur the issue, but it's the woman's body and the fetus is a parasite, unable to survive outside the womb until, with the aide of cutting edge technology, roughly the 24th week of gestation. You deal with your parasites, let a woman deal with hers.

What about this statement, which is similar to yours:
"The mother is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether she wants to be." Sounds very pro-life.
A fetus is a symbiont, not a parasite. The mother provides protection and nourishment and the child provides a continuation of the species. The relationship is symbiotic.

Not only that, but does housing suggest ownership? As I stated before, if I eat your jewelry, is it then mine? Because if that's the case, then I see a lucrative future in ingesting precious stones in my future.

No you are considering how you would feel but not how others might feel. There are many people out there that would be devastated and don't view it as a "mass of tissue". I think if someone wants to take care of the baby and nurture it it should be born.


I'm not saying that at all. Do you think privileged men have more right to eat than non-privileged? There is a difference between the way things should be and the way things are and it is best not to confuse the two.

You are wrong, there are still many ways we can discuss this. This type of belief yields no progress in the debate.

I would do everything in my power to prevent someone else from aborting my baby (with an exception for health issues). I believe that having a baby is better than aborting a baby. At the same time I believe that my morals should not be forced upon others and nor should theirs be forced upon me and therefore do not believe we should ban abortion. Instead I think there is a place where both prochoicers and prolifers can agree and that is that we should make it easier for mothers who do not want their babies to have their babies find a good home. We need to provide incentive for these mothers to put their babies up for adoption and make the process easier for everyone.

Sounds like you're using a loose definition of child. Before it's born, it's a fetus. A woman is free to keep and care for a fetus, or have it removed from her body. A man's responsible for the consequences of his insemination from conception through <arbitrary age of maturity assigned by society>.

No, biologically the fetus is a parasite. It robs the mother of nutrients and alters her body irrevocably whilst in the womb. The symbiotic relationship is metaphorical at best, as species propagation is correlative to gestation.

Again with the word play :p If you swallow jewelry, your body will generally expel it from your body in a natural process, but should you chose to circumvent that process through any of a variety of methods, you have that right.

If you chose to go to school why should I subsidize your education? If you have children why should I pay for their public school? If you drive a car why should I subsidize your gas? If I don't drive why should I have to pay for roads?

It's taxes, deal with it.

Do you really view unborn babies as parasites? I'm sorry but that is a very bad comparison and i'm sure most people would agree that an unborn baby is not a parasite.

A woman is clearly not responsible, then, but a man is. If a woman were responsible, she would have to keep the child (mind you this has everything to do with responsibility and nothing to do with pro-life/pro-choice).

If you were to get in an accident with your car and said "My car, my choice", would you be acting in a way that's responsible or not?
Continuation of the species is hardly metaphorical.
If you are pregnant with a child your body will generally expel it from your body in a natural process.

Most people agree there's some sort of divine interventional agent in their lives too. It takes all kinds, thank god for science.

A man is responsible for his insemination. A woman gets to chose. Double standard.

False analogies don't help the conversation.

That's not what I said. I said calling it symbiotic is metaphorical, because gestation isn't an assurance of that outcome, it's contributory, correlative.



Yet you can chose to circumvent that process through a variety of methods.

Science... like sociology, anthropology and evolution, all of which put massive importance on the innate want for the continuation of the species being necessary? Thank god for science, indeed.
Gestation of a fetus is not just contributory to propagation, it IS propagation.

We've managed to eliminate so many natural selectors that the morality of a positive or even zero population growth is debatable. The innate want is why we need abortions in the first place. Our inability to address our biology in an honest manner leaves so many people unprepared for the consequences of their actions. That and our backwards attitudes towards contraception.

That's a very limited use of the word. Propagation is a process that requires the adults stay healthy to care for the child, and the child to stay healthy enough to mature and reproduce. Making babies is not the be all end all.

It has everything to do with pro-choice/anti-abortion (we pro-choicers are pro-life, too, ya know) -- how responsible would it be for a young woman to keep a baby when she can't even provide for herself?

It can't always be about equity/equality. The priority should be geared to protect the interest of that potential baby.

Morality is not science. We were talking about science, remember?
I didn't say it was the end all, but it's the genesis and without it there is no propagation.
The father could be responsible, assuming he's willing and able. That's the point. Just because the mother doesn't want the baby doesn't mean the father doesn't. And just because the mother has to spend 9 months taking responsibility for her knowing actions doesn't mean that the father shouldn't have any say whatsoever. I may not agree with abortion, but I think I understand it. It's a bizarre combination of responsibility (understanding that one cannot care for the child) and irresponsibility (I fucked someone even though I shouldn't have).
Hypothetically, which would you consider is the best interest:
1) Abortion
2) A loving father

BTW, I like your avatar.

The end story is right now women in the reproductive rights have a monopoly.

The double standard is the only one in which feminists have not attacked, relying now on the exact same social constructs which they have everywhere else torn down and been made politically incorrect simply because it is one major area which works in their favor.

Morality has a place in science, in fact it often guides and motivates science. I'd be over the moon if they could perfect contraception or develop reversible sterilizations. There's no true need for them but it's a morally optimal solution.

So we're back to what I said in the first place, it's correlative to, but not synonymous with, propagation, and not a reciprocal benefit of gestation.

How could I not agree with a loving father? :warm-n-fuzzy: Will you co-sign for that young father who thinks he wants a baby but realizes he can't handle the responsibility once he has it? Then you'll be there for him, ya?

The avatar: Thank you. Daughter E took the picture of daughter A. Don't tell Admin they're minors. :p

Because every loving father clearly can't provide for his kid.

We should really stop catering to the exception....

Not everyone will be a perfect parent, but to be perfectly honest that's never been something that has prevented people from trying. I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
My lips are sealed. Oh god, now they've gone! :expressionless:

Personally, I'm in favor of extending the "Keep-your-legs-closed-if-you-don't-want-to-have-a-baby" mentality onto women.

Will, I am sure you know that before the Roe v. Wade decision each state legislated abortion as they saw fit. During that time some states did require the approval of the husband for a woman to have an abortion. The father's rights issues that we are discussing now, were the norm at one time and I believe returning to that position would have negative consequences far greater than what you are suggesting a man now has.

Allow me to offer a personal experience, as briefly as possible:
- Elph believes she is pregnant
- Elph is afraid of her husband
- Mr. Elph would like to *cement* the marriage with a child

Now run with all the various ways a scenario of that kind can play out and let me know if you come up with a positive outcome, when Mr. Elph legally calls the shots.

It's just one example of the many I know of prior to Roe v. Wade. "My body, my choice" is not something to toss aside for "my sperm, my choice."

Assuming the woman's fear extends to a rational urge to leave and get away, the male would not be in a situation to have consensual sexual relations with the woman. This would mean that she would not become pregnant and thus the concern over a male's rights to an unborn child don't apply.

I'm not intending to be disrespectful, but this thread is about consensual sex between two adults where no prophylactic is used (a vast majority of abortions result from just such a situation). The situation you are describing either involves a woman being coerced, raped, or not impregnated.

This is not tossing anything aside, either. I want to make sure that there are at least some paternal rights. As of right now, there are none.

If you *willingly* participate in sex and produce a baby because of it, then you should *legally* be required to accept the consequences of those actions-- Man, woman or otherwise. No more of this "Well, I'm just not ready to be a parent!" excuse that 99.7% (Last statistic I saw. It's posted somewhere on one of those other abortion threads) of women who have an abortion give. If you feel as if you're not ready to be a potential parent, then you shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

/endthreadhijack

Perhaps I wasn't clear, Will. I gave you a real situation about me and my first husband. We were watching ptsd melt down our marriage (thus the fear), and his fear of abandonment was causing more and more physical control. The feared pregnancy was due to failed contraception. Would it change your OP much if Mr. Elph faked the use of contraception?

No offense, Will, but I think this exhibits a real naivete to the dynamics of an emotionally abusive relationship. And I'll go so far as to say that any law requiring women to have children because the father wants them to will be just as likely to be as a means of controlling the woman as it is to satisfy some dude who got laid one night and decided he wanted the resulting kid.

From what I see of the arguments in your favor here (not necessarily yours), they are predicated on two factors:

1. resentment towards women
and
2. anti-abortion stances

I don't trust arguments based on either of these attitudes to be in the interest of real men dealing conscientiously with this issue.

This is how the current situation boils down, no rape/coercion/mental instability counted.

If a woman conceives and does not want to be a mother, she's pro-choice.

If a man conceives and does not want to be a father, he's a dead-beat no good worthless turd.

Yes, some women might become pregnant through an emotionally abusive relationship, but the facts are that such situations are simply not reflective of abortions as a whole as they represent a minority. In other words, fringe occurrences shouldn't be used as arguing points as they don't adequately represent the majority.

The bottom line here is that most abortions are performed not because of rape and/or physical/emotional abuse, but because the woman does not feel like being a mother. It'd be a cold day in hell before a man can skip fatherhood because he doesn't feel like it.

That about sums it up :thumbsup:

I was trying desperately to steer the conversation away from something deeply personal that could be misinterpreted as an appeal to emotion while simultaneously showing you respect that I want to show. You're very good people and the last thing I'd want to do is be disrespectful to you (or your husband).

I'll try to make this clear:
I stated clearly that this thread is about situations where two consenting adults have intercourse without contraception. Failed contraception means that your situation does not fall under the scope of this thread.

The last thing I want to do is be dismissive of your situation, which was clearly serious. It's just not a part of this particular thread.

While my degree in psychology doesn't make me an expert on the dynamics of relationships from a psychological perspective, it pretty much precludes naivete on the subject.

I appreciate the false choice fallacy, though, as it actually proves my points. My stance is pro-equality, which indicates that your two factors are not the only two factors that could be in play. I don't resent women, and my stance on abortion has to do with personal responsibility, which of course ties into this but it's hardly the whole case.

As for this: [QUOTEmixedmedia]... I'll go so far as to say that any law requiring women to have children because the father wants them to will be just as likely to be as a means of controlling the woman as it is to satisfy some dude who got laid one night and decided he wanted the resulting kid.[/QUOTE]
You realize how sexist this comes off, right? All men either are controlling or are idiots? Or did you miss group 3, good men who not only want to take responsibility for their actions but also want children? Or do you believe that they don't exist?

Yikes.

This isn't what we are talking about.

Well, explain it to me then because that's what I got out of what I read :confused:

Edit: If wanting there to be some sort of 'equality' between men and women when it comes to reproduction makes me resentful, then I guess I'm the biggest women hater in the world :rolleyes:. I mean no disrespect or anything, but I can do the same thing that you did.

Any woman who agrees with the current set-up is either:

1.) Pro-abortion or

2.) Has had an abortion in the past.

See how easy it is to group people into two-narrow categories?

And if a woman conceives, wants the baby, takes responsibility, carries, births, raises and provides for said baby,

And the man conceives, wants the baby on his terms, brings a box of diapers once a month and birthday presents annually, he's a daddy.

No matter how you sculpt it, it's not fair. Women know that life isn't fair. That's why we carry babies.

Elphaba's example is perfect. Or how about a 37-year old woman who's just pumped out two babies in the past two years (planned) who finds herself pregnant while she's still breastfeeding (OBs assure you that nursing mothers cannot become pregnant) and simply can not handle working fulltime, caring for four children and paying child care for them all, while her marriage is losing strength?

What about the young woman in her late teens or early 20s, a little naive, ends up in bed with a guy who promises to use a condom and she believes him when he says he's wearing one, or tells her "But baby it feels good, I'll pull out" and she thinks she's safe.

I'm aware that Willravel stated this all relates to consensual sex, but unless two people are in an amazingly secure union, there are so many scenarios -- and surely I haven't seen or heard 'em all -- that tell us why women are the ones with the right to choose.

I maintain that I do agree on the point of paternal notification. In an idealistic world, both parties agree. But they often don't, and I don't know many women who would carry a baby for a man that they no longer want in their life and hand him the baby after nine months.

I'd like to re-iterate my point about "Not having sex if you're unable to deal with the possible consequences".

*Sigh*

But maybe that's expecting too much of people.

Edit: And ignorance should never be an excuse. That really annoys me.

Sorry, but this is a moot point. A man can not tell if a woman is on the pill, ANY woman knows if the man is using a condom.

A woman carrying the baby is something we can not create equality in. We can not allow a man to carry a baby, so there's no point in arguing.

I find this thread interesting, and there is really nothing for me to add at this point beyond the solution is to not have sex with women who view abortion as a form of birth control I do want to just point out a bit of a error on this part.

While ovulation is suppressed with breast feeding, and the chances of getting pregnant are greatly reduced, its frequent enough that they will put you on the mini-pill while breast feeding, at least any women I've known who were breast feeding.

I refuse to believe that women are that stupid. The "yes, but what if we're all idiots?" rule can't apply to the law, can it? Can't we hold ourselves to a reasonable standard? Or is it just "he said he'd pull out"?

If you don't have a vagina of your own, don't make comments regarding whether a woman "knows" if a man is wearing a condom or not. Sometimes (especially if a condom is thin and you were not the one to put it on him/guide him in), you CAN'T tell, and in my experience women are not usually the ones to notice if a condom is coming off or if it has broken. It is not always possible to tell, so please don't make generalized bullshit statements regarding that unless you have the experience/survey results to back it up.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no child should be brought into the world unless it is wanted, preferably by both parents. If I didn't want to carry a child for whatever reason, I don't believe a court should be able to force me to do so. If a man really wants a child, he should find a woman who is willing to have one with him and raise it properly. I know that this thread is focusing on a "good relationship, consensual sex" point of view, and I feel that in that situation having children should be a mutual decision. Totally. It should be something discussed beforehand, especially if the couple is not using birth control. If either partner is not ready for the responsibility, USE CONTRACEPTIVES. That's what they're made for.

Fixed that for you.

Good job.

I apologize for getting heated, but I'm not a fan of a man telling me what a woman can or cannot feel if he's never had a vagina of his own. Maybe experience with anal (with a man, not a strapon) both with and without a condom would be an acceptable substitute experience.

No worries. It's a serious subject.

Okay, I'm way off but let's look at the flip side of this issue:

I think the key phrase in the title of this thread is "My Choice."

My choice, my choice... hmm... Pro Choice = Pro Abortion.

Choice means that I don't HAVE to have a mistake-baby (TM), right?

How much does it cost to make a baby, again? However much you spent on dinner, most likely. My favorite theme is how cheap human life is when you really get down to it and put away your mamby-pampy feelings.

The only issue I'm ever concerned with as far as parental rights are related to legal and financial responsibility. I'll slamdunk an unwanted fetus before I ruin my life.

This issue smells like a heap legal mumbo-jumbo. Should I get my partners to sign a waiver before we have sex stating that I am free from responsibility for all unwanted pregnancies despite the use of birth control?

We live in an educated society. Storks don't bring rugrats. No cabbage patch. Women know damn well that my tallywacker squirts baby-maker. They hold the keys to the clubhouse. They have the receptacle. We have the insane poke reflex like a braindead dog. Modern technology like condoms, the female birth control pill, the "morning after" pill... they supersede the old favorite methods like using a fake name, Jack Daniels, blowing it on her stomach, moving to Mexico or a straightened coat hanger.

...

Rights, rights, rights... I got nothing. Legal dominion over biological processes that have been going on for thousands of years.

Can a man tell a woman to keep growing an unwanted child?

Can a man tell a woman to abort an unwanted child?

Sure, it takes two to tango... but only one carries the bastard.

In this case, I feel that possession is 9/10s of the law.

...

I wish good (common) sense won out over horniness.

It still kicks my ass all the time.

As always, Crompsin gets all reality stupid. :D

Much better to protect the children of both wealthy and poor fathers. But it'd be an improvement nonetheless. Yes, I would really want to go there, but by no means would I want to stop there.

As to the OP:

A system in which women can disregard the rights of the z/e/f - 'I can abort anytime I want to' - but in which men can't, is a terrible system.

A system 'fair' to both women - 'I can abort the responsibilities' - and men - 'You can always abort your responsibilities, it's on you' - is an even worse system.

Consistency here is not necessarily better. Consistency could mean more state-condoned murder. Consistency would only be an improvement if it meant the criminalization of z/e/f abandoment for both sexes.

Otherwise, it's a foolish consistency.

(Needless to say, I don't like Roe.)

And here I thought having kids just because an unwanted fetus is growing inside some woman (with no other good reason like the availability of solid financial support, finishing your education, emotional preparation, or future relationship obligations) and possibly ruining two perfectly normal young lives was foolish.

Who needs money, family, college, or feelings? We have a fetus! IT'S A MIRACLE! Pfft, you know what is a miracle to me? People taking care of themselves.

Changing this to "quoted for complete agreement" since referring to this statement as "truth" is "childish."

Sweet William, when did bullet points become "deeply personal or an appeal to emotion?" I left the outcome an open question for the purpose of continuing the conversation, and not some sort of what..? Attention seeking from something that happened over three decades ago? Nah, honey...I don't come from some sort of regret or victimhood from those long ago days. C'mon, you know me better than that. :)

It was *only* a personal experience, that holds no current regret or even sadness. There *was* a positive outcome that had nothing to do with abortion. I simply asked you to come up with a positive outcome for a situation of that kind.

We all have our fortes. Mine is having no clue as to what you mean by this.

I didn't mean to say it was intentional. Most logical fallacies are accidents.

You're right, I have no idea what it's like to have a vagina.

However, I DO have a penis and I know that latex feels a lot different than a vagina.

I also have many female friends who openly talk about these sort of things and all of them to a T can feel the difference themselves. (they prefer the real thing)

You're right, I don't have a vagina. But the feel of skin and latex are very different, especially in such a sensitive area.

It takes a big man to admit that.

Did I influence your emotion or anyone else here? I honestly don't think so. :)

It takes more than your perception of my post to make it a logical fallacy. Granted, Bill O'Reilly gets away with that sort of claim every day, *and* there are more thoughtful members participating in this thread that would never allow a self-serving boo-hoo go unchallenged, by me or anyone else.

I can only repeat, once again, that I don't find the plight of the father under any number of circumstances worthy of forcing a woman to carry a child to term. That is the bottom line that your argument, isn't it?

Nah. As foolish as it might be to 'ruin' two lives, it's a lot more foolish to murder one life.

Yes, a fetus taking care of itself would be a miracle.

I have to say that i'm liking the crompsin angle here.

I don't think that a man should be able to compel a woman to have a child. Pregnancy is often a very complicated thing, and there are always risks. At what point do potential risks to the woman's life take precedence over a man's desire to have a child with an unwilling partner? Does the man get to tell the woman what she can and can't ingest during the pregnancy? There are ways to encourage a miscarriage. It just doesn't seem like a very reasonable position to take when exposed to the harsh light of speculation. It's an understandable perspective if you take away the whole historical context of male dominance, but with context firmly in place it seems kind of gross.

It would make much more sense to me if the father could opt out as some sort of analog to abortion. Even that would be a can of worms.

Life ain't fair. Biology doesn't favor male choice when it comes to the growth of a fetus, them's the breaks. You might as well be advocating for some sort of legal remedy for the size differences between men and women.

... and I say it isn't murder if they aren't sucking on a delicious booby yet!

You assume I define the following: fetus = person. Turns out? I don't.

So I'm only alive maybe twice a week?!

Why are fathers compelled to take care of an unwanted child? Because we've yet to reach the point in our society where we tell a newborn, "Fuck you, go get a job and buy your own damn dinner." We're getting there, but we aren't there yet.

And there's the almost-inevitable stalemate. (Not really over person, though, that's a legal term. That fact can be changed by the stroke of a pen.)

I don't understand how it couldn't be considered a human being. Presumably, you don't understand how it could be. To me, nine months of normal mobility and health is easily not as important as that unborn child. To you, nine months of normal mobility and health is easily more important than that clump of cells.

And it comes down to your "you're unjustly imposing your will on another human being" versus my "I'm responding to the unjust imposition of one will on another human being".

That's the script, right? Just figured I'd lay it out and save some time. But let me know if I'm missing/misunderstanding something of your position.

(p.s. - not to you - 'QFT' is a pretty childish toy to use in a contentious and unsettled debate like this.)

This thread is about father's rights.

How about "quoted for agreement" then? You could at least address who you're referring to or address your complaint directly to me.

I also don't believe that life begins at conception. I believe life begins at birth. I also refer to "pro-life" as "anti-choice" because that's the way I see things. But this thread wasn't started to debate whether abortion is murder or not, it's about discussing paternal rights or lack thereof.

Watch me be childish again, since I find this cartoon amusing (and yes, it was drawn to be offensive):

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/pregnant.jpg

Maybe for you it is...doesn't seem to be so for others.

I'm the thread starter. I authored the OP.

It ain't fair. Pro-life or pro-abortion? Same clown car of rusty nails.

Pro-Abortion: Does daddy get a chance to murder babies too?

Pro-Life: Does daddy get a chance to bring another illegitimate bastard into the world?

Trying to keep any thread about abortion on topic is about as futile as resisting the Borg.

Give it up, will. I know you desperately want to keep this under control, but you can't start a thread like this and expect to be its daddy for more than 5 posts.

I'm quite aware that you authored the OP. I'm just making an observation regarding the obvious.

I think there is little chance this subject can be discussed without constant interjection from folks with an agenda.

Laziness and a slow connection on my part, that's all.

It's pretty unavoidably tied in. My response to the OP wouldn't make much sense without that part.

It should be rather obvious that fathers rights and liberal are not compatible concepts, at least as it applies to the unborn.

What I said in my first post is all that needed to be said on this issue. As soon as you give a father ANY rights prior to birth you negate the core arguments of the pro-abortion crowd.

There can never be a compromise in this without calling abortion itself into question.

Will, this can't be just a discussion of father's rights. Implicitly in what you're proposing is some sort of limitation of the right for human beings to have sovereignty over what goes on with their bodies.

Father's rights don't exist for unborn children, and i would argue that they probably shouldn't for the simple fact that any sort of laws protecting them would be necessarily over reaching and also necessarily unenforceable. Women have been known to risk death to have an abortion, what makes you think that some vague notion of responsibility to the father would mean all that much?