March for Women's Lives

[Forthe]

No I think the male should have no right to decide what happens to the woman. I also believe the woman should have no right to decide what happens to the man. They both should make the choice for themselves.

But if the man decides he's not going to support the child in any way, he's deciding more than what happens in his own life. He's also deciding what happens in the woman's life, and in the child's life.

He isn't making any decisions for the woman. She may be effected by his decision but no choice was made for the female by the male and she is only effected if she chooses to be (does not choose abortion or adoption).

I think maybe some of you are focusing too much on what happens if the woman doesn't have an abortion, and not enough on the fact that having an abortion can be just as life altering for a woman as having a child can.

A man can be effected by a woman's choice to have an abortion similar to your comments above. However, this does not in any way give the male any dominion over the woman's choice to have an abortion or not. Nor should it.

[Winnow]

We can assume that in other relationships, such as one night stands and casual sexual relationships, the woman may care less about the man's opinion as to whether the pregnancy should be terminated. In these cases, though, there is a much greater risk that the man will avoid, or attempt to avoid, taking responsibility for the child, should it be born.

Sorry to interrupt but it doesn't matter if a man is more apt to avoid responsibility or not. If you don't pay child support, you go to jail. That's the way it is in Arizona.

In Arizona, you go to jail on weekends and at night and are free to work during the day. You remain in jail until your child support is up to date. Arizona's jails are full of men that haven't paid child support. I understand the men in there that had children while married and have ignored their responsibilities but how many were in the situation that had mutual consented sex and after the unwanted pregnancy told the mother directly that they didn't desire the child and offered to pay for an abortion? ...again...the mother has the option to abort, put up for adoption or keep the child... the father has the option to support or go to jail.

The woman has complete control over this. The man that had casual sex with a woman also desiring only casual sex is now faced with jail unless he pays support. How is that equality? And in the opposite situation where the woman is well off but still wishes to abort, the man has no legal options (as it should be). This isn't always about money. A wealthy woman still has three options while the man has none even if he won't be financially liable.

As Sueven said, I can't believe the hypocrisy of pro choice people on this thread.

You should just go ahead and state directly that the man gives up his rights at the time of intercourse and argue that point. I don't think you realize the seriousness of neglecting child support and that's the 100 percent power a woman has over a man with an unplanned pregnancy.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php? ... _deadbeats

The Arizona Attorney General's Office this week delivered a stern - and a needed - reminder that court-ordered child support payments are not optional.

Forty people were arrested when officers swept across the Tucson area with warrants naming people who collectively owed millions of dollars in child support.

Thirty-seven of those arrested were taken to jail, where they will stay until they pay what they owe. And the hunt isn't over. Authorities are looking for 100 other people who are seriously in arrears.

Pay up or get locked up.

Again, I'm not saying child support is wrong in any way to divorced couples although a night of casual sex has far reaching repercussions on both sides but the female has a few options.

Also note that a woman was also arrested so in the case of a divorced couple, money making women go to jail as well.

[Aaeamdar]

why is a man's choice to not take responsibility for his child not protected by the same reasoning? Why is it not a choice "central to personal dignity and autonomy" under the rubric provided by the court?

The somewhat flip answer is "because its just money."

A more detailed answer is, the duty to pay child support is just not a liberty interest of the sort refered to. Not all (and in fact not many) things "related to procreation" are protected by the Constituation. Sex (and until just one year aog, only heterosexual sex), contraception, abortion - that's it. I think it is not a stretch to look at those things - all of which involve very intimate, personal acts is a far cry from writing a check each month. Just because that check is being written because of procreation, does not make the act of writing a check some highly person, private act due the protections of constiutional liberty.

Child rearing is not protected, or at least not fully. You do not have, for example, a constitutional right to violently discipline your children. Same with education. Every state requires that children below a certain age must attend school. Now, the parents have (guaranteed by the constitution) broad discretion on how their children are to be educated, but no choice as to whether they will be educated and there are limits to this guarantee even within legitimate educational choices.

It should be really clear that there is no protection for things "related to marriage." The individual States have always defined for themselves what marriage is and even are given leave to refuse to recognize marriages of other States. I am confident that if a State chose to do so, it could choose to not recognize marriage at all.

I could really go on an on about all the things "related to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education" that are not protected at all. But basically, if its not sex, contraception or abortion, it has no constitutional protection.

While the SC often draws some seemly arbitrary lines while devloping constitutional doctrine, I think in this case the line is not at all arbitrary. Looking at sex, contraception and abortion, I think you can see the clearly deeply personal, private nature of those acts that make protection of them necessary, and likewise, can see that the right "not to write a check" is equally obviously not something "central to personal dignity and autonomy."

[Sueven]

But it's not solely a money issue. It's not the choice not to write a check- it's the choice not to be a father. Money is simply one of the things that goes into it. While it may not be as personally invasive as the abortion issue, I think the choice to be a father is a deeply personal one not to be made lightly.

Etasi:

But if the man decides he's not going to support the child in any way, he's deciding more than what happens in his own life. He's also deciding what happens in the woman's life, and in the child's life.

And if the woman decides to have an abortion, she decides what goes on in the man's life, and the childs life.

However, I really would like someone to comment on what I said in my above post about legal abortion giving men the right to have sex with absolutely no consequences. If men have the 'right' to this, then so do women.

OK, I'll answer it. No, it does not give men rights to have sex with absolutely no consequences. If a man were to choose the option of legal abortion, they would be responsible for filing whatever paperwork was necessary, and they would be financially responsible for paying for an abortion, if the woman chooses that option. There are also plenty of emotional ramifications. Additionally, giving men an option to deal with pregnancy sure as hell doesn't resolve any problems with STD's, so there's another potential consequence of sex for men to deal with.

Women face basically the same consequences, with the added physical side effects that come with being pregnant. If I could think of some way to even this load, I would. It is, as you said, a physical inequality. It is what it is.

And:

Except that isn't true. Depending on his relationship with the woman, he does have some say. You cannot ignore that simply because she's the one who's setting foot in the abortion clinic and she's not. Some women will take into account the father's viewpoint. The more likely she is to take his opinion into consideration, the more likely he is to actually take responsibility for the child once it's born.

All of that is well and good. Theoretically, a man would be taking the woman's feelings into account when deciding whether or not to have a legal abortion, too. When it comes time for a decision to be made though, it's the woman's decision. If she says yes, she gets an abortion. If she says no, she doesn't. There is absolutely nothing the man can do or say to change that (unless he goes apeshit and kills her or something). Thus, a woman has 100% of the say. It is her decision, regardless of where she seeks input.

[Lalanae]

1. You guys are totally evading the point that men DO have control over whether they become fathers or not: at the point of sexual relations. You are not powerless, you are just looking for a way out of being responsible.

2. Do you think the woman who has that choice to make WINS OUT over the guy? You are making it seem like she is the lucky one because she gets to choose. She loses out either way. Abortions aren't trips to Disneyland. The way I see it, the man gets a 50/50 chance he doesn't have to deal with the unwanted pregnancy. A woman has to deal with it REGARDLESS of her decision. How is that unfair to the man?

3. If you had a signed contract do you think for a second you would even bother with birth control? After all, if she gets pregnant, you have no responsibility. Why should you care? Besides no woman is going to sign a contract like that. You'll never get laid requesting something like that.



I'm sorry you guys have a problem with the way biology works, but until men get pregnant, women will always have to deal with the brunt of pregnancy-related issues. The right to have the final say is a result of our biological difference and it is not one we enthusiastically cheer about when we get in a position to utilize that "power."

You guys are a bunch of fucking whiners.

[Winnow]

1. You guys are totally evading the point that men DO have control over whether they become fathers or not: at the point of sexual relations. You are not powerless, you are just looking for a way out of being responsible.

2. Do you think the woman who has that choice to make WINS OUT over the guy? You are making it seem like she is the lucky one because she gets to choose. She loses out either way. Abortions aren't trips to Disneyland. The way I see it, the man gets a 50/50 chance he doesn't have to deal with the unwanted pregnancy. A woman has to deal with it REGARDLESS of her decision. How is that unfair to the man?

3. If you had a signed contract do you think for a second you would even bother with birth control? After all, if she gets pregnant, you have no responsibility. Why should you care? Besides no woman is going to sign a contract like that. You'll never get laid requesting something like that.



I'm sorry you guys have a problem with the way biology works, but until men get pregnant, women will always have to deal with the brunt of pregnancy-related issues. The right to have the final say is a result of our biological difference and it is not one we enthusiastically cheer about when we get in a position to utilize that "power."

You guys are a bunch of fucking whiners.

1. Yes men have an equal choice not to have sex at all. Men have no choice after sex and an unwanted accidental pregnancy. Thus, men choose their fate upon the decision to have intercourse while women choose thier fate at the moment of intercourse as well but also may choose the mans and childs fate afterwards while the man can't. Your position is that if the man and women screw up during sex and have an accidental pregnancy, it's completely in the hands of the woman from there on out. I disagree with the man's future being held by the female who equally screwed up but has the choice to abort or put up for adoption or force a man to be a parent. It's a one sided process after pregnancy. Anyway you look at it, it's unfair to the man after a mutual error in judgement or just a plain completely accidental pregnancy.

2. No one is saying a woman has it easy. You can't guage the level of emotional trauma for a man or woman due to an unwanted pregnancy. The point here is that the woman has control over a man's future and whether that's justified or not. There is no argument at all that the woman has the right to do anyting she wishes with her own body after becoming pregnant.

3. Perhaps oral sex is the way to go as for the moment the woman has complete control of casual sex in case of an accident. The fact remains that the woman has 3 options after an unwanted pregnancy and men only have equality in the option to not have sex at all. To reverse this, women wouldn't be getting much sex either if a man thought this through each night out.

Bottom line is if women want to be fair while having recreational sex, they need to acknowledge that a man has as much right to opt out of parenthood as the female.

[Zaelath]

I find it amusing that Winnow falls back to "make abortion illegal and at least it would be an even playing field". Does that mean it's more about power than money?

If that's the case, imagine how you'd feel if you *wanted* the child, were prepared to sign anything to say you'd raise it and pay for everything, and the woman decided to abort.

I'm fairly sure men have the upper hand most of the time, outside sex and abortion. Besides, who said life was supposed to be "fair"?

[Winnow]

I find it amusing that Winnow falls back to "make abortion illegal and at least it would be an even playing field". Does that mean it's more about power than money?

If that's the case, imagine how you'd feel if you *wanted* the child, were prepared to sign anything to say you'd raise it and pay for everything, and the woman decided to abort.

I'm fairly sure men have the upper hand most of the time, outside sex and abortion. Besides, who said life was supposed to be "fair"?

The discussion here is about what's fair, not about how life isn't fair as it stands...I think that's the whole point.

I stated that this wasn't about money. I man could desparately want to keep a child and the woman could still abort it. Anyway you slice it, the man has zero control over the child or the woman and I completely agree with this. The man can't control the outcome of the child but should be able to control his own outcome the same as the woman can. We are discussing a man having control over their own fate with relation to unwanted pregnancies that a woman can terminate or keep as she chooses.

Remember, these are unplanned and undesired circumstances for both parties.

[Zaelath]

So you'd be sanguine about the issue if abortion was illegal?

[Voronwë]

pretty low risk of males becoming pregnant during intercourse, as such i'm content to have less control of reproductive decision making commenserate with the lack of personal jeopardy wherein i am placed should i choose to copulate.

[Sueven]

Zaelath, I know you're not talking to me, but:

So you'd be sanguine about the issue if abortion was illegal?

No, I'd argue that abortion should be legal. I'm arguing in favor of both.

Lalanae:

1. You guys are totally evading the point that men DO have control over whether they become fathers or not: at the point of sexual relations. You are not powerless, you are just looking for a way out of being responsible.

No, I'm not. You are absolutely correct that men do have this choice. I'm not arguing against this point. What I am saying is that women are in the exact same position: they have a choice at the point of sexual relations. I don't understand why saying that this is a sufficient choice for men but not women is not hypocritical. I could argue for legal abortion in the exact same way that pro-choice advocates argue for regular abortion that is not medically necessary, but you already know those arguments.

2. Do you think the woman who has that choice to make WINS OUT over the guy? You are making it seem like she is the lucky one because she gets to choose. She loses out either way. Abortions aren't trips to Disneyland.

No, the woman does not "win out." She is not lucky. It sucks that she has to deal with the physical and hormonal changes that go along with a pregnancy. Sadly, there's not a fucking thing I can do about it. If you want, feel free to go out and design some sort of technology that would allow the man to bear some of the woman's physical burden, and then we can talk about splitting up that burden equitably. At this point, it can't be done.

The way I see it, the man gets a 50/50 chance he doesn't have to deal with the unwanted pregnancy. A woman has to deal with it REGARDLESS of her decision. How is that unfair to the man?

This is not true. First of all, it's not a chance, it's a choice. That aside, he still does have to deal with it, emotionally and financially. Emotionally, he has to accept relinquishing his child, and he must ethically reconcile his abandonment. Financially, he remains responsible for the woman's medical expenses. He still has to deal with the emotional and financial ramification of pregnancy- the exact same ramifications he had to deal with without the option of legal abortion. The woman has to deal with the emotional, financial, and physical ramifications of pregnancy with or without the abortion right. Yes, the woman must deal with the physical aspects of pregnancy. If you have any brilliant solutions to distribute the physical burden, I'd love to hear them.

I didn't respond to point 3, as I didn't feel it relevant to my portion of the discussion. If you'd like a response, let me know.

[Winnow]

So you'd be sanguine about the issue if abortion was illegal?

Totally.

With no choice for the mother to abort, the man should be 100 percent behind the support of the child. Welcome to last century though in terms progress.

Per arguments on this thread, it would seem that men would go nuts if no responsibility were placed on them...on the same hand, wouldn't everyone be more cautious if abortion weren't possible? It seems that the only gender being forced to be cautious is the man who has no choice after the initial accidental pregnancy. The fact is that whether abortion is legal or illegal, men and women still have accidental pregnancies at an alarming rate so I don't think not having abortion as an option is a deterrent.

I just find it amusing that woman fight passionately for the right to CHOOSE the fate of themselves and child while they throw aside so easily the man's right to choose thier personal fate AFTER pregnancy. Quit discussing pre-intercourse as that's a equally controlled by male and female and equal fault lies there.

[Voronwë]

i think i'm wrong about that...so nm!

[Etasi]

Well, since Winnow keeps harping on the idea that it's so far fetched to argue that men give up the right to choose at the time of conception, I thought I'd throw in what I see as the law's position on the issue.

If you're pro-choice, you're not going to be swayed by the argument that the man has the right to decide to become a father even if the woman doesn't want to have the baby. In other words, if you're pro-choice, you can't argue that the man has no right to prevent an abortion but should have the right to prevent fatherhood, be it legal or actual. If you are pro-choice, you're agreeing that the man's right to decide ends with conception in cases of abortion (or else you would not agree that men have no right to force a woman not to abort). You can't ask to be given decision making power again simply because the woman does not wish to abort. The law doesn't support this position. In the eyes of the law, as long as abortion is legal, men have no say after conception.

There's another way to look at it, too. The proponents of "legal abortion" on this thread are arguing that men have a right to decide not to become a father. You can argue this from two perspectives: one, that men have this right because women already have it, and therefore a legal inequality exists until men are granted the same right; or two, men have this right regardless of whether women have the same right, ie the right not to become a father is something men are constitutionally guaranteed.

I would like to point out that women don't have the right to abortion because the government has recognized some constitutional guarantee to not become a parent. Rather, they have this right for biological reasons. Women have the right to decide what goes on in their own body. It might seem like semantics, but I think its an important distinction. It relates to what Aaemadar posted. Not all aspects of sexuality and parenting are constitionally guaranteed. The right to abortion is given due to biological reasons, and no others. Therefore, any legal argument for 'legal abortion' on the grounds of female vs male inequality should also be made in terms of biology, not financial responsibility. Any other argument is asking for a false equality.

As to whether or not men should enjoy a constitutional guarantee not to become fathers, regardless of any other considerations including the consequences to the woman in cases of unwanted pregnancy, we can look for the law's position in the legal omission of protections for many other sexual and parenting related issues.

From the perspective of existing laws concerning abortion, sexuality, and parenting, there seems to be little legal support for the argument that men have a constitutionally guaranteed right not to become fathers. From the perspective of rectifying inequality, too, there seems to be little support for the 'legal abortion' argument.

---

Winnow, I won't go into a long discussion of the similarities and differences between the consequences of abortion and legal abortion, but suffice it to say that the two are not equal. I definitely disagree with you if you're implying that abortion allows women to be less sexually responsible. Such an argument only makes sense if the potential physical and psychological consequences of abortion are much smaller than those of childbirth, and I would argue that this is not so.

However, I don't think the same is necessarily true for legal abortion, especially because the decision to legally abort is made before, rather than after, conception, thus making it less likely to truly reflect the man's feelings upon learning of an unwanted pregnancy. It's going too far to say that men would all run around and fuck like crazy without a second thought to the consequences if they had the option to legally abort. But it's also going too far to say that legal abortion will have no effect on sexual practices, or that its effect will be identical to that of abortion. The two have different consequences for those who choose them, so it is likely they would have different consequences on the pre-conception sexual practices of those likely to choose them, as well.

[Sueven]

In other words, if you're pro-choice, you can't argue that the man has no right to prevent an abortion but should have the right to prevent fatherhood, be it legal or actual.

That is incorrect. Why on earth can't I argue that? The positions are not exclusive.

I'm not responding to your inequality argument, because I'm arguing the liberty angle.

especially because the decision to legally abort is made before, rather than after, conception

I specified that the legal abortion option should be presented to the man in the early stages of pregnancy, after conception.

It's going too far to say that men would all run around and fuck like crazy without a second thought to the consequences if they had the option to legally abort. But it's also going too far to say that legal abortion will have no effect on sexual practices, or that its effect will be identical to that of abortion.

Sure, it would probably make some males more willing to have casual sex (although most males who are inclined to not exercise restraint have long since abandoned it). But consider what could happen if a man chooses a legal abortion:
- Harassment/persecution from his or his partner's family
- Financial ramifications of potentially paying for an abortion
- Emotional consequences of abdicating rights to his child
- Social stigma because of his irresponsibility
Now, I'm not saying that all of these will happen to every man who would choose legal abortion. I also recognize that all of these are potential consequences of an actual, female abortion. But I think you're wrong in dismissing the significance of the action so cavalierly.

As the law stands, the sort of legal abortion I propose is illegal. I feel that the law is out of touch with constitutional guarantees. As such, I am not going to be swayed by you telling me what the law is. It's like a Christian telling an atheist that he should believe in God because the bible says so.

[Winnow]

The man has no say in a woman's decision to have an abortion. He's screwed if he wants the child and screwed if he doesn't want the child all dependant upon the woman's decision.

As it stands: (after mutually consented intercourse)

The woman controls

-her own body
-unborn child
-financial control over the man dependant on financial status of the father and mother.


The man controls:

-nothing

------------
What we are debating on here is if the man should have the option to at least control his own life and have the choice to legally separate himself from responsibility of financially supporting an unwanted child with the requirement of financing the abortion that is in complete control of the mother.

In planned parenthood, only the female has any legal say in what happens. As far as I know, even during marriage, a female can abort pregnancy so men have zero legal say in anything to do with whether a child is born or aborted. I'd say it's a very small thing to give the man at least the option to legally abort as he has zero choice to keep a child if the woman doesn't wish it.

If woman and men want to continue having recreational sex, it "should" be accepted that accidents happen and the male should be involved in his own decision on whether to be involved as a father but not determine whether the child is aborted or born.

[Lynks]

Giving that option to men would just end up creating more abortions. Some women won't be able to support the child without help and will then force them to either abort or give the child up for adoption.

This is just stupid hearing about giving men the right to separate themselves from supporting their kid. If you don't want to have a kid, keep it in your pants, or at least wear a condom.

[Forthe]

Giving that option to men would just end up creating more abortions. Some women won't be able to support the child without help and will then force them to either abort or give the child up for adoption.

Yup. If you can't support a child then don't have\keep a child. It is a choice.

This is just stupid hearing about giving men the right to separate themselves from supporting their kid. If you don't want to have a kid, keep it in your pants, or at least wear a condom.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant then keep your legs closed. Sound familiar?

What would be your stance if a woman choose to give up her baby for adoption but was blocked by the father who sued for custody and the father then sued the woman for child support?

[Winnow]

I'll let Forthe handle the canadians as I don't know the mating rituals up there! : )

[Etasi]

Now, I'm not saying that all of these will happen to every man who would choose legal abortion. I also recognize that all of these are potential consequences of an actual, female abortion. But I think you're wrong in dismissing the significance of the action so cavalierly.

I didn't dismiss the significance of legal abortion. I simply stated that legal abortion and abortion have different consequences. The most important part of my point, though, was that legal abortion is made before either party even knows if an unwanted pregnancy will occur. I really do think that changes the impact legal abortion might have on sexual behavior.

As the law stands, the sort of legal abortion I propose is illegal. I feel that the law is out of touch with constitutional guarantees. As such, I am not going to be swayed by you telling me what the law is. It's like a Christian telling an atheist that he should believe in God because the bible says so.

My point was that legal abortion doesn't fit into current constitutional law. I also don't see how you can make legal abortion work from a legal perspective even if the law changes. But if you disagree, why don't you provide a counterargument instead of falsely assuming that I'm trying to preach to you?

[Lynks]

What would be your stance if a woman choose to give up her baby for adoption but was blocked by the father who sued for custody and the father then sued the woman for child support?

I think she should pay child support too. Unless of course there is a mutual agreement not to pay support. If she wasn't ready to have a child, I would suggest to her not to have sex, or make sure the guy has a condom.

People nowadays tend to not take on responsibilities, its really quite sad.

As for the canadian mating ritual, it usually starts off by the guy drinking as much as he can then start yelling the loudest to pick up the hottest chick in the bar.

Also, I'm pro-choice. I believe there are certain instances such as health issues or rape that need to be taken into consideration with abortion.

[Winnow]

As for the canadian mating ritual, it usually starts off by the guy drinking as much as he can then start yelling the loudest to pick up the hottest chick in the bar.

THAT'S A GREAT RITUAL LYNKS! *burp!*

...not that alcohol has anything to do with unwanted pregnancies!
-----------------------
Well, besides the fact that men are at the mercy of women, there should be a "morning before" pill for men or a way to radiate your nuts to kill the sperm for 24 hours. I'd like to volunteer Voronwe to test these new male birth control methods as he already has a kid!

[Sueven]

You said:

The most important part of my point, though, was that legal abortion is made before either party even knows if an unwanted pregnancy will occur.

Apparently you missed my last post, when I responded to your argument by saying:

I specified that the legal abortion option should be presented to the man in the early stages of pregnancy, after conception.

You also apparently didn't read the first post I made proposing the idea:

feel that men should be given an option, very early in pregnancy

Emphasis added.

But if you disagree, why don't you provide a counterargument instead of falsely assuming that I'm trying to preach to you?

I have. Maybe if you were reading my posts, you would have noticed it.

[Lalanae]

You guys are idiots

You make a mistake, you should pay for it. If you get lucky and the girl has an abortion, well you get off scott free. She doesn't. She always will pay for the mistake one way or another.

But no, you want a guarentee you will ALWAYS get off scott free so you can run around having careless sex without dealing with the responsibilties of it.

Quit crying "unfair" like a bunch of little boys. Be MEN and accept responsibilities for your fuck ups. If you screw up and get a girl pregnant, you should be prepared to be a father to that kid. Its her body, so ultimately her choice, but you were right there when the choice was made to have careless sex.

Stop acting like you are victims in these situations. Own up to responsibility.

[Forthe]

You guys are idiots

You make a mistake, you should pay for it. If you get lucky and the girl has an abortion, well you get off scott free. She doesn't. She always will pay for the mistake one way or another.

But no, you want a guarentee you will ALWAYS get off scott free so you can run around having careless sex without dealing with the responsibilties of it.

Quit crying "unfair" like a bunch of little boys. Be MEN and accept responsibilities for your fuck ups. If you screw up and get a girl pregnant, you should be prepared to be a father to that kid. Its her body, so ultimately her choice, but you were right there when the choice was made to have careless sex.

Stop acting like you are victims in these situations. Own up to responsibility.

And you are a hypocrite. You can switch he<>she in most of your post and people would assume you are a bible thumping 50something bowtie wearing whiteman.

[Etasi]

I have. Maybe if you were reading my posts, you would have noticed it.

Yes, clearly I'm not reading any of your posts. There are multiple positions being advocated in this thread and I happened to miss a nuance of yours. It certainly isn't my intention to skip over portions of people's arguments, because there's little point in discussing anything if both sides don't attempt to fully understand the other's position.

The only legal argument for legal abortion I've seen in this thread so far is vague references to constitutional guarantees of liberty, and unsubstantiated (from a legal perspective) claims of inequality. Then, in response to my argument that no legal basis for legal abortion currently exists, all I got was "the law is out of touch with reality." Well, it's fine if you feel that way, but that's not exactly a convincing argument.

I'd be content to agree to disagree here if some of you would just calm down and admit that the issue is a complicated one. It's not some black and white claim that "we're being discriminated against, that's unconstitutional!" (or at least, if you consider the issue below a surface level, it shouldn't be black and white).

As far as I'm concerned, there are valid arguments to suggest that this gender inequality you speak of both does and does not exist. I just don't find yours convincing enough to change my mind. You apparently don't find mine that convincing either, and that's fine. I'm just disappointed that it had to degenerate into defensive pissiness when there was no reason for it.

[Winnow]

You guys are idiots

You make a mistake, you should pay for it. If you get lucky and the girl has an abortion, well you get off scott free. She doesn't. She always will pay for the mistake one way or another.

But no, you want a guarentee you will ALWAYS get off scott free so you can run around having careless sex without dealing with the responsibilties of it.

Quit crying "unfair" like a bunch of little boys. Be MEN and accept responsibilities for your fuck ups. If you screw up and get a girl pregnant, you should be prepared to be a father to that kid. Its her body, so ultimately her choice, but you were right there when the choice was made to have careless sex.

Stop acting like you are victims in these situations. Own up to responsibility.

We'll stop acting like victims when women stop acting like victims for their own careless sex as well. The difference being a woman has the choice to fix their error how they choose. I hope you're not naive enough to not know women go out looking for sex just as men do and are just as careless...yet somehow it's the man's fault and he's on the hook completely dependant upon what the woman decides.

"I was just lying there with my feet pinned behind my ears begging this guy to fuck me...and he did! I thought I was on the pill but guess I forgot to take it...oh well, he'll be paying me for the next 18 years anyway. It's his stupidass fault for believing me. He takes full responsibility for fucking me after I told him to and said I was on the pill...it's not important that I fucked up. He's a man, he has no choice in this matter. Sweeeet. I think I'll go after Richie Rich next and pray he falls for my pill line or that I promise to have an abortion"

I've been involved with two unplanned pregnancies and resulting abortions. One I was responsible for and another I was there to support someone that I hadn't gotten pregnant. You act like this only affects the female. I can assure you that I was traumatized by the whole thing as well. A hearty "fuck you" to you if you think differently.

I can tell you the waiting room isn't a fun place to be. I was the only guy surrounded by women that didn't have pleasnt thoughts in their heads about men. Both times. That said, I thought the mood of the women that were talking in the waiting room wasn't that emotionally stressed. I'm guessing they've come a long ways in abortion techniques as these women were in and out and done quickly. I can easily see some men being more upset than women over this...especially the men that want to keep a child and can't.

Either time, I would have supported the woman and resulting child if that was her choice but thankfully we both didn't want a child. If her decision would have been to keep the child, I'd support the resulting superbaby until he or she went off to college at age 12.

While I would always support an unplanned pregnancy, I certainly didn't want a child when it happened. I guess I lucked out and was with a woman that had a career plan and direction in her life and was smart enough to know that when she wanted a child that both herself and the future father would plan it out provide the best environment possible for the newborn child's future. I'm a big believer in planned parenthood. I know some like surprises but an accidental pregnancy doesn't always bring the best possible situation for both parents and future child. The woman shoudn't have to be forced to change her life and neither should the man although the women should always have the right to decide what to do with her own body.

The focus here seems to be on financial support but that really is a small part. A child deserves the full attention and dedication of it's parents and if that's not going to happen, terminatiing an early pregnancy is an excellent option. If that seems heartless, tough shit. My view on when life begins differs from yours and you can take that up with the right to life people.

It seems people are as much divided on what rights a man has in creating life and deciding their own involvement as people are on the right to give women the choice to keep or abort a baby to begin with. I'm 100 percent pro choice for the woman and personal involvement choice for the man. Wake up to the 2000's. These are not women peasants ravished by men and left to fend for themselves. These are woman that have their own careers and opportunities as much as the man does now...and there are still equally clueless teenagers getting pregnant that will have a wonderful time when the female's mother tells her she will go to hell if they have an abortion. Woo hoo. Enjoy the rest of your teens, kids with kids! Little Joey's on the hook for the rest of his life because the parents of the pregnant girl are retards.

[Forthe]

The only legal argument for legal abortion I've seen in this thread so far is vague references to constitutional guarantees of liberty, and unsubstantiated (from a legal perspective) claims of inequality. Then, in response to my argument that no legal basis for legal abortion currently exists, all I got was "the law is out of touch with reality." Well, it's fine if you feel that way, but that's not exactly a convincing argument.

Adoption is the closest thing we currently have to this 'legal abortion' we are discussing. Beyond the physical reality of pregnancy it is used for the same end result as 'legal abortion', the female\couple are not willing or able to take on the short term and\or lifelong responsibilities of becoming a parent(s).

[Sueven]

Yes, clearly I'm not reading any of your posts. There are multiple positions being advocated in this thread and I happened to miss a nuance of yours. It certainly isn't my intention to skip over portions of people's arguments, because there's little point in discussing anything if both sides don't attempt to fully understand the other's position.

I don't know. You made a false claim about my argument (" especially because the decision to legally abort is made before, rather than after, conception"). I quoted your false claim and directly responded to it in a succinct, one sentence statement ("I specified that the legal abortion option should be presented to the man in the early stages of pregnancy, after conception"). Following this, you again made the false claim about my statement, and in fact went on to stress it's importance.

It's clear that you're not just on here to troll or anything, and I'm sure you didn't intend to prove your point by arguing against something I never said, but I hope you can understand why I might get the impression that you may not be reading too carefully.

Oh, I also like how you dismiss as a "nuance" what you called one post ago "the most important part of my point."

I'd be content to agree to disagree here if some of you would just calm down and admit that the issue is a complicated one.

I don't recall ever denying that the issue was complex. I didn't realize that there was something wrong with having an opinion on a complex issue. You, for instance, seem to have a fairly strong opinion about it.

Then, in response to my argument that no legal basis for legal abortion currently exists, all I got was "the law is out of touch with reality." Well, it's fine if you feel that way, but that's not exactly a convincing argument.

Actually, that's incorrect. What I actually said was:

I feel that the law is out of touch with constitutional guarantees.

It's fairly clear that "reality" and "constitutional guarantees" are two very different concepts. Is this another little nuance that you missed?

I'm sick of arguing in this thread. If you want to talk about the issue more, send me a PM.

[kyoukan]

I've been involved with two unplanned pregnancies and resulting abortions. One I was responsible for and another I was there to support someone that I hadn't gotten pregnant. You act like this only affects the female. I can assure you that I was traumatized by the whole thing as well. A hearty "fuck you" to you if you think differently.

oh jeez let me know if you need help down off that cross.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Man-Hater !

[Toshira]

Then, in response to my argument that no legal basis for legal abortion currently exists, all I got was "the law is out of touch with reality." Well, it's fine if you feel that way, but that's not exactly a convincing argument.

(emphasis mine)

WTF?

Legal Basis For Legal Abortion That Currently Exists

Now, whether that basis is on solid footing and not being chipped away at by Dubya, is another issue.

[Winnow]

I've been involved with two unplanned pregnancies and resulting abortions. One I was responsible for and another I was there to support someone that I hadn't gotten pregnant. You act like this only affects the female. I can assure you that I was traumatized by the whole thing as well. A hearty "fuck you" to you if you think differently.

oh jeez let me know if you need help down off that cross.

If you could yank out the nail in my feet and quit looking under my loose fitting shreds of cloth it would be a start.

[Etasi]

Then, in response to my argument that no legal basis for legal abortion currently exists, all I got was "the law is out of touch with reality." Well, it's fine if you feel that way, but that's not exactly a convincing argument.

(emphasis mine)

WTF?

Legal Basis For Legal Abortion That Currently Exists

Now, whether that basis is on solid footing and not being chipped away at by Dubya, is another issue.

No, the legal basis for abortion and that necessary for legal abortion are different. Legal abortion has nothing to do with having control over one's own body, which is the reason abortion is legal. I'm not sure if you thought I was referring to the woman's right to abortion in the post you quoted, but I definitely wasn't.

Sueven- Nuance was a bad word choice on my part, I will definitely agree with you there. As for missing your point more than once, I guess that was mostly my own bias (I think legal abortion really only makes sense if you agree to it before conception, but I won't get into it, because that's not why I'm writing this). Anyway, I regret that it distracted from the real discussion because that wasn't my intent.

[Toshira]

E, I have no idea wth your post just said.

[Etasi]

The discussion on this thread isn't about whether women should be allowed to have abortions. It's about whether men should be able to "legally abort" their responsibility in cases of unwanted pregnancy. Hence the abortion vs 'legal abortion' comparisons.

You cited Roe v. Wade, which doesn't give any legal basis for 'legal abortion' for men, since that decision is based on a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. The reasoning behind "legal abortion" for men has nothing to do with that.

[Toshira]

All right then, although I think this thread has had several different foci at different points. My apologies for the confusion

[Zaelath]

So you'd be sanguine about the issue if abortion was illegal?

Totally.

Well then, if she chooses to keep it your in no worse a position than if she didn't have a choice (which you say is ok) ..

[Winnow]

So you'd be sanguine about the issue if abortion was illegal?

Totally.

Well then, if she chooses to keep it your in no worse a position than if she didn't have a choice (which you say is ok) ..

That's the worst rational ever.

The more choice the better. You're taking a step backwards. It would be acceptable due to lack of choice for both genders.

Let me break it down for you:

Old days: Woman screwed, man screwed
Currently: Woman has a choice, man screwed dependant upon the woman
This thread is debating: Woman and man both having a choice post initial mutual screw up.

[Mplor]

Let me break it down for you:

Old days: Woman screwed, man screwed
Currently: Woman has a choice, man screwed dependant upon the woman
This thread is debating: Woman and man both having a choice post initial mutual screw up.

Uh, actually it was more like this, post initial screwup:

From the days of Lucy until the 17th century: Woman screwed, man off scot free.
17th century until Roe v Wade: Woman screwed, man might be fined unless he leaves town.
Roe v Wade to present: Woman has a choice, man has a fifty-fifty shot.

The privileges of having a penis have certainly declined as legal protections for women have increased. Clearly, society is running headlong into the abyss...

[Winnow]

We've come a long way. Here's some practices of Romans re: birth control and adoption:

Fathers also had the right to decide whether to keep or expose their newborn babies. The midwife placed babies on the ground, and only when the paterfamilias picked it up was the baby formally accepted into the family. Exposure — the deliberate abandonment of an infant to the elements — was practiced on obviously deformed infants, or when the father felt the family could not support another child. While much has been made of this seemingly cruel Roman custom, it was assumed that these babies did not die, but were picked up and taken as slaves.

With child exposure the first thing to do is make a distinction between exposure and infanticide. Romans who had babies that they couldn't support and didn't want to raise would have set them out in an appointed place where passersby could pick them up if they wanted to. Why did they do it? Well because they had no predictable form of birth control. Having the right size family has been a problem through the ages... For poor families the problem was matching their resources to the size of their family. And so the exposure of a newborn in some cases was a kind of calculated form of love for the rest of the family.

Divorce:

Because marriage was not a binding legal agreement, but simply a declaration of intent to live together, Roman divorce was simply a declaration of intent not to live together. All that was required under Augustan law was a declaration before seven witnesses of the desire to divorce. Because of the ease of dissolution, divorce was common, at least among the upper echelons of Roman society.

Upon divorce, the wife was entitled to the full return of her dowry, and returned to the patria potestas — family protection — of her father. If she had been independent of her father prior to marriage, she would regain her independence upon divorce. Roman law did not recognize adultery by husbands, but under Augustus' lex Julia of 18 BC a wife found guilty of adultery in a special court known as the quaestio might forfeit the return of half her dowry.