Men Abortion and Choice

[9th Engineer]

The base issue here is how to allot an equal amount of input and responsibility to both parties, correct? I hate to say it, but I see no practical, legal way for a man to keep his child if the mother wants to terminate. Even if we could somehow remove a 4 week-old fetus from the mother and raise it to term either in vitro or in vivo using another parent organism, the mother could not be forced to undergo the required surgery no matter how minor. Our only option as men? Keep your slimeball radar on at all times and take a really close look at who you're about to go down on, she has all the power once the lights get turned back on.
What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child. Ladies, take the same advise as in the first paragraph.


The injustice I see here is that the arguments for aborting the child in the case of the woman are considered irrelevant when applied to men.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child.

That is absolutely awesome!

[Spexxvet]

That is one problem I have with the anti-choice group. They want to force women to have babies, but don't do anything to help resolve the reason that a woman would choose to have an abortion. "Have that baby, but we're not going to help you raise it, or provide for it, or help with child-care. But we're still gonna force you to have the damn thing!"

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The base issue here is how to allot an equal amount of input and responsibility to both parties, correct? I hate to say it, but I see no practical, legal way for a man to keep his child if the mother wants to terminate. Even if we could somehow remove a 4 week-old fetus from the mother and raise it to term either in vitro or in vivo using another parent organism, the mother could not be forced to undergo the required surgery no matter how minor. Our only option as men? Keep your slimeball radar on at all times and take a really close look at who you're about to go down on, she has all the power once the lights get turned back on.
What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child. Ladies, take the same advise as in the first paragraph.


The injustice I see here is that the arguments for aborting the child in the case of the woman are considered irrelevant when applied to men.

Yea....here is a good reason why. Most men are trying to be irrelevant and not present when someone is pregnant. Anecdote: take it how you would like...
I saw this guy in a planned parenthood with his partner. I'm pretty sure she was there to abort. He got on his cell phone and started talking his partying drug-addicted gangster crap loudly right there in the lobby at 9:00 in the morning. The guy was drunk or high already and he was an older guy......Does anyone want to tell me that he should have the final say in what happens to a fetus? Or can we let her manage like he was obviously at least that smart to do?

Gee...I'm sure he gives all of this a lot of thought-that's after he does an eight ball and drinks a 40oz in between xbox games. Just because some of you men on here are more responsible than most.....you act like most men give this stuff a thought outside of how inconvenient the situation is. Not really. Call me a sexist or whatever....I don't care. Most men out there avoid even talking about this stuff until a woman "inconveniences" them by becoming pregnant. Their attitude: do whatever...but I hope you choose to do the thing that is going to take the least from me. A lot of times women get to see their partner's true colors when they become pregnant. It's called the asshole factor. She has to say to herself-Oh- I never would have had sex with you if I knew you were going to turn into a completely irresponsible evasive piece of dung......That said.....Consider that injustice.

Take a pregnancy and add a man. Recipe for an instant asshole. Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.

*Disclaimer* I am talking about a lot of men.......not all of them... so put your fists down.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Cicero

SNIP~ Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.

*Disclaimer* I am talking about a lot of men.......not all of them... so put your fists down.

never had a woman complain about it being TOO hard before.

Fine, though I am not anti-choice and stated so multiple times.
Just as long as the Pro-woman-only-choice group states that by their logic men's child support is immoral, being that it is the same thing.

[manephelien]

Quite frankly I find the idea of men deciding what women should do with their bodies quite abhorrent. I know several women who have had abortions for various reasons, and none of them chose to abort on a whim. (Not even the girl who got raped by her stepfather at 15.) At this time in my life I couldn't imagine getting an abortion, nor do I think I'd've been able to do it even as a poor student, but it's not up to me to dictate to other women what they can or cannot do.

However, I utterly despise women who get pregnant on purpose to try and blackmail child support payments. So yes, men should be able to opt out of their fatherhood. However, this would mean that they would have absolutely no rights to the child at all, and if they later changed their mind, they would be liable to retroactively pay every missed payment.

[DanaC]

The thing is, these days a woman getting pregnant outside marriage isn't something that need destroy her life. There was a time nobody would want to employ such a woman, therefore a man who got that woman pregnant and then wouldn't help support the child was consigning both to poverty and moral opprobrium.

These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one. That said, I also believe the State should ensure that such children are not having to survive undue hardship due to poverty.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one. That said, I also believe the State should ensure that such children are not having to survive undue hardship due to poverty.

So where is the state getting the money?

[DanaC]

From general taxation.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one.

So you've changed your mind since 2004, then?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child.

Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

All of your scenarios are aimed at getting a person out of taking care of a child they helped to create, merely because they've decided that they want nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if he wants it or not. That isn't the point.

Originally Posted by DanaC

I have to agree with Lady Sidhe on this one

[DanaC]

Actually, yes I have changed my mind on that. Probably seeing a couple of friends shafted by the child support agency had something to do with that.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Actually, yes I have changed my mind on that. Probably seeing a couple of friends shafted by the child support agency had something to do with that.

Men or women? I'd love to know that I'm not the only one getting totally screwed by this AND have virtually no recourse. According to the Domestic Relations Office.

[Clodfobble]

Yep, that'll do it.

[DanaC]

:P