Buddrow_Wilson

I came to the realization while reading a somewhat related thread here that I don't believe that a man should be held legally responsible in any way for a child that results from a casual relationship (morally is a different argument). Considering that it is the sole choice of the woman whether or not to abort the fetus, how is it just to force the man to pay up for 18 years when he may have opted to abort given the choice? The ultimate realisation of reproductive rights might be that the male has absolutely no legal right to or responsibility for the life of a child borne seperate from a relatioship in which the mother grants and the male accepts such rights and responsibilities.

These thoughts are juvenile in my mind, but this seems right. I am curious as to what you all think of this. Don't flame me too hard please

AquaVita

I have often wondered the same point. I'm not sure where it leads though, so I'll be interested to see what the more well-versed of us have to say.

Vandrare

An interesting point to think about regarding this though, is what about the woman who doesn't consider abortion an option because she believes it's murder? After all, there are a lot of people who do consider abortion to be murder and therefore no option at all, and their opinion must really be considered just as valid...
then it's back to the problem of the woman having the baby because she has to, and the man is half responsible.

:-D Anna

lunachick

I very much disagree. If you don't want a child, then do your part in preventing one, too. Men are able to use condoms, spermicides, abstinence (in the case of being caught without a coat, f'rinstance), etc. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the legal responsibility should far outweigh and moral hand wringing.

The only sad thing I find in all the pro-choice arguments - of which I am in strong support for - ia that many people feel the need to try to somehow minimise abortion. It might only take a few minutes to actually perform an abortion, but it is not like pulling a tooth, y'know.

Then how about taking some responsibility for your dick. It takes two to make a child - and women have been carrying that fucking can long enough. Yes, we're the ones that give birth. It is our bodies that are used during gestation. But it can't be done without sperm. Why should you be the ones to just shoot and run? You can take responsibility for your own fertility and your own body, too. Or help carry that can.

Don't give me that "ultimate responsibility of reproductive rights" crap. See above. And [/i]rights[/i]?. It's the result of fucking and fertility, for heavens sake! Rights are about either control, or avoidance, or even some kind of male victimhood at the wiles of us fecund females trapping you into 18 years, blah, blah, blah. Do you not think we get trapped, too?

Wear a condom. Use spermicide. Don't drink too much and fuck - that's a real good way for babies to be made, etc, etc, etc.

Nope. Doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me to be a copout.

Basically, you would like to fuck and run, without any responsibilty or consequences. That's what I'm hearing.

Godot

luna my dear, it looks as though we've hit a nerve!
BW: I'm in agreement with luna. It takes two to tango so you might as well fess up to your responsibilities if you get a girl up the duff.

Feather

But, as you point out, it takes two to tango (obviously ignoring cases of rape; that's a whole other issue,really, in my opinion). Both a male and a female have to engage in sexual activity of some sort under normal circumstances in order to create a fetus.

However, the woman has the sole choice whether or not to abort. If both parties were involved in conception (necessary), yet only one has the final choice in whether to carry to term or not, there is an imbalance there.

I think, legally, if a man waives all his rights to a child--including visitation and parenting rights, in the event that he desires the baby should be aborted or placed for adoption, that he should not be legally required to support the child if the female wants to carry to term and raise the child.

This is the only equitable solution. Anything else favors the desires and rights of the female over the male. And, legally speaking, that just isn't very fair now, is it?

A good friend of mine had an abortion. At the time I was very much "pro-life," and didn't support her as I should have done. (I didn't know she'd had an abortion--she just brought up the subject of abortion and rights and such and we had a debate about it--at the time I was unaware she'd had one and so forth and argued my position rather forcefully and unemotionally. That doesn't ease the guilt and pain I felt and still occasionally feel.) I still feel stricken over it and wish it could have been otherwise. Abortion is simply not easy, as you say.


Why should a woman decide, quite unilaterally, that a person with whom she engaged in consensual sexual activity with should be a father when he didn't want it? How is that any different from forcing a woman to have the child and raise it (insert "biological woman gestates argument here"--so what; I'd argue the same if men also had a biological role in the gestation process)? Can you honestly rationally justify forcing a man to be a father while simultaneously supporting a woman's right to refuse motherhood? That's basically what your position is: a woman has the final right of choice, but the man doesn't. They both have to choose to have sex, but only the woman gets to decide whether they'll be parents or not. Doesn't seem very equitable to me.



Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy. It's too bad humans are such sexually driven animals, eh?

Well what I'm hearing is that basically you want men to have zero rights when it comes to reproductive activity.


PLEASE NOTE: My position above is purely academic--I believe that a man should have the rights as I've argued above. But that doesn't mean I, personally, would abdicate what I'd view as my responsibility in the event I had an unplanned baby event.

alek0

I also think that men should have the right to decline responsibility for the child, during the same time when abortion is possible and no change of mind after the fact.

If the couple is using contraception and a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep a child even though she previously claimed she wouldn't, why should a man have any responsibility for it?

If I got pregnant and decided to keep it, I would not expect anyone, not the "sperm donor" and not the goverment, to help. The decision to continue pregnancy would be mine, so the responsibility to provide for the child would be mine too. If the person who contributed other half of genetic material wishes to be involved, that is fine. However, I would find equally abhorrent forcing someone to pay child support against his wishes as forcing a woman to continue pregnancy against her wishes. In order for things to be truly equal, timeframe for both genders to decide not to be a parent (abortion for female, refusal of paying child support with acceptance of never getting involved in child's life in future) should be the same.

The Other Michael

A vasectomy is 100% effective (this presumes that it was done properly, but my impression is that the rate of spontaneous regeneration is pretty much nil).

If a male is going to make a habit of engaging in casual sex and doesn't want to have children, then the vasectomy removes the validity of all the other excuses for not having practiced contraception.

It of course doesn't negate concerns about safe sex.

cheers,
Michael

Soyin Milka

It's not fair but I don't think it can be corrected. To start with, men just can't be pregnant. Biology made us different. The first nine months, the pregnancy, is a much heavier burden for the mother than the father. Things even out after the birth because by then both parents can then equally support the child and are thus under the same legal obligations to provide for him/her.

I went to some debates held about this issue on campus. The two groups opposed are, on one side, men asking for more reproductive rights, and on the other side, men asking for more parenting rights. Getting more of one kind usually runs the risk of losing some of the other. It seems difficult for them to agree and reach a consensus.

The men asking for more reproductive rights don't want to have to support a child in every cases. If they are not informed of the child's birth by the time it's six months old, they say they should be excused from all responsibilities for exemple.

On the other side, men who want more rights for fathers argue that not knowing about their child's existence is not an excuse to deny fathers their rights. According to them, they should be allowed to play a part in that child's life even if they learn about him/her years after the birth.

If you want the laws to be changed, you'll need a consensus among women and men. That's gonna require quite the juggling act between father's rights and male reproductive rights. I don't think you'll be able to get everything.

You'd be probably better off financing research on a male reproductive pill or getting a vasectomy. But good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Soyin

AquaVita

Sure you do. But you also have the option of NOT being trapped, if you so choose. What is your rationalization for not allowing the man to have an equal option?