A man's right to choose.
 

Interesting read: the "financial abortion."

http://content.time.com/time/nation/...173414,00.html

Related content:

http://forums.menshealth.com/topic/6...7212688?page=1

This has always been my argument, I am glad to see that it might actually have it's day in court. If a woman can have sex and be free to end it without any consultation of the father, the father should also be free to not be apart of it if she decides to keep it. Both should be equally free to be as irresponsible about sex if they choose to be that way.

It would prevent a lot of this...

http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/d...dAbortions.pdf

Also, I don't agree that wanting or having an abortion means a person is acting irresponsibly about sex. I can personally attest that shit happens even when appropriate precautions have been taken.

If you are going to play, there could be consequences unless you seek permanent solutions.

There is someone I know of that had 3-5 abortions. She must not like condoms or kids. Someone should just tie her tubes. It should save time and money.

I don't really agree with all of this. Allowing some idiot to knock up woman and say, "Um, I don't want it. Have fun. Later!".

What ever happened to manning up and taking responsibility?

Use condoms, buy your own (or check them over well. But I say it is safer to buy your own).

In the first link she said she couldn't have any because of medical reasons. He shouldn't have took the chances. You don't want any? Then take every precaution you can.

James

A woman is legally allowed to terminate a pregnancy regardless of whether or not the father wants the child.

I don't think a father should have any legal say in whether or not a woman submits to an abortion, but he shouldn't be left completely powerless in the situation, either. If a woman thinks she is too young to have a baby, if she's worried that she won't be able to finish college with a child, if she feels she just isn't cut out for motherhood, etc... she can legally opt out. If a man experiences these same feelings but the woman wants to keep the child, he must legally commit to 18 or more years of financial support (at a minimum).

Men currently have no say in these matters and it isn't fair. I also believe that not having any means of legally opting out of child support leads to most of the forced/coerced abortions detailed in my other link. Let the crazy/selfish/whatever guy walk and he won't bully you to the clinic.

Condoms. What are those says the the welfare community.

You know I would tend to agree with the majority here, if there wasn't a huge disparity in the risks involved between the man and woman. Getting trapped by a woman who claimed she couldn't get pregnant? Well you really didn't do anything to protect yourself from disease, did you? the whole 'consequences' thing works both ways.

Except it doesn't, if she doesn't like the consequences then she can have an abortion. There are risks of it ending bad, but both parties took risks of getting diseases by sleeping with each other. The world is nothing but a risk. Hell there are much more risks having the kid.

Condoms aren't always effective as well.

You should be able to relinquish your rights as a parent/provider without the woman's consent if you are going to allow a woman to do the same without your consent. It definitely needs to be restricted to where you can only do it in a certain early time window where the woman can abort if she feels she cannot keep the child without the financial support of the father. Well that is unless the woman keeps it hidden from the man during this window, then the man gets another opportunity to opt out due to her attempt to hide it from him and collect.

One word to avoid ALL of this: Anal.

And for you freaks: Painal.

I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

Maybe more women should have abortions then, less population and less unwanted children that grow up in shitty situations.

And more men shouldn't be getting their rocks off and just walking away, ignoring the obvious possible repercussions.

Women are just as guilty of one night stands.

People should fuck when they can deal with that consequences, but people aren't responsible.

Indeed. Takes two to tango.

Obviously, there are other situations where things are not voluntary - that's another topic...

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

And yet the repercussions of that decision aren't equal. That's why being inequitable, where the man is concerned, helps to equalize the situation. Being unable to keep it in your pants can result in a 'life sentence.'

And yet being able to keep things out of your pants isn't a life sentence, you can get it terminated via abortion. You aren't equalizing the situation, you just wanting to keep it completely inequal. This is giving this same option to men.

Are you against abortion? Do you not consider it a valid option? If this is the case, I can see your point and concede it shouldn't be allowed if abortion isn't allowed. However, if abortion is allowed, it's perfectly fair for the man to divorce himself from the situation exactly like a woman can do as well.

So basically you are against this because you might have been aborted if your situation happened today? Why should other kids go through this route? Fathers who don't want their children are going to happen, maybe this would help that situation.

No one is forcing anyone to have a medical procedure. It is just an option a woman has if she cannot financially support the child. She can still put it up for adoption. Plus pregnancy is a far more dangerous procedure than an abortion procedure today.

I'm against abortion. For me. Fortunately I will never have to make the choice of having an abortion, because I'm not physically designed to carry a child. My position on abortion is that I can't make that decision for someone else.

My point is quite simply that the penalties for make a 'mistake' aren't equal. Either way, carrying the child or aborting it, a woman is going to be exposed to more potential harm. Saying that a man should just be able to wash his hands of the situation and walk away isn't good for society as a whole. The woman didn't create the situation, alone, nor should the situation be solely her responsibility.

For the selfish among you, maybe this will make some sense. Do you really want to be kicking in to support more children of single mothers, when those children should be supported by the people who made them? That's the outcome that you're advocating. More money out of your own pockets.

I am against it from that aspect as well, but not against it from an illegal standpoint.

A woman already has that responsibility alone. It's her choice to carry it or not. The man can say nothing about that. This is giving a voice to the man to refuse to take part in what happens after she is done carrying instead of being held hostage.

We are already kicking money into the pot for this reason. Look at your situation where he didn't pay, all the court fees that go along with that. We spend a lot of money on nonpaying biological fathers. Costs would most likely hold steady once you factor in everything or may even be reduced on the public. Would be an interesting study to conduct to see it's impact on financials.

Hell if women know that they can't entrap guys with pregnancies, maybe they will take more responsibility in who they screw. I have no faith in men to ever do that for any reason. LOL

You may be kicking in some money but you're advocating a situation in which you would have to increase that by multiples, without legal recourse.

In my situation the government, and hence the people, were out the amount that legal aid cost. Nothing more.

Plus the amount for everyone that works the courts and all the fees associated with that for all the multiples of people. The amount going to her lawyer also has an impact.

The people who won't be paying will be the same people who aren't paying now and are feeding our legal system.

I really doubt you would see an impact on our costs.

Theres enough humans now. We cant even support all the ones alive now. A reset will eventually have to happen.

All dealt with in batch. Negligible cost per individual case, to the order to pay.

Not quite. If what you suggest comes to pass then men who father children, out of wedlock, would be able to wash their hands of it entirely. Right now, in many US jurisdictions, men who don't pay support orders can have their income be subject to garnishee, have their drivers licenses suspended, or perhaps even be jailed for contempt. The money can be obtained from the actual cause, rather than coming from all other taxpayers.

Funny thing is that when my father ultimately left the Province, hoping to get away from the Ontario support order, he moved to the only Province in Canada that actively pursued deadbeat parents. They put the screws to him faster than Ontario would have. The whole thing was handled by phone and within 2 weeks his pay was being docked, at source.

You would have less mothers that choose to keep the baby, there would be a rise in abortions, so you wouldn't have as many people in the system fighting for money.

Right now, a lot of these dead beat fathers don't have jobs that can be garnished and so going into the prison system ends up costing us even more money.

The costs would even out.

And a lot of them are just hiding their under the table income, until someone throws their asses in the can.

Again, it's simply wrong to put someone in the position where they feel that they have to undergo an invasive procedure. And again, how would you feel if you were told that you were going to be forced to have a vasectomy?

Some still don't give it up.

It's not right to force someone to pay for a child they clearly do not want to be apart of it's life. I wouldn't compare it to a vasectomy. That one is far more invasive. Men do not really have a like for like example of abortion, there are a few procedures for birth control for men that are still being tested that might be there one day though. And again, no one is forced to have an abortion, that is the mother's choice, adoption is still a perfectly accepted practice. Plenty of people want newborns.

Some mistakes have lifetime consequences, and should.

I don't know about it being "more invasive." It's the closest analogue that I could come up with as it involves reproductive organs. A couple of small incisions and a couple of knots tied, vs. no incision but having your insides scraped. The latter sounds worse than the former, to me.

I'm not going to change my mind. You aren't going to change yours. I'd like to hear what the women have to say.

How about having tube tieing facilities around every corner like these fast service dentist companies. Bitches need to stop having loads blown into them.

Compared to being compelled by force of law to pay for a kid I don't want for the next 18 years? Fuck yeah, where the vasectomies at!

In all seriousness I likely couldn't deny support even if the option was available (I can't know for sure without being in the situation). The value I see in this option is many of the dudes who would jump at that chance aren't going to pay support anyway.

At least the woman has to face the fact that she will need to manage without that support instead of counting on support that isn't coming. It forces a very in-her-face assessment of the situation. If that results in a decision to abort or give up the baby the net of it is likely 2 people better off instead of 3 shitty lives.

Don't think there are any left.:lol:

I don't think the way I like has a chance in hell of ever happening anyway.

Doubtful, but it was worth a mention. There may be four of us left, in total.

Yeah, as it only costs me about $8 a year to keep it up, I have no reason to take it down. :lol:

It's hosted on the same server as I run a bunch of other sites on that I plan to keep up, so hosting isn't an issue either.

Okay, here's the deal.... I personally got fixed to avoid this situation but I agree with Trip in that if the man wishes to opt out of the situation, he should be able to. Perhaps by paying for 1/2 of the abortion fee? If the woman CHOOSES, (because it's all about choice, right?), to have the child anyway, she MUST have decided that she can afford it. All this talk about shared responsibility is all well and good but it's never going to be an equal situation. Do most men in this scenario have a chance in hell of having full custody of the child? How about he gets the kid and she pays support? After the child is born, he goes with the parent with the best resources... I don't know but this situation isn't even close to fair in any way.

The man's choices;

1. Have sex or not

2. Use condom or not


The women's choices;

1. Have sex or not

2. Use condom or not

3. Be on the pill or not

4. Several other forms of birth control or not

5. Day after pill or not

6. Abortion or not

7. Adoption or not

How is this even close to equitable?

OK, you've listed the choices, but now you can go ahead and list the possible ramifications.

You do realize the new battleground of abortion is being able to admit women into hospitals fast. Democrats say you don't need that shit for abortion, Republicans are saying you do because it's an easy way to shut down a lot of clinics because they don't have the ability to quick admit. Abortion is not nearly on the same level as getting your balls snipped. It is at least on par or safer than going full term. Using the dangers of abortion is meaningless because they face something just as dangerous regardless of if they do the procedure or not.

The inequality of parental rights is a great point as well. The inequality doesn't stop once it is no longer "her body," it continues well into the child's life. That's horseshit. A father is just as qualified to raise a child as any mother. Half custody should be mandatory unless one party is incompetent.

And yet the father doesn't face all of the physical risks that a woman does.

I used vasectomies as an example simply because is the reproductive angle, not because of any sort of parity. Vasectomies are actually much safer than even so-called safe abortions. Complications are minimal. I was going for the emotional attachment that most guys, especially those who would put their selfish desires over the safety and health of a woman, have to their balls ;)

It's her body, she makes the decisions for it. She will have to go through medical procedures regardless. The woman put herself in that situation as much as the man and she holds the cards for everything that goes into it. The man is completely divorced from the situation, he should be able to divorce himself from the situation entirely in a timely manner before birth. She will have to go through a severe life changing trauma regardless of her decision. There is no other option. Talking about the medical aspect of abortion is completely meaningless because even if she doesn't do it, she still has to go through pregnancy which has the potential to be far far more devastating.

I think that I previously said something about neither of us likely changing our minds on this, didn't I? ;)

No one can resist the dick......not even men.

I think this pretty much summarizes the source of your argument; your reasoning is more emotional than logical/rational. You have personal experience with how a disappearing father and his lack of financial support can stress a family.

It sounds to me, however, that your dad left well after you (and your siblings?) were not only born, but teenagers. The argument in question asks if fathers-TO-BE have the right to financially abort themselves from children who have yet to be born. To which I say, "absolutely."

Like Trip said, the mother faces medical "consequences" whether she aborts the fetus or carries it to term. Until we develop the time travel necessary to simply "undo" the conception, these risks will exist either way.

You can think that if you like, and I provided the information by way of full disclosure, but I think that it allows me to see the situation more rationally from both sides. Believe me; I tend to evaluate my opinions quite carefully, to know whether or not they are unduly influenced by emotion. That is why I even thought to make that disclosure.

From my side of it, it looks like many people here have an opinion that's based on selfishness, rather than coming to a rational conclusion.

Having a kid should be completely about selfishness IMO, if you are too selfish or your partner is too selfish, then maybe it isn't the best idea to have one and then be forced to deal with each other for a long ass time because of the kid.

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

The physical compromises for the woman happen regardless of her decision. Both are life altering experiences.

The kid isn't a kid yet.

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

Doesn't a father actually get a say in adoption? I think he has to sign away his parental rights as well for this route to happen.

Yup, which means that he not only has responsibilities already, but a certain degree of rights. And before you say it I'll say it again; the woman has more perceived rights because she has more real issues to deal with.

You can say it as many times as you want, as you said before you won't convince me and I won't convince you. The woman holds all the cards before birth, as she should, but the man deserves an opt out. The woman will have plenty of time to make her choice with that knowledge and also be able to opt out with minimum risk thanks to modern medicine.

The whole bit about men 'opting out' in the past is why you can't do it now.

I just see it as making everyone responsible for their decisions, the past wouldn't matter as this would have to be a limited decision based on a very short time window leaving women plenty of time to decide if abortion or adoption is right for them.

Everyone gets a fair and equal decision on it.
Woman finds out she is pregnant, decides she may want to keep it and informs father.
Father does not want a child or is not prepared for child, gets to wave parental rights.
Woman gets to decide if she can support the baby on her own or if abortion/adoption are the necessary paths for her own success.

Hell, a fee paid to the woman for a standardized cost of abortion to wave your parental rights would be perfectly fine by me.

It really just seems like you don't believe abortion is a perfectly fine alternative to me. If you don't that is more than understandable to me, this route would most likely cause a dramatic increase in them.

Except, as I've said, the responsibilities, penalties, etc. are from from equal. Seriously; we're just going in circles. You want 'equality' and I want 'equity.'

OK, so no differentiation between adoption and keeping the baby? Then how do the factors you mention even come in to play?

Are you talking about fairness or financial equity?

You aren't getting fair, you aren't ever going to get fair in a pregnancy scenario because only one party can even biologically do it. The system is inheritently unfair and there can never be 'equity' in that sense.

That's no differentiation between abortion, adoption, or keeping it. Any way you slice it the woman has physical consequences that the man doesn't. The man can walk away and it's like literally nothing has happened. Not so the woman.

Call it overall equity, fairness, social balance..... Whatever you like.

How is it balance to put a financial collar around a man for 18 years? The woman has options, the man does not. You are punishing the man for a far longer time frame and his is much more harsh, plus he has 0 options in this punishment to shorten it. Being able to hold someone financially hostage is not anywhere near overall equity. You are also creating a child that will be punished and have severe issues by this as well.

My wife is at 14 weeks right now, if she had an abortion today, her life would of been minimally impacted.

Back to the 'invasive process' thing again. The woman has all of the risk up front, and it's not insubstantial risk either way she goes. Don't want to pay for 18 years? Don't bang her. Some mistakes have lifetime consequences.

So you just blew your whole argument out of the water, basically you went from arguing your point of view was fair to saying tough shit you have to deal with it for a lifetime. So now you are neither equal or fair, you just want to keep the status quo. We have given women the power to say this is not a lifetime mistake, but something you can end, don't see why this shouldn't be an option for men as well.

The woman's risk is very low with the procedure, much lower than actually going full term.

I wonder how long we can keep this going? LoL It's not like anyone is here or cares, its fun to read when bored in the middle of the day.

I said it before: Equitable.

The woman's health and future are at risk in the beginning. The man's finances are at risk for the future. And to top it off, as I also already stated, society's finances at at issue if the woman is left alone to raise the children, and can't do it alone.

I didn't blow anything out of the water. I'm remaining quite consistent in my argument.

I'm at lunch and frequently waiting for callbacks, so I've got time :lol:

I for one, love the new trend of 'virgins' having going anal to maintain their virginity. Seems to me like society is solving a lot of these problems on their own.

Never knew any "good Catholic girls" when you were growing up, did you? Not so new ;)

Interestingly enough, most of the Catholic girls I knew were good girls... actually, maybe all of them.

I don't see how anything about it is equitable.

In the man's case once an egg gets fertilized he has zero options, his fate is completely out of his hands. The woman from that point can 1) take Plan B/RU486 and terminate immediately at virtually no risk to the "mother" (since she isn't technically pregnant yet), 2) have a low risk outpatient abortion performed, 3) put the baby up for adoption, or 4) keep the baby. Giving one party multiple options with risks ranging from virtually none to very low while the other party has zero options sounds pretty inequitable to me.

Congrats:rockwoot: