Skip to main content

I did think this was a bit too long to be a comment, so I thought I'd make a response-post. Here's my opinion on the issue:

The thing about this issue is that it's not an easy question to answer.

Women do need control over their bodies; that much is true. But what if a man doesn't want a child? Should he be forced to accept her choice? The answer I come to isn't an easy one to swallow, but it's one that I'm sure many other biological women share.

Yes, he should have to accept her choice.

The situation you wrote about, Pluto, is a rather common situation in the realm of pregnancy and abortion; but something you may not realize is that women have to live with whatever choice they make for the rest of their lives. Men? They can, and often do, run. (Keep in mind that my father did that, and I feel no bitterness towards him for it.) I don't believe that he should have to pay that child support - if she refuses an abortion, it really should be her responsibility to take care of it in whichever way she sees fit - but he should not have the power to tell her that she should get an abortion if she believes it's wrong.

I say this as a pro-life advocate currently in a long-term, possibly-reproductive relationship with a pro-choice advocate. (The girlfriend and I are both pre-hormone trans people, so we are reproductively capable.)

Equal rights? No. Men should not have equal rights to another person's body. He should, however, have the right to be as involved in the child's life as he wants; a man should not be denied visitation or custody because a woman says so, and a man should not be forced to pay for a child he tried to convince his lover to abort. He shouldn't have the right to tell a woman what she should do, but he should have the right to be as involved in it as he wants (with due legal process).

Just my two cents. I'll probably write another post about sexual rights later.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He has control over his body. (13+ / 0-)

    She has control over her body.
    Pretty simple.

    I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

    by David54 on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:29:34 PM PST

    •  Parental / Financial Support Obligations. (19+ / 0-)

      Not so simple.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:32:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Everybody has control and rights over (7+ / 0-)

        their own bodies, but it gets really tangled when a child is born...

        "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

        by Jack K on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:35:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, it's a very hard question to answer... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus

          But Pluto's post kind of smacked of misogyny. (Rabid feminist goes grrr.) He hasn't been there, he doesn't know, and it's unfair to say things like that when he doesn't know the woman involved. He seemed to have little sympathy for Denise, even saying that she "hated" Tim for his views. (Which is unlikely if she's any sort of rational human being at all.) And yes, while men do get screwed - royally - by some "women," it's not the case for most of the general, rational population, and it's that sort of reasoning that gets people who advocate for male choice in trouble. (Maybe that wasn't his intention, but it sounded suspiciously like it was.)

        •  If you're a man. And you produce a child. (18+ / 0-)

          You are responsible for that child.
          Period.
          I agree that it is complicated in our world, that a guy might get someone pregnant who swore that they were diligently using birth control.
          Or that you may be fully committed to a marriage that falls apart before the baby is born.
          Etc.
          That's why we have "Planned Parenthood", family planning, sex education, etc.
          There's a good time for a man to think twice about the consequences.
          After the baby is born, the father should be willing to contribute whatever he can, whether it's money, time, etc. to that child.
          I'm old enough to know what I'm talking about.

          I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

          by David54 on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:06:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sex = "consequences" (0+ / 0-)

            in other words, fucking for fun is wrong, and must be punished.  Pretty simple when you start with that premise, I agree.

            don't always believe what you think

            by claude on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 06:40:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, that is nowhere implied (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrugalGranny

              in the comment you are responding to.

              Pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, whether or not birth control is used.  

            •  I Have to Ask Somewhere (6+ / 0-)

              So here is good enough:

              When did the decision get made that "having a baby" = being "punished?"  I see that language around here a lot and I have to ask why on earth we think it helps our side to characterize a natural consequence of sexual intercourse between heterosexuals in this fashion.

              After all, while myths have abounded for millenia about how one can avoid getting pregnant if one has sex, honest mature adults admit that there is no such thing as 100% effective birth control.  Not yet.  So how does something that one should at least always know is the risk become a "punishment"?

              Having a baby when one is not emotionally or financially ready is one of the most difficult things to do on this earth.  Raising a child under those circumstances even more so.  But it isn't "punishment."

              If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

              by shanikka on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:54:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  No way, Claud-ay. (0+ / 0-)

              The fact is that men have their fun, and women get pregnant.

              Obviously this is an overly simplistic statement. Sometimes women have fun too.

              The fact is that if a woman suffers as a consequence of my fun, then I feel bad. It's not fun anymore.
              So in order to make it really fun, I have to regard the happiness of my lover as equal to my own.
              It doesn't have anything to do with religious prudery, etc.
              I'm all for a grown-up, fulfilling sex life for adults, and the protection of minors from overwhelming pressure to do things they're not emotionally mature enough for, but also from prudery and the child abuse of exaggerated sexual guilt.
              I think a lot of sex crime is the product of prudery and the exaggeration of guilt.

              I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

              by David54 on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:54:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  There are birth control methods available that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BachFan, Geekesque

            men control and so can rely on.  They have the power to make that choice.  The other choice they can always make is not to do it.  

            •  you work under the premise (0+ / 0-)

              that all men will take it upon themselves to prevent pregnancy, rather than leave to the woman.

              "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

              by theRoaringGirl on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:10:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Our goal should be to educate and socialize men (0+ / 0-)

                and women so that they know the risks, know how to reduce the risks, and know that it's not cool, not sexy, etc. to exploit or abuse someone.
                That would go a long way to minimizing our problems in this area.
                If you're a man, and you love a young woman, and you're immature and naive, as I was (as we all were in the 70's, relative to today), and you find out too late that your pursuit of satisfaction causes harm to that young woman, and eventually costs you her love, then you understand how that behavior was counterproductive.

                I think we're all more or less on the same page, as to our objectives.
                I think the "other side" is trying to throw us off course right now.

                I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

                by David54 on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 09:05:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't say they will (0+ / 0-)

                but they have the power, although they seem strangely to
                want to avoid acknowledging that fact.  It's up to their partners to see that they confront it.

      •  True. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, kyril

        Not now, anyway. But they really should be; a woman has a choice over her body, it's unfair not to give men some form of choice that doesn't infringe upon those choices.

        •  You mean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrugalGranny

          we should give men something, anything, just to claim that walking away and abandoning a baby to poverty is somehow the same as "choice"?

          •  Getting pregnant (0+ / 0-)

            may be an act of nature, but carrying it to term isn't anymore - it's a conscious choice made by the woman. If she chooses to have a child against the father's wishes, she is the one responsible.

            Why is she insisting on having a baby, if she and the child are going to live in poverty without extracting payments from an unwilling father?

            Doesn't the child have a right to a father who wants him?

            How can the man have no say in the matter? He may not have to carry the child, but if he's going to be responsible for it for the next 18 years, how can the decision be made without his agreement?

            I don't get this thinking at all.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:34:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He was not forced to get her pregnant. (0+ / 0-)

              He had a choice. He had an opportunity to change his mind.
              I'm not an advocate of "abstinence only" sex ed.
              I'm not even an advocate of abstinence.
              However, we could eliminate the great majority of our problems in this area with education and access to birth control.
              There is something called a reversible vasectomy, btw.

              I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

              by David54 on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 09:20:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  There's a time to consider that. (10+ / 0-)

        I've been there. I went through a sexually active 70's and started wising up in the 80's. I made many mistakes, but we were much more naive.
        This whole debate, the idea that women have to have so much pressure on them to obtain and use the birth control, that they are already operating from a defensive posture, and now they're being attacked again with the threat of forced unwanted pregnancy, is a function of how poorly we have socialized and educated males in this society.
        I'm not a prude. I think it's possible for men and women to have very satisfactory sex lives without the risk of impregnation. Understanding that is liberating. Men should take equal responsibility for dealing with pregnancy risk. No excuses.
        Having said that, compassion for the man and woman should be a central tenet of how we respond to the fact of teenage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancy.
        On occasion the male may be blindsided by a woman with whom he had an understanding, that she was going to use birth control, and she didn't. I know that's happened to people I know.
        I don't think that's all that common. Men are more irresponsible by a wide margin.

        I'd rather have a buntle afrota-me than a frottle a bunta-me.

        by David54 on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:50:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily so complicated (0+ / 0-)

        Those who choose to be parents take up the costs of that choice.

      •  Both parents have an obligation to support (0+ / 0-)

        the child.

        The child's right to financial support outweighs daddy's right to be free of the consequences of his own decisions.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:11:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, kyril, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      I also don't think we should punish men for having sex. If they aren't being stupid about it, they should have the right to run away from the bullet, so to speak. They should, however, come to some form of a tacit agreement about the issue. (My girlfriend thinks I shouldn't feel the way I do about the issue, especially considering the fact that I don't want to have children ever; but I suppose it's years of indoctrination talking.) Sex is a beautiful thing, if not misused; but it does sometimes have unfortunate consequences.

  •  And by pro-life, I mean... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, kyril

    I'm not an advocate for other people - I just believe I should give birth if I were to get pregnant. If that makes sense...

    •  The 'pro life' point of view takes the matter one (6+ / 0-)

      step farther than you do, Nagano. The question for 'pro life' is not whether the individual believer, you, would do X, but whether you believe you have the right to require me to do what you would. Your own choice for your own self, body and soul, is yours, either way, but it is mine which, without consulting me, is affected by the' pro life'
      position.

      •  Well, I did write this at midnight my time, so... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        I was pretty tired and such. My personal opinion is that it's wrong FOR ME to get an abortion; hers' is that it's wrong for me to think of it in those terms. I've been there, though, and I know how... appealing a choice abortion can be under the right circumstances. Fear and despair are strong motivators.

        •  And that's more like three or four steps, as I am (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          strongly pro-choice in the matter of politics. Women should have that choice, because it's terrifying to be in that position. Like you're looking into a gun with someone else's finger on the trigger.

          I can't tell someone that they shouldn't run away from that gun; I just know that I would take it and pull it myself. If that makes sense.

  •  I'm a guy, and I've known enough of my fellow guys (4+ / 0-)

    to know that they shouldn't always have full rights for visitation and whatnot.  I've known some shitty fathers.   Some bad mothers too, but far more often bad fathers.

    Should us guys have the right to not pay child support?   Maybe, in cases where it can be proven that there was deceit(i.e., "I'm on birth-control", and yes it does happen).   But that's be hard to prove and such a tiny slice of unplanned pregnancies.

    Single-mothers already have it hard enough.

    "Your diary is a pack of filthy lies." -bronte17

    by Setrak on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:44:29 PM PST

    •  But even where there was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      some kind of "deceit" there is still a baby that needs proper support to grow up. What should happen? Should the mother be punished by being denied support and forced to raise the child in poverty? Are babies punishment to women for becoming pregnant?

      •  That's what these so called "men's rights" forget (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        Child support is for the child. Not the woman.

        So no matter how much the man might hate the woman he had sex with, saying he should not have to pay child support is punishing the child, who after all had no vote in the matter.

        •  Definitely (0+ / 0-)

          Don't punish the kid.  Single parenthood should be prohibited because it leads to kids being raised in poverty.  Unless your are married, you shouldn't be allowed to have kids on your own.  If there is a father (not a sperm donor) then denying visitation rights must be prohibited.  

      •  You don't get to make reproductive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denise b

        Choices for other people. Period.   You opt to have a kid, then you are responsible for your decision

  •  Eh ? (6+ / 0-)
    and a man should not be forced to pay for a child he tried to convince his lover to abort.

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:51:26 PM PST

    •  Yeah... (6+ / 0-)

      ...I hear you.   Made me think of this scumbag I used to know.

      "Your diary is a pack of filthy lies." -bronte17

      by Setrak on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:56:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that's just my opinion. (5+ / 0-)

      While he should have an obligation to pay for something, he should not have to pay for a child when he repeatedly offers to pay for an abortion. I kind of find it distasteful to force a man to be involved in an unwanted child's life... particularly if he doesn't want to be; being on the line for 18-21 years of child support could very well obliterate his chances of going to college.

      Petitioning the court to dissolve his parental rights should be an option. (For both sides.) (I say this as a woman who understands what a pregnancy can do to a man's chances at life.) While he should not have equal rights in regards to the child, he should have equal rights in regards to support, particularly if he is vehemently against it, AND if Denise is going to try and use this child to victimize him. (Say what you will, but child-rearing is one of the only places where a woman has more power than a man, and that's a power discrepancy that needs to stop.)

      Again, it's just my opinion, so keep that in mind.

      •  The problem with your position on this (12+ / 0-)

        is that by the time child support becomes an issue, a third party, the child, is also involved and that person has rights. And the issue is whether the man has the right to walk, while the woman who is carrying the child can never do so, and teh after effects of the pregnancy will be physically with her forever.

        It also misses the compromise that saying the duty would be merely monetary, already is. Part of the the traditional mode requires of a male, no matter how infrequently seen in fact, is his presence and participation in the raising of the child he makes, not just money. Women who become single monthers are usually on the hook for that raising, and do their best at it, but there is no parallel shifting of obligatory burdens on the men, only the 'child support[, which can be taken care of by the purchase of an annuity. Men are not socially punished for walking, but women are.

          •  I am not so sure (7+ / 0-)

            Three major problems I see

            One, the woman is not forced to raise the child, so since adoption is also an option, the mom has as much right to decline parenthood after birth as the dad does. Also, note, she also is not forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Part of having the right to choose is that both giving births and child rearing are voluntarily made choices.  At this point, women who become single mothers, except through divorce or the death of the father, do so as a matter of choice. Thus it isn't clear why, having taken on the obligations of parenthood it is remarkable that they then have that obligation  

            Second, If we accept the the child has a right to a dual income support, then single parenthood must be prohibited, since for a single dad or mom to enter into that arrangement would violate the rights of the child.  I don't think that is a step that I would endorse.  

            Third, I am a little disheartened to see people making the argument that children need the traditional father- mother arrangement, especially in an age where a lot of us are fighting for equal LGBT rights precisely against that argument.   Maybe there is a case for coerced parenting on that basis, but that would have many repercussions

            I think it is important to really think these matters through

        •  The woman can walk (9+ / 0-)

          I've seen it done.

          Back on topic:

          The thing is that when we advocate for abortion on demand, without apology (a position that I strongly support) then we're not only saying that a woman has a right to ownership over her own body and should be allowed to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

          We're also saying that a woman has the right to decide, even after she's pregnant, that she's not economically and/or emotionally equipped to have a baby at this time. Or even that she just plain doesn't want to.

          It's highly unreasonable to just turn around and say men shouldn't have that second choice. Especially when the rationale so often given is "if he didn't want a baby, he should have kept it in his pants" - the perfect mirror image of the "if she didn't want to get pregnant, she should have kept her legs closed" misogynistic trope.

          There are other ways to provide support to women who want to keep a child against the biological father's wishes besides simply demanding that he pay for it. There are other ways to protect a child's rights. We don't have to make mothers dependent on the income of the man who happened to impregnate them. We could create a proper support system for single mothers.

          "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

          by kyril on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 11:03:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  woah! Don't get radical on us! (6+ / 0-)
            We could create a proper support system for single mothers.
            I like this on its own merits;
          •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            A "proper support system" that completely removes the responsibility of the male from paying a dime and transfers it all to the taxpayer at large. Or maybe it will be a special tax only paid by women...

            •  I'm a taxpayer (0+ / 0-)

              and I'd rather pay it than impose it on an unwilling father.

              But my first choice would be for no children to be born who are not wanted by both parents, or by one parent who is in a position to support them.

              I can't even begin to imagine explaining to my child that I chose to have him although the father completely didn't want him, and chose to spend the next 18 years squeezing money out of someone who hated us because we ruined his life.

              You keep describing the situation as though the woman were not exercising a conscious choice. This is something she is deciding to do, not something that is happening to her.

              We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

              by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:49:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So a guy gets to impregnate as many women (13+ / 0-)

        as he wants and all he has to say is abortion and he is in the free and clear ?  
        No child support , no responsibilities at all .

        I don't know how that could ever be abused , sounds like a perfect plan .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:36:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, this is very theoretical. I'm not saying (0+ / 0-)

          It's a perfect plan, and if the man has a history of irresponsibility he should be held accountable; but it's more about men who have no rights AFTER THE BABY IS BORN. The issue of choice is something that seeps into the system and often leaves men in the cold.

          •  The issue (7+ / 0-)

            of men having no rights after the baby is born is largely myth.

            Men who father a child have parental rights even if they don't have custody. They only lose those rights if they surrender them or lose them through court process where it has to be shown that they are unwilling or unable to live up to their parental responsibilities.

            Biology dictates that a woman carries a pregnancy, and thusly she gets to choose whether to carry it to term. That's just the way it is. After that, well, all children have parents.

            Like it or not, pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, whether or not it's intended. Men and women who are unwilling to deal with that eventuality and the potential effects thereof need to think twice about having sex in the first place.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 06:29:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  and "a woman could get pregnant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quequeg, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

          as many times as she wants and all she has to say is abortion and she is in the free and clear.    I don't know how that could ever be abused"

          Isn't that a line we hear a lot from certain quarters.

          Besides, last I checked, women play a role, nay, the dominant role, in deciding whether a baby results.

        •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BrowniesAreGood, FrugalGranny

          Most guys I know don't even have sex with as many women as they want, much less impregnate them.  Last I checked, barring rape, the women is the one who decides whether or not a guy has any chance at all to impregnate her.

          And most guys don't actually want to go around impregnating women.  All of these 'deadbeat dads' on TV aren't going around thinking 'Gee, I wonder how many women I can pregnant this month!'  There may well be a few weirdos who want to 'impregnate as man women as they can', but they're probably as rare as failed birth control...

          We already have deadbeat dads.  If a guy is the kind of guy who's going to be a deadbeat dad, the 'system' as it stands already isn't stopping them.

        •  The reverse of that though is "so a woman gets to (0+ / 0-)

          abort on-demand as many times as she wants, regardless of how many times a guy tried to get her pregnant?"

          Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:27:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You could rewrite this as.... (0+ / 0-)

          So girls get to impregnate themselves as often as they want and all they have to say is "no abortion" and they get money from whatever man they want?

          "impregnate" is not something a man "does" to a women.  It's something a woman and man do together.

      •  if a guy doesn't want to father children, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrugalGranny, Deep Texan

        his choices exist before (vasectomy or choose not to have sex) and during (condom use controlled by male).  After that, sorry pal, you were there, you fathered a child, you are responsible.

        •  Same with her (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denise b

          The anti choice logic is always: you could avoid having sex or use birth control, so if you get pregnant you just have to deal.  No abortion for you.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people who reject that frame as applied to women are totally happy to apply it to men

          •  The double standard being (0+ / 0-)

            expressed here really has me shaking my head.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:51:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry but I don't get this. (0+ / 0-)

            Pregnancy isn't punishment for sex.  Pregnancy is a natural consequence or used to be until science and medicine endowed us with choices - a multitude of birth control choices and abortion.  I think having choices is a good thing - no, it's a bloody brilliant thing and everyone should have access to those choices and I don't want the government or the Catholic bishops telling me or any other male or female that they can't have those choices.  Beyond that, you've lost me.

  •  If they both use birth control there would be (4+ / 0-)

    no problem. He controls his genetic material and she controls hers. To tell her she cannot control who uses her uterus is nothing short of slavery. I have heard guys saying if she wants to not get an abortion that they shouldn't have to pay for the maintainence of the child.

    So once again everything about reproduction is her responsibility. Birth control, gestation and now supporting the child unless of course she wants to put it up for adoption in which case he can step in and claim the child.

    First abortion is an issue about a woman deciding who can use her body.

    Second is if she says OK i will allow the use of my uterus :  is what responsibility each have to the resulting offspring. If he relies on her birth control not failing then he is in effect saying that he accepts whatever outcome happens. If he uses birth control as well as her using  birth control then the likelihood of pregnancy is exceedingly small. SO use a condom even if she is using birth control...And push for development of a male birth control pill... something males have resisted preferring women be responsible while they fly away leaving thier genetic material for her to  gestate and now Claiming they shouldn't have to support despite DNA which proves it is his. Only when he uses a method of birth control independent of hers does he have grounds to claim that it wasn't his choice to become a father. Then I agree he should be allowed to not have to support a child he (not her) tried to prevent the conception of.

     In the good old days when a girl got pregnant the boys could simply call her a slut and say who knew which one was the father. Eliminate that question and the problem by being responsible for the disemination of your own biological genetic material. Control your body and its cells.

    Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:59:02 PM PST

    •  It's not always that simple. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, Cassandra Waites, kyril, Quequeg

      There are exceedingly rare cases in which women can't use birth control, or in which men can't use effective condoms. (For instance, I have a blood disorder that prevents me from taking hormones of any kind. Which sucks, all things considered.) There are also cases in which they get pregnant anyway, whether it's because of a faulty condom or some antibiotics she took the month before; you can't really know how your body works, or when you cycle.

      The problem here is that they're pregnant. What to do now?

      •  That is so much crap. (6+ / 0-)

        You are "pre-hormone trans", but can't take hormones?  That puts a big question mark on everything you've written.

        There are exceedingly small odds that a woman will get pregnant when a condom is properly used.  I counsel unintendedly pregnant women and girls......exactly 3 of them, in the 35 years I've been doing this, has become pregnant through a faulty condom.  There are all kinds now, so allergies to latex are not an excuse.  There are no "hormones" in condoms.

        Your entire premise is just hooey.

        Men, wear condoms.  Every time you don't want a pregnancy to occur.  Dont' rely on the woman's word.  Ever.  Use a fucking condom.

        And ladies, MAKE him wear one.  If he says no, walk if you can.

        •  People are human (0+ / 0-)

          They make mistakes.
          I took chances in my life. I don't know anyone who hasn't.
          These things are always going to happen.

          We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

          by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:56:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The premise of the first diary (3+ / 0-)

      was that both were using birth control responsibly and still got pregnant.

      A bit theoretical maybe, but that was the question

  •  I think you agree with Pluto (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Quequeg, denise b

    (although reallly s/he just posed the question)  

    Here, as Pluto posed it, it isn't a question of whether he can force her to have an abortion of a child.  It is a question of whether she can force him to pay for the care of a child she chooses
    1) to carry to term
    2) to raise.

    I think all agree that he has to respect her decision on both counts.  

    As you note, the question is about parental rights, or the right to decline them regardless of anothers decision on the same issue.  In this sense, this isn't whether the man respects the woman's choices, it is whether the woman respects the man's.

    •  Ah. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature, kyril

      Maybe it's the exhaustion seeping in, or maybe it's the philosophy paper I'm supposed to be writing; but I sort of thought she was suggesting that a man should have some sort of choice in whether a woman should get an abortion (which he shouldn't). Maybe I need to reread.

      •  Or maybe I do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        or maybe we should both get back to work!

        Anyway, I very much appreciate your tone and the window into your thinking and life.

        •  Well, I just don't think we should be irrational. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature, kyril

          This is a very emotional issue, but I don't think we're speaking in the same language when it comes to the argument. We need to get back to what we're saying and make sure we're not saying the same thing... if that makes sense! I can be very combative when it comes to issues I really care about (like the recent Virginia "personhood" bill, for instance); but when I'm not being emotional, I generally try to approach things with rationality and appropriate conduct towards the other persons' feelings. Even if mine are highly controversial (which they often are).

  •  Wow, I'm gonna comment on this one (10+ / 0-)

    I look at this way.  If you are a man and you don't want to be stuck with child support, then you better put a jacket on that puppy.  As far as I'm concerned, if you wanna play, you gotta be smart about it. Anything less and you get what you deserve. That's your equal rights. You have the right to protect yourself. You have no rights at all when it comes to abortion. That's my territory and my right, not yours.

    That's my opinion. If you disagree, I'll hear you out. :) For the record, it's the same thing I told my son.

    P.S. For men and women... never trust that the other person has taken care of the contraceptive issue.

    •  See, I actually agree with you... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature, kyril, Quequeg, Odysseus

      But the premise is that they were both using birth control responsibly. I.E., he was wearing a condom, she was on the pill, and they still got preggo; so what do they do when no one's at fault here and they both want different things?

      No, men don't have rights to abortion, but they should have rights to choose whether to be involved in that child's life. It's unfair to give them any less.

      •  That's nice, but... (8+ / 0-)

        That is not clear from your post and you didn't link to the other one you were commenting on.  I'm not in the mood to hunt it down.

        I'll respond anyway. In my opinion they are both responsible. ANYONE who has sex should understand the possibilities, no matter how remote. Maybe I should make that more complicated, but I don't think it is.  You play, you pay.

         

        •  ...I thought I did... (0+ / 0-)

          I did try to link. Sorry!

        •  I am sorry granny (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, qannabbos, FrugalGranny

          But "you play, you pay"?

          Is that the same as "if you do the crime, you do the time"?. If not, how?

          •  I'll explain...if I can (5+ / 0-)

            My bro and I used to go rock climbing. We did it with the understanding that no matter how safe we tried to be, things happen. It happened. My brother spent 9 months and a few surgeries getting a leg repaired after a fall. I was a bit luckier and just lost a bunch of my hide. It was the price we paid for doing something we enjoyed.

            Having sex is a risk, no matter how careful we might be.
            We all have to be responsible for what we do. If we have sex with contraceptives and a pregnancy happens, we deal with it. That means taking responsibility for our part in that situation, male or female.

            •  That makes sense. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril

              I just... think that men should have some sort of choice. (Reproductive law kind of eases into custodial law, too, and if you don't give men a choice in one area, you can't give them a choice in another area.) I just... think that men should be given more rights in that area, because they're often left out of the equation.

              •  Men have choices - there are lots of forms of sex (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Unit Zero, FrugalGranny, Deep Texan

                with exactly zero chance of begetting a child.

                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:05:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  S do women (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  denise b

                  Which is a really good anti choice argument.  After all, if a woman doesn't want to be forced to give birth she has te choice to engage in other kinds of sex too.  You do realize that this precise argument is employed against women on a regular basis

                  •  Since I addressed this elsewhere, I am copying (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan

                    that comment:

                    What makes it harder to see the connection between
                    Tim's free choice to have sex and his responsibility as a father is that there is an intervening stage. There are gametes (both Tim and Denise have them and can freely decide how to use them), there is a fetus (inextricably entwined with Denise's body, over which she has autonomy), and then there is a baby if the pregnancy goes to term.

                    Both the fetus and the baby have half Tim's genes. However the fetus has no claim on Tim; indeed states do not require "fetus support" or aid to the mother during the pregnancy. It is the borne child that requires support as a legal individual and both parents share in that.

                    Yes, there is an asymmetry that the woman has the power to end the pregnancy, but the original diary had an excellent comment spelling out why there was no resolution that was not asymmetric. Given that, the woman's autonomy over her own body is the deciding factor.

                    Both exercise autonomy in choosing sex. The woman has autonomy over her body, and therefore the pregnancy. If a child is borne it has two parents that are responsible for its well being.

                    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                    by Wee Mama on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:13:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem here (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      denise b

                      is that the decision to carry a baby to term is independent of the choice to be a parent and raise the child.  

                      I saw the comment about the assymetry, but it ONLY applies during pregnancy.  After the baby is born, there is no more natural assymmetry.  At that point, each of them has a choice whether to raise a child or not.  If she wants to (or he wants to), that their right, but that is not a choice that either should be able to make for the other.

                      If you are going to accept that just because the baby has Tim's genes and therefore the mother can make choices for him, it is a very short step to saying similarly he can make choices for her and require her to get his consent before aborting his child.  If we are going to impute responsibilities merely from having sex, then there isn't really any natural or clear stopping point.

                      •  The best situation is one in which the two parents (0+ / 0-)

                        arrive at a consensus on how to proceed. However a disagreement between them does not erase the father's contribution genetically and therefore does not erase the father's responsibility to contribute to the child's support.

                        What you are proposing would basically eliminate all rationales for states' requiring child support. The men could just say, "I don't want to be a father" and walk away. That is not good for children, because raising a child is demanding and the support of two parents is more likely to produce a situation where the child is not raised in poverty - that is a matter of statistics, independent of whether the parents are same sex or opposite sex.

                        Mothers can refuse to name a baby's father (at least in some states) but when the father is known it is in the best interests of the child for the child to receive support.

                        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                        by Wee Mama on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:56:05 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, I am saying (0+ / 0-)

                          that the state should not force parenthood on people.  Where a person has taken up parenthood, then of course supporting children after that would be fine.  However, for one party to unilaterally decide that for another is deeply problematic

                          What we have now is a situation where one person can make reproductive decisions for another.  Since that's a pretty fundamental choice, that creates an injustice.  If we are going to have a situation where a man has to have consent of the mother to decline to be a parent, then the mother must also be required to get the consent of the father to decline to be a mother as well.  However, that is not the situation (and probably rightly so).  this line of reasoning severly undermines the rationale for abortion rights.  After all, if we can commandeer a persons labor (and the body they do it with) for 18 years, what is to prevent the commandeering for nine months?

            •  See (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, Odysseus

              I am staunchly pro choice, so I don't agree with the idea that we abrogate people's rights to reproductive choice just because birth control fails with some rate.  (your analogy makes me smile since I am a climber too). It'd be akin to saying that since falls are a risk in climbing, climbers should be denied medical care but should just suck it up.  

              Similarly, if forced parenthood is the logical consequence of sex, we should prohibit voluntary adoption as well on the same grounds.  

              I agree with the idea of taking responsibility, but that is different from using the force of the state to require it.  Some people obviously see this differently than I do though

      •  Clearly unfair to the man to expect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        him to support his offspring, clearly fair to the woman to expect her to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise that child, and clearly fair to the child to be born in poverty and go without because of it.

        Because it's all about fairness to men!

    •  I think the philisophical issue is whether (0+ / 0-)

      AFTER the pregnancy is carried to term, does/should the man have an equal say in keeping the child/being responsible, etc.

      If a woman has an abortion not necessarily because she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy but because she doesn't want to raise the child, that is not an ownership choice as much as it is a lifestyle choice, and telling the guy he can't also make a lifestyle choice that is not directly related to a uterus does seem problematic.

      Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:32:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hear this (0+ / 0-)

      and could almost think we were back in 1950 listening to this:

      If you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex.
      I thought we lived in a more enlightened time. Or is it only more enlightened for women, and not men?

      Even people who are usually careful and responsible make mistakes. It could be either party's fault or both of theirs. From what I've seen in my life I would venture to say that almost everyone risks pregnancy on occasion. I would also venture to say that not that many men use condoms when they're in relationships with women who are using birth control or who say they are. Demanding that people behave in ways that most people just don't behave is not reasonable. People slip up when it comes to sex; they get carried away by the passion of the moment, they take risks, they get drunk, they forget to go to the store, they forget to take their pills. They're human.

      You get what you deserve? Sheesh.

      Think about being the child, and your father being told that you are his punishment.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 05:17:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Be a man, Arthur Puty (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrugalGranny, Deep Texan, Unit Zero

    Like in the Python Sketch. And if the idea of paying child support for a little one bugs you but not enough to avoid fucking her when you feel like it, allow me to introduce you to this little device we have invented.
       It is called a condom.

       Here, like this

       

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:56 PM PST

    •  Yes, but... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichiganChet, kyril

      The post assumes responsible contraceptive use. (I thought I linked it... so I'll find it and link again.) I don't think we should be punishing sexuality, just that men should have some right in the matter. The balance of power is unfair.

      •  I don't see it that way. (4+ / 0-)

        And quite bluntly I don't think it really matters whether the parties use responsible contraceptives or not (which is what I inferred from the post). I think part of being a man is taking responsibility for your putz. I certainly do for mine.

        An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

        by MichiganChet on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:32:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... it's just, I don't think women (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          Should be able to victimize men with their children, which does happen. It's bad for the child and it's bad for the father.

        •  True, but it's more about protecting the man. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, Quequeg

          We sometimes lose sight of the male victims in this equation - men who lose rights to visitation but still have to pay child support for that child, men who get scalped by vindictive baby-mamas, and men who don't really get a choice in this at all.

          On the one hand, the man doesn't have the right to dictate her choices to her, and he doesn't have the right to make that choice for her; but he also shouldn't be left vulnerable to a system that's very obviously tilted in the woman's favor (which is about the only thing that is, sadly). The scenarios I've described are very, very common for men who, say, get divorced, and etcetera; it does work both ways.

        •  that would be your choice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          The question is, does that mean you want to strip all men of that choice?  How about women, do we take a similar approach to women who get pregnant?

          •  Strip men of that choice? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mindful Nature, kyril

            No, I just want to give them a choice. I find it appalling that this is even an issue at all; a man is held responsible for 50% of the child, but isn't even given rights to remove himself from the equation? No, he has no right to make a woman get an abortion, but she has no right to make him stay involved in the child's life.

            I think we're misunderstanding one another.

            •  Did I reply to the wrong comment (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, Quequeg, denise b

              We are on the same page. Michigan Chet feels otherwise

              For me, it isn't about victimized dads at core, although I do feel that if there is child support there must be joint custody absent compelling reason. ). For me, it is grounded in the fundental right to reproductive choice. This idea that having sex negates that right that most here have repeatedly rejected here.  Thus, to remove that right from someone and place it in the hands of someone else without recourse is to relegate that right to second class status.  I for one dislike second class status for anyone

  •  blackmail (8+ / 0-)

    You say the man should not be able to force the woman to have an abortion, yet he also should not have to pay child support. But that allows the man to say "either have the abortion, or you are on your own, I won't help" - financial blackmail, and thus an attempt to  force abortion.

    Blackmail is not a choice at all.

    "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

    by mdsiamese on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:33:46 PM PST

    •  Rebuttal (which may not make sense, but I'll try) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Quequeg

      On the one hand, child support usually isn't enough to help a single mother take care of the child on her own - it's just enough to take some of the weight off. And on the other hand, sometimes women use their children to victimize the men, which is wrong. (Again, this is coming from the child of a vindictive single-mother who denied visitation rights and scalped my father for everything he had.) I don't think men should be put in such vulnerable positions.

      •  Then they should keep it in their pants (4+ / 0-)

        It doesn't get any more simple than that.

        •  This isn't just about men who have irresponsible (0+ / 0-)

          sex. It's an issue that affects divorced men, too, or men who choose to be fathers who later get caught up in a bad situation; and it's an issue that should get more airtime than it does.

          Also, please let's not let this devolve into an argument about premarital sex. I don't want this to turn into some kind of irrational screaming match (as has happened before). Abstinence is better, but the argument is more about what happens after the woman is already pregnant/has had a child (which can happen during a divorce, for instance). The issue of choice is seeping into the issue of men being parents, and that's unfair; we need to draw a line to ensure that men aren't victimized in this process.

        •  That's your opinion and one I agree with, but do (0+ / 0-)

          encase that opinion in law? Or maybe we're not talking about it to that extent, and if so you can ignore this.

          Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:50:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Law? I dunno (0+ / 0-)

            I think I'm arguing merely from the standpoint of two people having sex and taking responsibility for their actions. I guess I'm arguing the moral side, as opposed to the legal side. I would have to ask my SIL about the legal issues. She's the law expert (family, divorce) in the family. :)

            Disclaimer: I mentioned elsewhere that I'm not assuming the worst in men or women in this debate.

            •  That was the discussion (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrugalGranny

              Whether men should have equal legal rights.  Under law. A large number of people here are actually opposed to gender equailty

              •  OK, and I'm not sure Frugal Granny was talking (0+ / 0-)

                in legal terms, I think she's saying morally what the man should do.

                Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:44:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm scratching my head (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                Because of the way "equal legal rights" has been twisted to include the idea that a man can order a woman to have an abortion, and should she not, he can walk away from his offspring and pretend he never did the deed.

                Do you also want him to file a form to make sure she can't collect any benefits for the child from the state, or is it enough punishment for her to have to raise the child he didn't want in poverty?

                •  Utterly false (0+ / 0-)
                  Because of the way "equal legal rights" has been twisted to include the idea that a man can order a woman to have an abortion, and should she not, he can walk away from his offspring and pretend he never did the deed.
                  No one said that at all.  What was said is that if she wants to have a child over the protests of the father, rather than to find a willing partner, then she foregoes a right to support for her decision.
        •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

          "they should keep it in their pants" == "they should keep their legs crossed"

      •  no it doesn't make sense (12+ / 0-)

        Whether some women are vindictive is irrelevant, all women cannot be punished for the poor behavior of some.

        Men and women both put themselves in a position of vulnerability when they have sex. They both risk creating a child. When the child is created, they both have to care for the child. Abortion is not part of the equation, it has nothing to do with who has the responsibility to care for the child.

        Imagine if the law were on your side, that all a man has to do to get out of child support is say "I wanted her to have an abortion" or "I don't want the child." Then many men would not support the children they create, it would be a license for men to do as they please, to have sex without ever using contraceptive because they would have no responsibility if a child is conceived. Women and children would be so disadvantaged that society would suffer as a whole. It is the child and the mother that are vulnerable!

        "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

        by mdsiamese on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 10:02:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it's not like the law has to be... (0+ / 0-)

          black-and-white. There should be clauses of irresponsibility to protect the women... but then again, it's not workable, I'll give you that. This is more utopic political theory than anything else.

        •  By the identical token (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrugalGranny, Quequeg

          all the woman would have to do is just give every kid up for adoption or abort every pregnancy and have unprotected sex with no responsibility for any child conceived.

          INdeed, let's not punish all men for the poor behavior of some.

          Why is it that there is the automatic assumption that men are all total rapacious heels here?  Might this assumption be somethign people ought to examine?  The very notion that this discussion gets framed as men "getting away" with something, as opposed to stripped men of reproductive rights, sounds  to me a whole lot like the arguments that allowing abortion on demand would let women do things in the sexual realm in arguments against choice for women.

      •  I thougt your father took off? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Unit Zero, FrugalGranny, Deep Texan

        And if you see your mother as "vindictive", then you are not discussing any of this in a rational manner.  You have prejudices....prejudices you don't even see.

        •  My father DID take off. It's a complicated story. (0+ / 0-)

          He took off after my mother started being vindictive. (I know this because I tried to get in contact with him later and it didn't work.) My mother scalped him for everything he owned afterwards, and considering the fact that he was disabled and barely making ends meet...

          Honestly, with my life you have to understand that the words "It's complicated" almost always apply.

    •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      Since she can carry the child to term and eithe give up for adoption or raise the child herself, if she so chooses

  •  "I can't get pregnant" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrugalGranny, kyril, Unit Zero

    I heard that a couple of times and guess what, they did. Way after me, though. The first such statement inspired me to get a vasectomy before proceeding. A couple of years later, her household consisted of her, her new husband, her 20 year old daughter, and two zero year olds.

    That reminds me of a co-worker who was looking forward to retirement and got presented with a whole new life after believing the same statement. His girlfriend was in the early stages of menopause at the time she got pregnant, at least that's what they said.

    Can't be emphasized too much- take all precautions you can, and even then be prepared to spend a whole lot of time, energy and money doing something you might not be planning on.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:45:18 PM PST

  •  In my Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

    that you are responding to -- I just want to be clear that during the three month scenario, the man never has any control over the woman's body or whether or not she has a baby or aborts.

    That is entirely her decision -- for which she is 100 percent responsible.

    In the scenario -- neither the man nor the woman endures a FORCED BIRTH.

    They have equal rights in that regard.


    "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

    by Pluto on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:47:56 PM PST

  •  This very question is why I had a vasectomy (4+ / 0-)

    in my 30s. I never wanted children, and I never wanted to be put in the position this scenario posits.

    A friend of mine observed that when the female in the relationship wants a child, she'll fucking get a child. Fine, I say, just not mine.

    Accidents aside, I've know several men that have been hoodwinked by their spouses and/or girlfriends stopping birth control so as to force the issue of having/having another child. In one case the resultant child was born with CP, and changed--irrevocably--the lives of this couple, and their two already extant children, and not in a positive way. (Needless to say, that couple is no longer together.)

    The only way to completely prevent this scenario is male birth control. Once the baby is in the belly, boys, it's out of your hands. And that's the way it's gotta be.

    "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

    by Wheever on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:54:51 PM PST

    •  Yeah, and it shouldn't be that simple. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wheever, denise b

      Men deserve some representation in this issue. If a woman CHOOSES to have a child, the man should CHOOSE to not be involved. It's unfair, but then again so is making that kind of choice without discussing it with your partner; and oftentimes men get left in the dust by women who choose to use that child to victimize their partners.

      It happens. And women should understand that men need rights too, particularly in this area; while women do have to fight to keep their reproductive rights, the only thing a man can control is whether or not he has sex.

      •  That, or get chopped. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah
        the only thing a man can control is whether or not he has sex.

        It's really not that hard to make sure you don't get a woman pregnant. I was sexually active for 20+ years before I had my vasectomy, and never even had reason to worry when, say, my girlfriend's period was late. Most "accidents" are actually risk-taking that went the wrong way.

        "Don't take risks" is a better piece of advice than "don't have sex." No glove, no love. Be responsible.

        But that brings us to the question of why the only forms of birth control that are under a man's control are condoms and vasectomy. I find it hard to believe that a male pill is that difficult to invent.

        "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

        by Wheever on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 10:16:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, biologically speaking... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          The testes constantly produce sperm, while the ovaries only produce one egg a month, which is only there for like a week. It's extremely difficult to invent effective birth control for an organ that's constantly working without causing serious harm to a that organ... or to a woman's body (as hormones can cause severe side effects to a woman's body, like nausea, pulmonary/cardiovascular problems and the like). The risks for the MBC invented thus far outweigh the benefits.

          •  There is this extremely effective thing (5+ / 0-)

            called a condom.  You can choose to put one on whether the girl asks you to or not.  Also reduces transmission of STDs; you can put it on even if she says she's on the pill.

            When I was in college (in a state where they had decent sex ed) all the guys used 'em and I never got preggo (or infected).

            It's ah-ma-zing how that works.

            Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

            by kismet on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:16:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Precisely. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrugalGranny, Deep Texan

              We men all know that condoms are not the greatest thing in the world, but they work, and work well. Condoms are FAR better than getting a girl pregnant when you don't intend to. And it's the only birth control we men have the ability to use.

              No glove no love!

              "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

              by Wheever on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:20:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you read the original diary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wheever

              The question was posed in the case of failure of birth control.  Still I am amazed that so many people endorse stripping reproductive rights because pregnancy is largely preventable

      •  I sympathize but "shouldn't be" isn't... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wheever

        ... always the way it is.  Sometimes "shouldn't be" is just not possible.  

        You're fighting biology.  Biology doesn't care about the rights of men or women.

        There is no solution to this that give "male rights" as you describe w/o the possibility of one of the following:

        1). Financially coercing a woman to abort a fetus who does not want to.
        2). Financially coercing a man to support a child who wants an abortion.

        There isn't a possibility of solving both.  Yes, examples of #2 occur.  But which, given the general balance of power between men and women, would you think would be abused more if we changed the rules of this particular paradigm?

        Least evil, best available solution is #2.

        •  I'm afraid I agree, though I don't wish to. (0+ / 0-)

          As I said above, once the baby is in the belly, it HAS to be the woman's choice. Period. No further discussion.

          But, as to the legal question of coercing a man into child giving support...this one I'm more open to. Although I'm fundamentally against it, I see how it can have societal value. I'm afraid answering this question will make civil lawyers very wealthy.

          "'club America salutes you' says the girl on the door/we accept all major lies, we love any kind of fraud"--The Cure, "Club America"

          by Wheever on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 05:12:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't mean to offend anyone... this is merely (0+ / 0-)

    An academic discussion about mens' rights. (Well, not academic, more political, but still, it's something that needs to be talked about.) My feelings on the matter are very strong, but that doesn't mean I look down on you for your opinions. (Yes, I am a polysci major... muahahahaha.)

  •  WTH? (4+ / 0-)
    and a man should not be forced to pay for a child he tried to convince his lover to abort.
    that is dumb.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 10:04:58 PM PST

    •  ...could you please elaborate? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      Saying "That's dumb" isn't really effective in telling me where I went wrong. I don't really know where you're going with this, so please tell me.

      •  Allow me... (5+ / 0-)

        What you propose is nothing more than a way for every man in America to avoid financial responsibility for a child that they fathered. All they need to do is say "get an abortion" and they're off the hook? I can envision a lot of men, even pro-life men, uttering those words when they contemplate 18 years of child support payments.

        Deep Texan has it right: that's just dumb.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 06:52:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  18 years of payments (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denise b

          Forced as a matter of law because of some one else's choice.  If you want to have 100% of the right to make the choice then 100% of the reaponsibililty for it should go with that

          •  you can have the right to make that choice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque

            when you have to carry the baby.

            it's about more than you.  it's about women's health.  it's about a baby you fathered.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:26:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fine have the right (0+ / 0-)

              and with it accept the full responsibility for that choice.  If a woman wants to be a mother, that's fine.  But I don't think either parent should be able to force the other to abide by their decision.

              •  the state will force you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque

                and should.  why should i be paying for your irresponsibility?

                child support also offsets welfare single mothers have to endure because of the situation they are in.

                you have no right to control any part of a woman's body. it's her body, her decision, her life and her morals.  you have a choice as well. there would be no pregnancy if you didn't already make the choice to make a baby.

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Same for her (0+ / 0-)

                  Brilliant argument for outlawing abortion:  "She wouldn't be pregnant if she hadn't already made the choice to make a baby."

                  That is a position I reject.  

                  No one (well, but you) has suggested that anyone is interested in controlling a womans body.  The question is purely whether people should be forced into parenthood after the birth of the child.  Your position suggests that you oppose the right to give a child up for adoption and that mothers who have been "irresponsible" by, say, having their birth control fail, should be forced to actually raise their children as well, because adoption costs the state money.  

                  •  no that is moving the goal posts (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Geekesque

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:55:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      denise b

                      it is applying the same standard to both genders. It is also known as gender equality.  If you are going to apply that argument to men, it has to apply to women also.  

                      •  no it is not gender equality (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Geekesque

                        women do have to pay child support as well.  you aren't going anywhere with your flawed argument here.

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:59:07 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, that is the other solution (0+ / 0-)

                          Force parenthood on both parties, absent consent of the other.  I suppose that would work as well.  

                          •  the solution is to not have sex (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, Geekesque

                            if you don't want a baby.  you have many other options that will never result in a baby.

                            if you get a girl pregnant you should have to pay for the care that kids needs until 18.  only women should have final say over their bodies.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 11:59:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  two totally separate issues (0+ / 0-)

                            whether anyone forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is independent of whether anyone forces both parents to contribute financially if either of them decides they want to raise a child.  The question is, is there a solid justification for requiring financial support that does not also require requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.  

                          •  women's health & privacy come before you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            as it should.  it's not your body. it's not the governments.  it's her choice.  

                            The question is, is there a solid justification for requiring financial support that does not also require requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.  
                            again this is as dumb as the diarist's contention that men shouldn't have to pay for a baby they didn't want.

                            you don't own the baby.  it already exists as it's own entity.  you are paying for it's well-being.  the money will come from somewhere.  sometimes the mother has to pay child support.  

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:18:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fine it is her choice (0+ / 0-)

                            then she should accept full responsibility for her choice.  If the father gets no vote and not control, it is unjust to enforce responsibility for her decision.  It isn't his decision its hers.  She wants to choose that for herself, that is fine, but recognize that she chooses it for herself and herself alone.

                            If the fact that they had sex is a basis for enforcing responsibility without any voice in the matter, then it is equally a basis for enforcing responsibility on both parties.

                          •  both have to pay (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            somebody has to pay and it shouldn't be the rest of us.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:50:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

                            If she want to have a kid, find a man who wants to have a kid and then have a kid with him.  Or find a couple that has the resources to raise the kid if she wants to do that.  Or, if she has the resources and desire to do it on her own then do that.

                            She has choice.  She has control.  Use that authority responsibly.  That's all I'm saying.  

                          •  no you are saying fathers should be allowed (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            to abandon their children free of consequence.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:57:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you are saying that (0+ / 0-)

                            women should be able to foist half of their responsibilities for their choices onto an unwilling person.  

                            And no, I am not saying that fathers should abandon their children.  I'm saying that they shouldn't be considered fathers unless they have undertaken to be fathers of their own free will and not because someone else made that choice for them.  In this society we don't force women to become mothers, and we shouldn't force men to become fathers, either.  

                          •  should have been unwilling (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            in the beginning..  he wasn't raped was he..?

                            then it's his responsibility as well.  you don't know what you are saying.  we don't force men to become fathers.  we force men to pay for the children the bare.

                            often other men become the fathers in those situations because of people you.  responsible men.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 01:06:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sex isn't consent to parenthood (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            denise b

                            That is a bedrock principle.  Just because you ahve sex, does not imply that you have consented to raise a kid.  This principle is the bedrock of abortion rights.  

                            I know exactly what I am saying.  In the original Diary, Denise, through her choice FORCED Tim to become a parent.  He didn't want to, and she could have chosen otherwise.  So, yes, Denise forced Tim to become a parent.  

                            And in the case of the stolen sperm I guess you'd be perfectly happy making that guy responsible too.  

                          •  nobody is asking you to raise a kid (0+ / 0-)

                            but pay for the kid you will.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 01:20:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            yes, that's settled law.  But that doesn't make it just.

                          •  Those other men (0+ / 0-)

                            become fathers of fatherless kids because their moms irresponsibly didn't wait for a dad to have a kid with and decided they wanted to run off and do it all on their own.  The men didn't get a vote in that, now did they?

                            As for you "men like me" smear, I am raising two fabulous kids myself that I had when I responsibly chose and committed to doing so with a woman who wanted to raise them with me.  Even though we aren't married anymore, we are still carrying forward on that initial commitment, as we should.

                            What I am not doing is arguing out one side of my mouth that women have a choice about reproduction, while saying out of the other side of my mouth that men are at fault here for having the gall to actually have sex.

                  •  this isn't about abortion (0+ / 0-)

                    it's about women's health, privacy and a baby.

                    The question is purely whether people should be forced into parenthood after the birth of the child.
                    isn't a question.  already settled as it should be.  if the dad doesn't want to be a parent fine, but he still has to pay for his responsibilities. he can choose to evade those commitments, but it is not wise in today's society.  years ago it was quite easy for men to leave women saddled with a baby and no financial support.  just leave the state used to be good enough.  not anymore, as it should be.

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:58:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What responsibilities? (0+ / 0-)

                      it wasn't his choice to either have the baby or to keep it, in this instance.  Why on earth does he have responsibilities for someone else's decisions?  She wants to do that, fine.  But she doesn't get to decide for him. Someone makes a choice, they should take responsibility for that choice.  If he doesn't get a choice, then he also doesn't have responsibility for the choice.  That's pretty fundamental. No vote, no responsibility.

                      •  then don't have sex (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mahakali overdrive

                        sex=babies

                        and that means you have a greater responsibility..  ie. it's not about you.

                        you want consequence free sex.  you have a hand for that.

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 11:45:58 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The reason I resist that logic (0+ / 0-)

                          is that it is also used as a justification to outlaw abortion when used against women.  

                          In that debate, a lot of arguments have been developed as to why just the fact that someone had sex is not a valid justification for bringing the weight of law to bear to control people's reproductive choices.  Thus, these would seem to apply equally here.

                          •  the two are not the same (2+ / 0-)

                            conflating them is dishonest and ugly.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:12:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            In what way are they different?  In the both cases, it is an argument that people take responsibility for having sex.  Pretty much identical.  The difference is that people are not comfortable with enforcing responsibility on women, but are confortable with enforcing it on men.

                          •  totally different (0+ / 0-)
                            The difference is that people are not comfortable with enforcing responsibility on women, but are confortable with enforcing it on men.
                            Men have only recently been forced to take on this responsibility and it is for the better.  Your argument isn't philosophical or academic.  it's barbaric.  it's a world where men use women for sex and don't pay for the consequences. the woman can't get away from the consequences. which could be death.  

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That isn't an argument (0+ / 0-)

                            that's name calling.

                            You on the otherhand envision a world where only one gender gets to have any meaningful choice about reproduction.  For one gender, multiple choices abound.  For the other, we apply the 13th century standard that if you have sex you deserve whatever happens to you.

                            And you want to call me barbaric?  ha.

                          •  dead beat dads is pathetic (0+ / 0-)

                            you are arguing for a right to be a dead beat dad.

                            see where that gets you.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:48:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What I am arguing for (0+ / 0-)

                            is that if women don't choose to raise kids of men who don't want to raise kids with them, then they won't have any problem with deadbeat dads...

                            You have apparently forgotten that women have control over when and how and with whom they embark on child rearing.  If they wait until they have an actual partner instead of commandeering someone's sperm, then this issue goes away.

                            (In case you didn't read the initial diary, the question was in the case of an accidental pregnancy, is it right for a woman to ignore the man's wishes not to raise a kid with her at that time and then turn around and hit him up for support).

                          •  juvenile (0+ / 0-)

                            irresponsible

                            unconscionable. thank the FSM your view has long been discarded.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:55:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            denise b

                            Men aren't "using women for sex and not paying for the consequences."   That's absurd.  Couples are engaging in mutally consensual sex.  If a pregnancy results, and a woman decides she wants to have a child, that is her choice to do so.

                            The notion that women can't get away from the consequences is quite simply factually untrue in the United States of America in the 21st Century.  We have both abortion on demand and adoption services.

                            The ONLY reason a woman would be raising a child is because she chooses to do so, especially if the man pays for all costs (as was the case in the initial diary).  Absolutely no one is forcing her to make that choice.  

                            One of the other comments posted a link to a case where a couple engaged in oral sex, and she saved his semen and impregnated herself with it, and he was ordered to pay child support.  That's absolutely unjustifiable, unless of course you start with the premise that men dont get reproductive rights, only women do.

                          •  you are being ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                            and juvenile

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:47:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh (0+ / 0-)

                            name calling.  I guess you are out of things to say then

                          •  grow up (0+ / 0-)

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:49:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Coming from someone (0+ / 0-)

                            who hasn't put together a single conherent argument for his position, I'm not sure that's entirely justified.

                          •  oh baby jeebus (0+ / 0-)

                            aren't you special

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:54:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, you are the one (0+ / 0-)

                            making this personal and resorting to name-calling and insults.

                            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                            by denise b on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 05:42:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  so your view is (0+ / 0-)

                      that after birth, either parent may fully bind the other generally?

          •  If you aren't ready (3+ / 0-)

            to accept responsibility for the results, you can always keep it in your pants. Everyone knows that, birth control or not, there's always a chance that procreation may occur.

            Father a child? Pay up. I am male, BTW.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:45:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well gosh (0+ / 0-)

    It has been an interesting discussion, but now I must go. My nekkid kitty smells like a locker room, so I'm off to give him a bath.  LOL  The furry ones will watch with amusement, no doubt.

    Good night everyone

  •  Child Support Formulas (4+ / 0-)

    They don't have a checkbox for "did you want this child when it was born?"... they just ask are you the parent and how much money do you make...

    How would you reword that legal document to reflect your position?

    •  The answer to your question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      has been carefully avoided. It is not clear whether these pro-abortion commenters think the taxpayer should pick up the tab so the man can buy his new girlfriend some pretty toys, or if she should be forced to raise the child with no outside support whatever as punishment for refusing to follow the orders of the guy who wanted her to abort.

  •  No (6+ / 0-)

    Parental responsibilities do not stop just because you asked her to get an abortion.  Pregnancy and the resulting child are a possible outcome of having sex.  If you want to be 100% sure that you will not have a child, then it is incumbent on the man to take responsibility for his own reproductive choices and have a vasectomy.  

    A child deserves the support (at the very least financial) of the father.

  •  Ah, MRAs. (6+ / 0-)

    You know, the time to make YOUR choice about conceiving that child is when you're getting nekkid and it's time to put the condom on.  If you've ever had sex without considering the consequences, relying on the woman to take 100% of the responsibility for fertility control, then you have no leg to stand on.  And if you've EVER whined to a woman who asked you to wear a condom about how it just doesn't FEEEEEEEEEEL right, then, well, STFU.

    Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

    by kismet on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:14:19 AM PST

  •  The problem that everyone seems to be (6+ / 0-)

    ignoring here is the courts.
    Whether or not you wanted the baby or the abortion, ultimately, the decision is the woman's to make as to whether to carry the child to term.
    Thereafter, even if you wanted her to have an abortion, if she decides to have the baby, and you are the father, the courts will make you pay child support, even if you give up parental rights in most cases.
    The time to decide this is before you have sex, not when the young woman discovers she is pregnant.

    If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

    by skohayes on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 04:29:28 AM PST

    •  In the hypothetical from which this diary derives (0+ / 0-)

      the decision was made before they had sex - both participants 'took care' to use birth control methods.  Afterwards, when such failed, the woman changed her mind from 'taking care' to prevent pregnancy to deciding that she was going to give birth.

      That left 'Tim' with no choice in the decision as to whether or not he would spend 18 years paying because 'Denise' changed from her implied not wanting to have a child (since she too 'took care' to use birth control) to deciding to have it.

      Again, this is probably a pretty rare circumstance, but as an intellectual exercise, it does seem to split down along people who seem to want to say 'you had sex, tough luck, live with the consequences' to men, while saying 'everything is entirely your choice because you'll be doing the work of being pregnant' to the woman, vs those who think each parent should have equal choice about their own financial futures after the birth.  (Women are free to adopt out kids after birth, after all.)

  •  If that was about Pluto's diary (0+ / 0-)

    I believe the actual question was should the man have equal rights in deciding his own financial future, not whether or not he should get to decide whether or not a woman should be able to abort.

    Pluto was not suggesting the man should be able to force the woman into any particular given decision or action in regards to abortion, but that he should be allowed to have equal rights in deciding his own future after birth, and that the woman shouldn't be allowed to simply decide his financial future for him.

    •  Yes, Pluto was indeed suggesting that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      the man should be able to force her into one of two possible decisions, also known as an "ultimatum".

      1. Have the abortion as I am telling you to do.
      2. or raise the kid with no financial support whatever.

      That is deliberately leaving out an option that the man has no right to deny.

  •  Okay, sorry, I disagree with this. (6+ / 0-)

    As a (bisexual) man, my view has always been: Don't stick your dick inside of a woman who doesn't share your value structure.

    Yes, I passed up many a drunken hook up in college, but my friends didn't and some of them went home with the same woman that I had rejected ended up paying child support or with venereal diseases. Yes, plural in one instance.

    You must recognize that once you have had sex with a woman, everything that comes afterward is her decision. If you had sex with a woman who swore that she was on birth control, it's your fault for not wearing a condom. If you had sex with a woman who actually was on birth control, and she still got pregnant, it's still your fault for not wearing a condom. If she doesn't like condoms, you should insist on one. Because it doesn't matter.

    You are on the hook for the life of the child you irresponsibly created. You don't get to make any decisions unless the two of you are married, and then you talk and talk and talk and figure it out together, like you figure everything out together.

    If she wants to keep the baby, you're on the hook for 18 years. If she wants to get rid of the baby, you don't get to override her.

    It's really simple. Don't want to pay child support? Don't want your one-night-stand baby aborted? Don't stick your dick in someone you can't trust.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

    by OllieGarkey on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:03:31 AM PST

  •  This might open a can of worms (0+ / 0-)

    But what about cases where the man didn't actually have sex with the woman, but she ends of pregnant with his child? I don't want to get graphic, but there was a news story about this happening and the father was required to pay child support.

    Thoughts?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site