I'm a heterosexual guy. Honestly and unreservedly, I have no interest in abortion, gay rights or immigration laws. When the topics come up I shut up. I don't have a dog in the fight. I could care less.
But I have two questions about abortion.
If you are opposed to abortion, why not just NOT have an abortion and STFU?
The second question is more interesting.
If you support abortion rights for women, WHY DON'T MEN HAVE THOSE SAME RIGHTS??
For instance, a woman can choose to abort a child and the father has no say. But what if the father wants to abort the child and the mother says no? Why can't the father renounce his birthing rights? Isn't he an equal partner?
And while I know a man shouldn't have a say in what women do to their bodies, I think a man who doesn't want to be a parent should be able to say, "I renounce paternity. You raise this child by yourself."
Before you get your panties in a wad about children's rights to support, think about it. It's the SAME RIGHT WE GIVE TO WOMEN WHO SEEK ABORTIONS. "I renounce maternity. Get his fetus out of my body. I don't want to support it."
Why can't men have this same right?
Having considered this, I think I lean more to the anti-abortion camp.
Talk me down.
Comments (56)
How many advertisements for chemically-driven male birth control products do you regularly see?
Underlying that lack of marketability is an attitude that men waving their winkys want to play, but haven't taken the initial responsibility for birth control at conception.
I'll consider men's right to abandon children when they own the responsibility for conception at time of conception.
Well, I think the contraceptive measures taken don't come into play once a woman is pregnant. The abortion doctor isn't clocking her for not using sufficient contraception.
I would bet you that if men had the right to renounce paternity before the child was born, there would be a HUGE drop in unprotected sexual encounters. Women would be like, "WHOA!!! NO WAY!!!", if they didn't know than an unplanned pregnancy could provide some long term financial security.
And that's a good thing, don't you think?
The other other thing that doesn't come into play once a woman is pregnant is a man's capacity to engage as an equal partner. He forfeited when he left all responsibility for birth control in her hands.
Since he lacks a womb, he is not consulted during gestation.
The whole argument of entrapment is dead. Entrapment can be avoided. It is more difficult if you don't take responsibility for your own biological product, but none-the-less, it can be avoided. The level of difficulty is all yours to own and enjoy.
Since the vast majority of men fail to cover the cost of their offspring, I think it is safe to say that your implied argument that women benefit by trapping poor helpless men through pregnancy is weak if not imaginary.
I have a couple of points for ya on this one blackie...since the fetus can be identified by the fathering males DNA and is definably different than the mothers DNA, shouldn't that give the fetus some sort of legal standing for it's own rights to legal representation...or at least legal representation on its behalf.
I know your boy Obama has fought against a fetus having it's own rights to legal representation, but I would think that the father or state should be able to hire legal representation on behalf of the fetus.
The reason I said the state should be able to is because in some custody battles due to divorce or separation, the state will order an independent attorney to represent the child or children as a third party in the matter.
Just a thought...
Sobi,
I'm not implying anything. I was just thinking about it out in my yard an hour ago. I never think about abortion. It never crosses my mind. But it occurred to me that women have a right that men don't have.
Can you think of a right that men have that women don't have?
Hmmmm. The right to go topless at a public beach. The right to pee on the side of a road. The right to monopolize the remote control. Yada yada yada.
None of these things are as lucrative as child birth to a woman, if she gets the right guy.
(I don't know why I started thinking about this. I was putting in some sod and it just popped into my head. I want a woman's opinion. Not my wife. Her opinion will be to question me about mine. And I don't have an opinion, only questions.)
sobi: "The other other thing that doesn't come into play once a woman is pregnant is a man's capacity to engage as an equal partner. He forfeited when he left all responsibility for birth control in her hands. "
Whoa!! forfeited his right to be an equal partner? Where is the law that says that? Is there one? I know that it works that way in practice, but is there an actual law that says so?
Do you need a law to say that? It works that way. That's good enough for me.
Child birth is not lucrative sans having 6 or 8 at a time. Try it, and prove me wrong.
Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic lives around the corner from me. Dwight is 23. Dwight pays $5000/month in child support, plus rent, schooling and transportaion for a 1 year old.
I've got four kids. The four of them together may have cost me a thousand a month, total, and we live comfortably. That includes EVERYTHING other than college tuition; all my college aged kids earned scholarships.
I don't know what you consider to be lucrative, but Howard's kid is living large. There's no way he consumes that many resources. He wouldn't consume that many resources if he lived with his dad. It doesn't cost that much to raise a child.
Doubtful.
"Do you need a law to say that? It works that way."
Yeh, now that I think about it, I DO. Shouldn't there be equality? If a woman can terminate, why can't a man?
(My true motive being to give an incentive for youngsters to be more careful. Right now the laws are stacked against men and they don't find out until they get into family court)
I know of no prohibition against pregnant men terminating their pregnancy.
Abortion is murder, and there is a price to pay. That also includes our funding for it to PPH and other areas.
And what price might that be?
the law looks at a pregnant woman as TWO PEOPLE being pregnant, and jointly responsible. But only the woman has the right to terminate that joint responsibility, not the man. Why?
The law does not look at a pregnant woman as two people. Where did you come up with that?
Because only the woman is pregnant.
two people as jointly responsible. The woman had just as much responsibility for the pregnancy as the man.
Where does the law say that a pregnant woman is two people?
The problem here is dishonesty. If we just call it killing the baby, it wouldn't happen near so often, but if we use a technical term, abortion, people can avoid the truth.
I've had people argue with me because I hunted most of my life. They would eat a big juicy steak, and give me Hell for eating venison or wild hog. Someone had to kill the cow folks, just as dead as any deer or hog I ever shot. The could deal with that piece of cow in a plastic wrapper but if you talked about killing a cow they would lose their appetite.
That is hypocrisy, that is dishonesty.
Let's just call it killing the baby, and cut the bullshat!
One of my girlfriends had a vegetarian niece. One day I mentioned that if you hooked a tomato to a polygraph the machine would register when you cut the tomato. That dizzy little chick went to work the next day, and refused to slice tomatos. She may starve to death yet!
I wonder if a man could challenge Roe v Wade and obtain the right to renounce a pregnancy?
Follow me here:
Of course, women would raise holy hell. You haven't seen the outcry that lawsuit would engender.
But I'm trying to see why a man shouldn't be able to ask for equal paternity rights under the law? Sobi, you haven't explained WHY things are the way they are.
Not trying to be deliberately dense. But the more I think about it, the less sense it makes for men to not assert this right.
Because reproduction biology is unequal.
You want the right to do what? To impregnate and walk?
There are any number of men who take pride in doing exactly that, and have for centuries. The problem only surfaces now because now DNA testing takes away the plausibility of denial.
One the infant is born, if the female gives it up for adoption, then you get a walk. If she doesn't, then you don't. If she carries it to term, and decides to keep it, she's taken on her responsibility. What you want is a walk then.
Convince the courts that a squalling little bundle of flesh that you had a hand in producing should not be your responsibility.
Right now the law is deaf to your claim of inequality because men have been walking for centuries, and society is tired of paying for it. So for a few dozen years, women have finally caught up in terms of legal power to claim the right to terminate or the right to child support, and you are stunned that an immediate correction is not taken to pave men's way to walk again?
Deal with it.
And there are physical differences too, but Title IX still exists. When I was in high school one year everything was normal. And then one year we had to pick girls and put them on our phys ed. football teams.
"Convince the courts that a squalling little bundle of flesh that you had a hand in producing should not be your responsibility. "
AH-AH. NO. That's NOT what I'm saying. Once the child is here, both parties are stuck.
I'm saying that if a woman has the right to ditch and walk away during the pregnancy, WHY CAN'T A MAN?!?
(I'm not sure that I'm not trying to convince myself that either men get that same right or take that right away from women, too. I think that's the converse of my argument, only I'm still percolating. This is the first time I've considered it. The more I think about it, the less fair things seem.)
I'm saying that if a woman has the right to ditch and walk away during the pregnancy, WHY CAN'T A MAN?!?
I would never deny a man the right to abort his pregnancy.
"Right now the law is deaf to your claim of inequality because men have been walking for centuries, and society is tired of paying for it. So for a few dozen years, women have finally caught up in terms of legal power to claim the right to terminate or the right to child support, and you are stunned that an immediate correction is not taken to pave men's way to walk again?"
Sobi, current laws about abortion seem to make my arguments plausible.
Now, don't get me wrong. I've been married forever. I'm black. My biggest pain in life is black men who walk out on their children, especially boys. I've seen so many stunted boys because they don't have a man in the house. 70%!!!!!
But it seems to me that someone could use abortion law to facilitate child abandonment, or else overturn women's rights to have an abortion. Under my arguments, abortion is almost akin to Affirmation Action for women. You see my point?
No, not really.
It is my firm personal belief that once a child is born, it is vitally important that mother and child stay together.
Mothers that are compelled to leave their infant in an institutional day care, so they can work, because as soon as women entered the work force in numbers, capitalistic greed lowered wages to make it necessary, oh drat. I ran on.
Anyway, I do not believe that dumping children in daycare is a good idea. It wrong for the baby, it is wrong for the mother. I believe it affects biological bonding, long-term parenting, all sorts of things.
Before society can even consider limiting the right to abortion, it must take care of the mother-infant bond.
Until then, I won't even entertain the idea.
If I were to do my mating and reproductive years over, from the first time I threw up, I would be home with my children until they were of age and begging me to get off their back. I would home school, and since I would be there anyway, I may as well have a bunch of them.
Needless to say, I would have to marry very carefully first.
I am not trying to cut in but blackie had better do something about what the moderstor has posted...just go to most recent...I laughed at it but I also think you should stop it too.
So, Sobi, you don't think that a male demand for equality in negative reproduction laws can stand up to the vast outcry against the idea by women? Because, if gays can demand marriage rights and get them in some places, I don't see why men can't demand equality in abortion rights. Other than, of course, our long history of child abandonment and the needs of society.
I dunno. I see that as a close argument in court. The phrase 'equality before the law' somehow keeps ringing in my head.
Well, give it a go. Fine by me. Good luck.
You also didn't mention my reference to Title IX. The law made us have to choose girls on pick up football, basketball and volleyball teams. We went co-ed.
I never complained. I was always a captain. I always picked the same girl early in the draft. She was manly, if you get my drift, and a pretty good athlete. I used to hit her wide open for touchdowns because the other team wouldn't cover her.
But still, it was weird having girls in gym class. I'll never forget thinking, "They stink just like guys when they sweat."
At some point someone is going to turn that law around and use it both ways.
I found it unrelated.
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.
The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.
Here!Here! That is what I have been saying from the beginning!
I'm not for abortion but an accidental (careless) pregnancy isn't the only reason that they're performed. Sometimes it's done for medical reasons, rape, incest. I have conflicting feelings in these cases. It's a personal issue, not a government decision. My body, my soul, my life, my decision. I'm not young enough for this to be a personal issue. I don't like government (public)funding for those who need financial assistance for healthy, unplanned children. You play, you pay. I do have compassion for the innocent children and I want them to have access to care. This is a double edged sword.
The time to renounce paternity or maternity is before conception. After that it's time to take responsibility.
You know going in that there might be an unwanted result. Think before you act.
Apugh,
You're missing my point. THINK IT THRU.
Lots of people are anti-abortion. (Not me, admittedly. I don't care.) But suppose you are rabidly anti-abortion. You go into court and SUE so that men can obtain the right to demand an abortion, based on the principle of equality of responsibility.
Pro-abortion advocates would scream bloody murder. Obviously it would mean men could walk away from pregnancies just the same as women. That wasn't the original intent of Roe v. Wade, but it isn't a logical stretch. If a woman can renounce maternity by abortion, why can't a man renounce paternity via abortion?
THINK IT THRU.
If the abortion law means men can walk away from pregnancies, there wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies.
Right now women know they've got 20 years of tax free paychecks coming for every unwanted child they bear. But if the men could legally walk away by citing their abortion rights, that would change overnight.
I would put a HUGE dent in illegitimacy in this country.
The un wants population control and the abortion industry is a 7 figure a year industry...The right for a baby that has no way to defend itself is the last thing on the minds of people who only care about themselves....That is pretty much the jist of it....To the last part of your question...It used to be the right thing to do for the man to support his children. Our laws are based on biblical laws and because this country, gave respect to God and to Isreal, we prospered and grew to be very strong....Things are changing along with our strength and wealth....AMONG OTHER THINGS ...The woman does not get pregnant alone and that has actually caused alot of social problems in this country...kids without one parent are usually socially or, emotionally scarred in some way and, in many cases get involved in alot of legal trouble or, twisted behavior because, there is no or, limited proper guidance....
gypsy,
Boil this down to a cogent point and get back to me.
Rikker, Although it's my personal belief that life begins at conception and abortion is killing; you make a very interesting and compelling libertarian argument. This same scenario is played out in family court arenas all across the country. Statistics bear out the fact that the overwhelming majority of children in custody cases are awarded to women. Why is that? Don't fathers have the same natural right to be equal parents in a shared parenting arrangement with their children without the consideration of paying the court defined superior parent (custodial parent) a bounty? Family court judges will exclaim that their objective is what's in the "best interest of the child" Really? As in a majority of custody judgments, I find it difficult to believe that a father who typically only sees his children once a week and every other weekend is in the "best interest of the child."
I agree with you wholeheartedly that if men had the ability to renounce paternity before the child was born, there would be a HUGE drop in unprotected sexual encounters which in turn would translate to fewer abortions. Great post man!
I get your point Blackmon. What I don't think is being considered is the child. The child becomes a victim. I think that before the act is performed that both parents are accepting responsibility. You know what you could possibly face. You can't force a person to do something to their own body and knowing what the potential outcome might be makes BOTH parents liable. A woman who has an abortion gets the guy off the hook but the baby pays the price. No, I don't think that a man should have the ability to voluntarily walk away. I also don't think that abortion should be considered as an ethical form of birth control.
I'll say it again. Don't play if you can't pay.
My cognate point is the people who are not wanting to raise their kids both physically and financially, are selfish people...women and men & IF YOU ARE REALLY ASKING WHY MEN DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MURDER THEIR OWN KIDS AS WOMEN .....I AM TELLING YOU THE ABORTION INDUSTRY AND THE UN NEED THE WOMEN WHO CARRY THE BABY TO 1, MAKE THE MONEY AND 2, KEEP THE POPULATION DOWN....Is that cognative enough? M-e-n d-o-n-t c-a-r-r-y b-a-b-i-e-s....T-h-a-t-s w-h-a-t t-h-e p-o-i-n-t i-s.....
Apugh,
My point is that I haven't seen any anti-abortion rights people use my argument that men have the same parental rights as women. Right now, women have a right that men don't have. If some intrepid minded anti-abortion lawyer were to demand full parental and reproductory rights for men, AND WIN, wouldn't the pregnancy rate plummet, and the abortion rate as well?
All you would have is males that could walk away and from the child without any responsibility what so ever, and because of that fear of child support being lifted from the males shoulders it would increase the amount of abortions because the females wouldn't be able to put a monetary value to the child.
People that are irresponsible generally don't change their ways, so the females will continue to get pregnant if they doesn't use protection...the males will do as they please as long as they don't give a damn about STD's
I do see your point though Blackie and it is a good one.
Blackmon, what do you suggest to solve this problem. Abstinence or for men to be able to walk away?
Big Rooster,
To blackmon's point. Conversely it would also empower women to make better choices. Look at it from this perspective: Would a women knowingly and willingly engage in a sexual relationship with a man understanding that there's a good chance she could become pregnant, and that he could walk away by renouncing his paternity?
Let's say a man asks a woman to sign a pre-conjugal agreement, that would hold up in a court of law, stating that if she became pregnant, it would absolve him of any responsibility. How many women would sign it?
If men and women are equally responsible for creating the child why is it that only the woman has the right to decide if that child is born or not? Even if the man desperately wants to be a father and offers to absolve the woman of any responsibility, her choice still trumps his. I agree with blackmon. It seems there's a serious inequality in the law that punishes a man for his gender. Could be the making of a civil rights milestone.
"Let's say a man asks a woman to sign a pre-conjugal agreement" BWAHAHAHA!!! Most guys won't take the time to pull out a condom...You are talking about more things that would be brought up in court because you would need to have it stamped by a notery...yada yada yada...come on now.
We haven't even considered the drugs and alcohol or the "I only did it because he threatened to hurt me" situtations that would come up.
I agree that there is an unbalanced power there. The first thing is to get over the idea that killing is an option. If they both don't want the baby then have them give up the baby to the state and make them both pay child support to the state until the child is adopted. If the child goes to a foster home they pay the foster parents. If it was done this way, both parties would be held responsable equally. If only one of either party wants the child then they pay for everything themselves. If they both want the child but not be BF/GF or H/W then they will have to come up with an agreement on how they can share the child that works for both parties but mandatory child support would not be part of it.
I think that would work.
I'm opposed to men walking away from their children. To me this whole argument is only a legal exercise for father's equality.
I fear Rooster is right, though. People don't tend to change their habits. They would only find unique solutions (such as abortion) to continue their habits.
My point is that the legal argument I use to support men's abortion rights is as strong as the legal argument pro-abortion people use. My argument would get people thinking about abortion in new ways. If abortion is legal in its present form, it's not just fetus rights that get trampled. Father's rights get trampled, too.
That said, you note I haven't voted in this thread. I can't have an abortion; my youngest child is 14. I'm done procreating.
"pre-conjugal agreement."
When I was whoring around as a young adult I strongly considered this option. VERY strongly.
David Lee Roth has a Lloyd's of London insurance policy that covers him against paternity suits. Last I heard, it costs him $10K a month. I considered that, too.
I solved the problem by getting married.
What does a black man know about David Lee Roth? LOL
I bet I know a lot more about David Lee Roth than you do. Did you know that all Van Halen concerts had a ban against brown M&M's in the dressing room? A single brown M&M anywhere in the room gave Van Halen the right to cancel the concert, take the money and roll. David Lee Roth came up with that clause in the standard VH contract.
"H/W then they will have to come up with an agreement on how they can share the child that works for both parties but mandatory child support would not be part of it."
I believe shared parenting is the right way to go if there is mutual agreement. It takes money right out of the equation. Many states have not adopted shared parenting legislation because it would mean that states and municipalities would lose Title IV-D matching funds. It's apparent that Title IV-D creates a conflict for the courts "best interest of the child" mantra.
I can say this, Men don't have a right to ask for an abortion, because they are not usually the primary care giver. Mothers are. It's how we are genetically built. The mother takes care of the child, the man takes his club and brings home food.
I changed my share of diapers. You should ask my daughter who taught her how to cook.
amphibious,
We're not talking about genetic programming. We're talking about equality before the LAW. There is no law that says a man cannot be the primary caregiver. In fact, the word "primary" in itself implies "gender superiority".
If a smart lawyer were to point that out, some jury somewhere might look at it and say, "Hey, there's an injustice going on here."