Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[Madeline]

So the mother should be able to compel a birth against the father's will? Does that make you a "father-hater"?

Child support is the right of a LIVE child. At the base of this entire argument is that old bugaboo - abortion. There is never any point in arguing abortion with anyone. A person is either opposed to abortion or not - game over.

The fallacy of your argument is that it assumes that the child will be born, regardless. Last time I looked, it is possible for a woman to obtain an abortion. When a "surprise" comes along, that neither of the two adults involved had planned or now want, and abortion is an available option, the wishes of BOTH parents must be taken into account.

I am not saying the mother should be compelled to get an abortion if, after conceiving the child, she "goes female" and changes her mind, now wanting to go ahead and have the child. I am only saying that, if she so chooses, she should not be compelled to force financial responsibility on the father for a child he had not planned on and for whom he does not want to be financially responsible.

Yes, I understood you, George. All babies born in the US have survived whatever "risk of being aborted" they were exposed to, and all babies are legally entitled to be supported by both parents (provided they are known, alive, etc.). This "option" you advocate for on behalf of fathers would dramatically alter the rights of children for the worst, and would create quasi-property rights in children for mothers. IMO, it is anti-human and would serve no one's interests (apart from those of irresponsible men who make babies they wish they did not have to support).

It just does not fly with me. But as you say, no one ever changes their mind about abortion -- and I suspect people are just as heavily invested in their POVs on this topic.

So then you are saying that once a man and a woman conceive a child, even though neither of them expected to do it NOR WANTED TO DO IT, the matter is totally out of the hands of the man and whatever the woman wants to do is what happens. And, oh by the way, the man not only has to go along with it but, if she elects to keep the child herself, he gets to pay for the child.

I disagree.

I gather that you are anti-abortion. No problem. I, of course, am PRO abortion, as the cons like to call it - I canvass neighborhoods, trying to induce pregnant women to abort, etc. But I digress . . .

What about adoption? The child lives, grows up in a good home, man doesn't have to pay for a child he did not expect or want, woman gets the same result . . . . Your argument in this post does not take that option into account.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a father could force an adoption of a baby even if the mother opposed it. Assuming both parents are fit (or at least that the mother is) I could not support this. The right of a single mother to raise her child should not be terminated merely because the father wants to escape paying child support. Adoption is a fine option (assuming the child is white and healthy) but the rights of even the poor, single, young and otherwise disadvantaged to raise their own children is paramount. I think we have enough experience with forced adoptions of Native American children to know, this is morally repugnant.

In the Op, I had linked an article describing the charges laid against a man who kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend and drove her to a clinic to get an abortion she did not want. I asked what the USMB-ers thought, and whether it would have mattered if he had committed his crimes in an effort to prevent her from aborting.

I am 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice, end of discussion. Some of the posts have indicated that the man and not the woman should get to choose -- although no one has laid out for us the government action that should be employed against women when they disagree with men, nor how we're to know who fathered a zygote.

I disagree with you that a child born against the father's wishes should receive no child support if the father wants off the hook. The circumstances of a child's conception and birth should not limit that child's right to support from both parents.

As you can imagine, there has been much vogueing on this thread, with everyone feeling heavily invested in their POVs. As per usual, anytime a discussion arises about abortion. The most bizarre POVs have been offered by the anti-abortion crew who nonetheless support a father's right to choose.

Men apparently can be entrusted to make the morally correct choice -- just not women.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I understood you, George. All babies born in the US have survived whatever "risk of being aborted" they were exposed to, and all babies are legally entitled to be supported by both parents (provided they are known, alive, etc.). This "option" you advocate for on behalf of fathers would dramatically alter the rights of children for the worst, and would create quasi-property rights in children for mothers. IMO, it is anti-human and would serve no one's interests (apart from those of irresponsible men who make babies they wish they did not have to support).

It just does not fly with me. But as you say, no one ever changes their mind about abortion -- and I suspect people are just as heavily invested in their POVs on this topic.

So then you are saying that once a man and a woman conceive a child, even though neither of them expected to do it NOR WANTED TO DO IT, the matter is totally out of the hands of the man and whatever the woman wants to do is what happens. And, oh by the way, the man not only has to go along with it but, if she elects to keep the child herself, he gets to pay for the child.

I disagree.

I gather that you are anti-abortion. No problem. I, of course, am PRO abortion, as the cons like to call it - I canvass neighborhoods, trying to induce pregnant women to abort, etc. But I digress . . .

What about adoption? The child lives, grows up in a good home, man doesn't have to pay for a child he did not expect or want, woman gets the same result . . . . Your argument in this post does not take that option into account.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a father could force an adoption of a baby even if the mother opposed it.
....

Where did he say, or even suggest, that?

 

[JBeukema]

The way i see it George is that if men do not want to have children then they need to keep their sperm to them selves. If a accident happens then the ship has already left the dock and the man is along for the ride. He is responsible for any baby that may result.

You overlook the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, it's the female who initiates the sexual contact, not the guy. So don't talk to me about "responsibility." Almost invariably, it's the female who is responsible for encouraging the sex that gets her knocked up. Not that the male isn't a willing participant, of course. But let's not lay this off on the guy. Without the gal's OK, ain't NOTHING gonna happen, baby.

You mention men keeping their sperm to themselves if they don't want a baby. I might suggest to you gals that you keep your legs together if you don't want one either.

I am not overlooking any "facts" (though i think your facts are wrong) George. If men don't want the responsibility of paying for the up keep of any children they may be produce, regardless of who initiates the sex, the men need to control their sperm. That means putting on a condom or getting a vasectomy.

The thread is about men not getting a say in a woman's choice of getting or not getting an abortion. If men don't want to be in the position of an outcome not of their choosing, then THEY need to control their sperm and not put themselves in that position.

If women don't want to be in a position where they are to rear a child alone, they shouldn't have children outside of committed relationships. That means making him wear a condom or using the pill, the rods, an IUD, the foam, Plan B- or getting an abortion. Or keeping their legs together. If you're old enough to have sex and have a baby, you're old enough to be responsible for it. If you choose to have a child outside a committed relationship, you need to own up to that decision.


Don't want to rear a baby alone? Don't have a baby if you're not in a committed relationship. It's not like you don't have options.

 

[JBeukema]

The words coming out of my mouth?

You mean talking about being responsible? Saying that women aren't helpless little creatures in need of men to take care of them?

Bingo, this is the root of the debate

So, IYO, taking advantage of modern medicine or pursuing a child's rights to financial support from its father is behaving in a helpless manner?

Bullshit.

If you can make the decision to have a child alone, you can rear the child alone.

You didn't need a man to tell you whether to have a baby; you don't need one to help you rear or provide for it.

Or are you a helpless little creature in need of a big strong man to tell you what to do and take care of you?

 

[JBeukema]

So then you are saying that once a man and a woman conceive a child, even though neither of them expected to do it NOR WANTED TO DO IT, the matter is totally out of the hands of the man and whatever the woman wants to do is what happens. And, oh by the way, the man not only has to go along with it but, if she elects to keep the child herself, he gets to pay for the child.

I disagree.

I gather that you are anti-abortion. No problem. I, of course, am PRO abortion, as the cons like to call it - I canvass neighborhoods, trying to induce pregnant women to abort, etc. But I digress . . .

What about adoption? The child lives, grows up in a good home, man doesn't have to pay for a child he did not expect or want, woman gets the same result . . . . Your argument in this post does not take that option into account.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a father could force an adoption of a baby even if the mother opposed it.
....

Where did he say, or even suggest, that?

In her head, it seems.

 

[Si modo]

What you seem to be suggesting is that a father could force an adoption of a baby even if the mother opposed it.
....

Where did he say, or even suggest, that?

In her head, it seems.

It's just stunning, isn't it? How many times in this thread alone has she done that? And, how many times has she argued with those who completely agree with her in this thread alone?

It's just amazingly stunning. I'm dumbfounded. There is something seriously wrong, there.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[Ravi]

The way i see it George is that if men do not want to have children then they need to keep their sperm to them selves. If a accident happens then the ship has already left the dock and the man is along for the ride. He is responsible for any baby that may result.

You overlook the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, it's the female who initiates the sexual contact, not the guy. So don't talk to me about "responsibility." Almost invariably, it's the female who is responsible for encouraging the sex that gets her knocked up. Not that the male isn't a willing participant, of course. But let's not lay this off on the guy. Without the gal's OK, ain't NOTHING gonna happen, baby.

You mention men keeping their sperm to themselves if they don't want a baby. I might suggest to you gals that you keep your legs together if you don't want one either.

Unbelievable.

 

[Ravi]

You overlook the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, it's the female who initiates the sexual contact, not the guy. So don't talk to me about "responsibility." Almost invariably, it's the female who is responsible for encouraging the sex that gets her knocked up. Not that the male isn't a willing participant, of course. But let's not lay this off on the guy. Without the gal's OK, ain't NOTHING gonna happen, baby.

You mention men keeping their sperm to themselves if they don't want a baby. I might suggest to you gals that you keep your legs together if you don't want one either.

I am not overlooking any "facts" (though i think your facts are wrong) George. If men don't want the responsibility of paying for the up keep of any children they may be produce, regardless of who initiates the sex, the men need to control their sperm. That means putting on a condom or getting a vasectomy.

The thread is about men not getting a say in a woman's choice of getting or not getting an abortion. If men don't want to be in the position of an outcome not of their choosing, then THEY need to control their sperm and not put themselves in that position.

Women wouldn't need the power of a second choice if they made the first one right.

Nor would men. Non sequitor.

 

[jillian]

I am not overlooking any "facts" (though i think your facts are wrong) George. If men don't want the responsibility of paying for the up keep of any children they may be produce, regardless of who initiates the sex, the men need to control their sperm. That means putting on a condom or getting a vasectomy.

The thread is about men not getting a say in a woman's choice of getting or not getting an abortion. If men don't want to be in the position of an outcome not of their choosing, then THEY need to control their sperm and not put themselves in that position.

Women wouldn't need the power of a second choice if they made the first one right.

Nor would men. Non sequitor.

exactly

 

[Madeline]

Where did he say, or even suggest, that?

In her head, it seems.

It's just stunning, isn't it? How many times in this thread alone has she done that? And, how many times has she argued with those who completely agree with her in this thread alone?

It's just amazingly stunning. I'm dumbfounded. There is something seriously wrong, there.

Ad hominem.

*Yawns*

 

[Madeline]

Bingo, this is the root of the debate

So, IYO, taking advantage of modern medicine or pursuing a child's rights to financial support from its father is behaving in a helpless manner?

Bullshit.

If you can make the decision to have a child alone, you can rear the child alone.

You didn't need a man to tell you whether to have a baby; you don't need one to help you rear or provide for it.

Or are you a helpless little creature in need of a big strong man to tell you what to do and take care of you?

The "helpless little creature" is the baby, who has a legal right to be supported by both parents. I still don't see any rejoinder from you as to why the baby's rights should be terminated.

All I have seen you write here is how sad men are when their money is diverted to help provide for their offspring. How can I say this more clearly?

Tough shit.

 

[Ravi]

Here is how I understand child support laws.

If either parent abandons a living child, that parent is obligated to pay child support. I also understand that child support is for the benefit of the child, not the parent.

Is this law unfair?

I'm not seeing it.

A few of you come across as wanting to punish children because you are upset that a woman is lawfully able to decide if she will or will not give birth.

That's just pathetic, imo.

 

[Si modo]

In her head, it seems.

It's just stunning, isn't it? How many times in this thread alone has she done that? And, how many times has she argued with those who completely agree with her in this thread alone?

It's just amazingly stunning. I'm dumbfounded. There is something seriously wrong, there.

Ad hominem.

*Yawns*

How's that ignoring me going for ya?

Damn, how ANYONE can take ANYTHING you post seriously is beyond me.

You are so very pathetic.

 

[JBeukema]

In her head, it seems.

It's just stunning, isn't it? How many times in this thread alone has she done that? And, how many times has she argued with those who completely agree with her in this thread alone?

It's just amazingly stunning. I'm dumbfounded. There is something seriously wrong, there.

Ad hominem.

*Yawns*

That's not an ad hom, you illiterate twit,

 

[JBeukema]

So, IYO, taking advantage of modern medicine or pursuing a child's rights to financial support from its father is behaving in a helpless manner?

Bullshit.

If you can make the decision to have a child alone, you can rear the child alone.

You didn't need a man to tell you whether to have a baby; you don't need one to help you rear or provide for it.

Or are you a helpless little creature in need of a big strong man to tell you what to do and take care of you?

The "helpless little creature" is the baby, who

-can be killed in the woman changes her mind 3 months after the fact and decides she doesn't to have it anymore...

has a legal right to be supported by both parents

Unless the woman decides she wants nothing to do with it. As covered several times in this thread.

. I still don't see any rejoinder from you as to why the baby's rights should be terminated.

So you no longer support a woman's 'right' to kill her unborn child? Or do you only think unborn women have any rights when it's convenient for you?

 

[JBeukema]

Here is how I understand child support laws.

If either parent abandons a living child, that parent is obligated to pay child support. I also understand that child support is for the benefit of the child, not the parent.

http://www.safeplacefornewborns.org/

Find Adoption Agencies | Adoption Agency Directory

A few of you come across as wanting to punish children because you are upset that a woman is lawfully able to decide if she will or will not give birth.

Try actually reading what people write.

 

[Ravi]

Fail.

Single fathers are welcome to use those services.

 

[Revere]

What is the significance of the procreative act if a woman ultimatey decides if the result is "life" or not?

What did that impregnation create, exactly?

 

[syrenn]

If women don't want to be in a position where they are to rear a child alone, they shouldn't have children outside of committed relationships. That means making him wear a condom or using the pill, the rods, an IUD, the foam, Plan B- or getting an abortion. Or keeping their legs together. If you're old enough to have sex and have a baby, you're old enough to be responsible for it. If you choose to have a child outside a committed relationship, you need to own up to that decision.

I nave NO problem with that. None at all.

The men are the ones whining bout how unfair it is to them. Why would a man assume a woman is doing any of what you mentioned as birth control? If MEN dont want to be in a position of being the father of an unwanted child then THEY are the ones how need to control their sperm or keep their dicks in their pants.

Once their sperm is given to a woman he is along for the ride. Dont want to ride, dont pay the fair.

Don't want to rear a baby alone? Don't have a baby if you're not in a committed relationship. It's not like you don't have options.

I agree. I am VERY pro abortion. However you get the man who scream "not fair" i want the baby, its mine!" How do you reconcile that one? Bottom line for me is men have no say once their sperm leaves their bodies. If a man wants the baby and the woman carries ti to term..great. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not want to carry the baby, tough. Them man has no say in what a woman does with her body.

Again if men don't want to be in a position of having a baby aborted, then keep their sperm to themselves.


In my opinion if the parents..either of them...are not in a financial position to care for a baby then they have no business having babies. If parents cant afford a baby without the need for government assistance, then they have NO business having children.