Hey! Abortion pro(op)ponents! Wrap your head around this!

Let's see if we can't spice up these forums with a debate my wife and I had recently.

As some of you may already know I am about to be a father once more over and to be frank I couldn't be more ecstatic about it. I'm mindful of the physical, emotional and financial cost of adding another child into the mix, but I still am overjoyed at the little person who will (maybe, probably, hopefully) be our third and final child.

I have always found joy in taking a very active role as a father and a husband, so much so that my wife has yet to find another husband that she can point to and say "see so and so does whatever for/with his wife/kids". Apparently for all of her female friends, I am the "so and so" to whom they refer when griping at their respective hubbies (thankfully I'm not friends with any of those guys).

I think this is why my wife was stunned at my response to a topic that came up the other night while we were driving home from a concert.

She made the statement that while Roe v Wade was unconstitutional (she's a strict constitutionalist) she couldn't trust the individual states to protect a woman's reproductive rights and therefor saw it as philosophically wrong, but still being the right thing to do, likening it to Lincoln trampling states' rights without which the US would not likely exist today.

Agreeing I unintentionally segued into a new topic with:

Me: Though it comes down to individual rights and sometimes not all individual's end up with the same rights with or without government intervention and that one of the reasons that this is such a big issue is that we as a society haven't come to a consensus on the issues, a court came to it for us.

She asked me to clarify the bolded part.

Me: Well, take abortion as an example. We both agree that life begins somewhere before birth and that, while vague, Roe v Wade supports 24-28 weeks which we can both agree is reasonable. We both agree that after that point of viability, an infant's right to life trumps the mother's right to do what she wants with her body, unless she has a very real risk of serious injury or death. However in all of this conversation there's one person we've not addressed. There's one individual without a choice.

Her: The father?

Me: Indeed. He has no rights in this situation. While he is not and should not be allowed to have a say in whether or not the mother has an abortion, he is unfairly obligated to whatever choice she makes. She chooses whether or not the child is carried to term and she chooses what if any relationship and obligations he has to the child should she decide to carry to term.

Her: He consented when he had sex with her. He knows that there's a chance that they could have a child and so he's obligated to take care of it.

Me: That's one, albeit the current interpretation. However if that were truly representative of their choice then it wouldn't be an issue. In addition, it's inconsistent with abortion itself. I could switch this up and say, "You know that if you have unprotected sex, you could have a baby, so if you do so then you are obligating yourself to have the child should one be conceived." It's the same argument, to say nothing of the matter of say a broken condom in which case the man obviously didn't give consent to be a father, but still has no choice.

Her: So you think a man shouldn't be obligated to take care of his child?

Me: If he tells her that he doesn't want to be a father a few weeks after she's informed him and she decides to carry to term then, no I don't think he should be obligated. She has the right to do what she will with her body, but he should have the right to determine if he is going to be obligated to take care of her child. At least that's consistent and it's certainly closer to equitable, though she really would have more rights as he (correctly) could not compel her to have a child if the roles were reversed.

Her: I think we're done with this for now.

Thoughts?

I haven't read all of the replies (some of you folks are long winded) but as a man I believe that men should have more (equal) control over parenthood.  Now, I don't disagree that the best way for a man to exercise control is by being very careful when, how, and with whom he engages in sex. 

I am pro-choice but I don't think that abortion should be the primary method of birth control so in this since I feel that when two people engage in unprotected sex they are in effect agreeing to the responsibilities of parenthood.  And I believe that we should do a better job of educating all young men and women about the risks and responsibilities of sexual activity. 

So the question then comes down to those situations where despite attempting to prevent pregnancy, pregnancy occurs anyway.  It's at this point that the man, who expressed his desire not to father children no longer has the ability to exercise his rights.  Woman is solely in the position to decide whether to continue or terminate the unwanted pregnancy and the man is financially responsible to support the child if the woman decides to keep the child even though the man expressed his desire not to be a parent.  As long as the man took the proper precautions I do not think he should be obligated to be a parent.

At the sake of becoming wordy myself I will offer this real life example.  There was a 30 yr old twice divorced woman with no children.  She also had no family connections so she was in effect alone in this world.  She had never been pregnant and had been told by doctors that she could not conceive.  She meet a divorced man on-line and after becoming friendly they agreed to meet.  He knew that she was unable to conceive.  They meet on one occasion and engaged in sex.  Although the man could have used protection, he didn't because she was sterile, or at least she told him that she was.  She became pregnant.  He was not her only partner so she couldn't be certain who the father was but it didn't matter, she was overjoyed to be having a baby.  As it turns out she was blessed with twins.  After the birth, the men had to submit to court ordered paternity tests and the lucky man, the Internet hook-up, is now ordered by the court to support the two children until they reach adulthood.  Is that fair?  The mother think so because as quoted earlier, "if you play you've got to pay".  Of course the man has no way of knowing if the woman had really been told that she was sterile.  Should that fact that she told him that she was have a bearing on his responsibility?

edit: to correct typos

While I agree he shouldn't have to pay, and I think it reprehensible of the woman to pursue support, let the buyer beware.

First time hook up with someone met online = no reason to trust anything you are told. Why should that wisdom not hold true for the man?

He shouldn't have to pay but he also shouldn't have trusted some random broad from the internet.

Original Post by alibsam:

He shouldn't have to pay but he also shouldn't have trusted some random broad from the internet.

 totally agree with both statements.

Original Post by alibsam:

He shouldn't have to pay but he also shouldn't have trusted some random broad from the internet.

 I agree...but even if someone claims they are sterile...use protection, what about STD's???!!????  They both were stupid. Poor babies have stupid parents.

look, in another ten or twenty thousand years (assuming that our species survives that long, which is doubtful), maybe we'll have evolved to be asexual or truly hermaphroditic, in which case we can be equal in this matter.  but we're not equal in this, so--no--we can't have equality of rights.

Original Post by monarch777:

 They both were stupid. Poor babies have stupid parents.

 Isn't this the case more often that not with unintended pregnancy?

I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights?  Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.

I could be wrong, but I am assuming that a father needs to sign off on an adoption though doesn't he?  Can he prevent that?

If he refuses to sign off, technically can the mother sign off and "force" the father ro raise and soley provide for the child? or can the mother be "forced" to pay support if she wanted to put the baby up for adoption?

How do you afford a man the right to choose, though? There is no workaround that covers the spetrum of human responses and scenarios. The answer is you can't.

What you can do is assure that support is fair, equitable and tied to access to the child, not the ability to pay.

Original Post by kae03:

I could be wrong, but I am assuming that a father needs to sign off on an adoption though doesn't he?  Can he prevent that?

If he refuses to sign off, technically can the mother sign off and "force" the father ro raise and soley provide for the child? or can the mother be "forced" to pay support if she wanted to put the baby up for adoption?

You should really read the link I posted earlier. ;)

As I understand it, it depends on the state. There's no federal law yet that says a father needs to sign off on an adoption and that he can prevent it, but there have been cases in court and the judges rule in favor of the man, that a woman does not have the legal right to give her child up to adoption without the man signing off.

Original Post by trhawley:

I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights?  Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.

 A lot of men can't be trusted, either. For every story like the one you told there's one in which the guy lied to the woman, told her he loved her then abandoned her at the first sign of trouble.

C'mon Dude. You generally don't brandish such a broad brush.

Unfortunately, the only way to get people to do the right thing is to make them pay monitarily.  It is true in every law we have. you break the speed limit, you pay. You drive drunk, you pay. Of course you have to get caught first. So, sometimes you have to pay for what you do and that means a man who gets a woman pregnant, even if he doesn't want the child.

Original Post by trhawley:

I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights?  Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.

 Or, both sides could practice abstinance until they actually find a partner that if by chance, they happen to pro-create with, they wouldn't mind. Casual sex makes for unwanted pregnancies. For sure.

 My husband had one child with his first wife who divorced him. He decided that he never wanted to put another child through the crap he went through with his parents divorce...so he had a vasectomy when she was only 5. That's pretty drastic, but I think he did a responsible thing. He did not want anymore children...so he made SURE that it wouldn't happen.  In the age of freezing your sperm just in case....I do not think it's that drastic of an option. Maybe it's pretty smart.

Original Post by kathygator:

Original Post by trhawley:

I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights?  Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.

 A lot of men can't be trusted, either. For every story like the one you told there's one in which the guy lied to the woman, told her he loved her then abandoned her at the first sign of trouble.

C'mon Dude. You generally don't brandish such a broad brush.

 

 Yes but the court will intercede on behalf of all mothers and order the man to pay support, even garnishing wages, and if the man still escapes payments he faces jail time. 

But if the man wants to have the child and the woman chooses to abort it the man has no recourse or if the woman chooses to have the baby against the man's wishes the court will enforce support. 

In all cases it comes down to what the woman wants, the wishes of the father are ignored with the notable exception of adoption.

Original Post by misskady:

Unfortunately, the only way to get people to do the right thing is to make them pay monitarily.  It is true in every law we have. you break the speed limit, you pay. You drive drunk, you pay. Of course you have to get caught first.

 Were not talking about anyone breaking any laws here.  Were talking about two people agreeing to engage in non-reproductive sex for their mutual pleasure with the unfortunate side-effect of an unintended pregnancy.

I think child support laws are also very unfair. I know a man who received custody of his two girls after their mother was deemed unfit..(drugs, creepy boyfriend...lots of bad stuff) When she had the girls, he paid without fail. After the girls moved in with him...she disappeared, and paid..(and still pays) nothing. He must live with his parents because he has trouble keeping up. Completely not fair. If it were the other way around, there would be hell to pay for a man. She remarried, has another kid and went on to live her life. Jerk.

Not saying you aren't correct. But how would you remedy it? I mean what's the scenario in which a father could be granted some sort of say that wouldn't be abused, or misused?

Original Post by monarch777:

Original Post by trhawley:

I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights?  Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.

 Or, both sides could practice abstinance until they actually find a partner that if by chance, they happen to pro-create with, they wouldn't mind. Casual sex makes for unwanted pregnancies. For sure.

 My husband had one child with his first wife who divorced him. He decided that he never wanted to put another child through the crap he went through with his parents divorce...so he had a vasectomy when she was only 5. That's pretty drastic, but I think he did a responsible thing. He did not want anymore children...so he made SURE that it wouldn't happen.  In the age of freezing your sperm just in case....I do not think it's that drastic of an option. Maybe it's pretty smart.

That's what James in New Zealand suggested.  I kind of agree.  For those men who wish to protect themselves from financial obligations.

Original Post by monarch777:

I think child support laws are also very unfair. I know a man who received custody of his two girls after their mother was deemed unfit..(drugs, creepy boyfriend...lots of bad stuff) When she had the girls, he paid without fail. After the girls moved in with him...she disappeared, and paid..(and still pays) nothing. He must live with his parents because he has trouble keeping up. Completely not fair. If it were the other way around, there would be hell to pay for a man. She remarried, has another kid and went on to live her life. Jerk.

 In some states he could pursue support. Why can't he?