[pollwatcher]

Men are overwhelmingly involved in the decision, and the execution of abortions anyway. The pro-Life males are the ones usually discriminated against.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is nothing less than the full repudiation of paternal responsibilities without willful, legal, acceptance of those responsibilities by the potential father."

When is this acceptance given, before or after sex? Before or after learning of the pregnancy?

Does "Choice for Men" force a woman to deliver if the father wants the baby but the woman doesn't? Is the woman legally required to tell the father?

If the father cannot stop an abortion, what kind of "choice" is this? Sounds like the only choice proposed by "Choice for Men" is the choice not to make child support payments.

This is a good start (for curbing out-of-wedlock births), but it needs to go further to curb abortions (ie. abortion only allowed upon consent of both parties, with DNA confirmation of the father).

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Jim Noble]

Prior to 1973, choice for men existed.

It was called "marriage".

Marriage was a public act which entailed accepting responsibility for the children born to one woman.

No marriage, no responsibility.

If that were still the law, unmarried women would lack the power to compel men's financial responsibility for their poor choices.

[Mamzelle]

re: At present there is no mechanism in place to cause women to modify their sexual behavior; which is the ultimate determiner of an unwanted pregnancy in a civilized society. )))

How absurd. Do men have no control over their OWN bodies? This is just sexism in reverse.

If you want a world where a man needn't pay child support for his own children, you've got a lot of waiting to do.

[Jeff Gordon]

"Choice for Men" is that competing claim.

NOT!

[185JHP]

A lot of our current laws have "slut protection act" clauses and subparts. We'll have a better country when sluttish behavior is abjured and societally punished as it should be.

[Woahhs]

Would you mind contributing some of your insights in opposition to the prevailing gyno-centric presumptions about "fatherhood."

[babyface00]

Lets get rid of some of the peripheral issues.

1) We're only talking about consensual sex, not rape or incest

2) We're only talking about sex outside of marriage.

3) We're not considering birth control that is used, but failed.

4) We're not talking about two minors (if one party is a minor, then, again it is rape and a separate issue)

Let's also consider the current realities:

1) Birth control for women is widely and near freely available

2) Birth control for men is also available

3) Abortion is currently legal

So we have a situation where consensual sex between adults no longer has to result in pregnancy, and pregnancy no longer has to result in childbirth (lets set aside the morality of abortion for a moment)

I'd argue also, that the woman has near total control over this situation, both legally and actually:

- Women have the ultimate say over whether sex will or will not occur (rape laws codify this), they also have near total control over whether birth control is thus used.
- While it is obvious when a man is using a condom, men only have the woman's word if she says she is on the pill.
- Women currently have total control over having an abortion

I guess we have two distinct situations:

1) Two adults have consensual sex, both are aware that no birth control is being used.

2) Two adults have consenual sex, the man thinks the woman's on the pill, but she isn't.

Pregnancy results.

The current situation, in both cases, is that the woman has total control over the pregnancy - she can legally kill the baby before birth, or she can carry to term. The man has no say here and, if she decides to carry to term, she can legally compel him to financially raise the child.

The question is:

In case 1, where both adults were aware of the risk, shouldn't both adults have some say in the outcome?

In case 2, where the man was not aware of the risk, should he also have the same responsibility? Should he not have a say in the outcome, even moreso than in case 1?

There are four separate pieces here:

a) The morality of terminating the pregnancy, regardless of its legal status (one or both may feel it is immoral)
b) The "pain and suffering" the woman will experience in carrying to term for nine months
c) 18 years of financial support by the father
d) 18 years of child raising by the mother

The original post is arguing that the father should have some say in the result of the pregnancy and in supporting the child.

How about the following:

Both parents have a say in the result of the pregnancy. Because the mother has to carry the child to term, her say is weighted more in case 1 (both parties consented) and equal in case 2 (the man was duped).

So, if both parties agree to terminate the pregnancy, there's no legal problem.

Also, if both parties agree to carry to term, they both agree to support the child.

In case 1, if the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't then, the woman's decision wins, unless they can reach some arrangement to reimburse her for the pain and suffering of carrying to term.

In case 1, if the woman wants the child, and the man doesn't, he's out of the picture.

In case 2, their decisions have equal weight, but if either wants the child, the child is born.

However, in both cases, if there is no agreement, whichever party wanted the child gets sole custody and sole support responsibility. The other is out of the picture.

This seems fair to me. Neither party is compelled to do anything against their wishes, at least not without compensation. Codify this, and I'll bet pregnancies will drop dramatically, and so will abortions.

[Lorianne]

At present there is no mechanism in place to cause women to modify their sexual behavior; which is the ultimate determiner of an unwanted pregnancy in a civilized society.

There is no mechanism in place to cause men to modify their sexual behaviour. Furthermore, biology, not society, determines the rules of procreation. Biology dictates that it take exactly one man and one woman to procreate.

This is a specious argument. It assumes women should be under no obligation to modify their sexual behavior.

At present, men have no obligation to modify their sexual behavior either. Until both parties to conception have equal incentive to modify their sexual/procreative behavior, we will continue to have social problems arising from unwanted/unintended conception. Abortion is only one manifestation of social problems arising from procreative issues. There are many others.

The focus should be two-fold: conception prevention and obligations toward the child, for both parents, after conception.

[jimt]

The pro-choice dogma is a tremendous windfall for unprincipled women. They gain the new privilege of deciding whether or not to accept maternal responsibility while retaining the old prerogative of compelling paternal responsibility, with both options codified into law and supported by the coercive power of the state.

Well said.

[snowstorm12]

I think the invention of more full proof male birth control options will help in men having more control over their reproductive rights. If health classes stressed the use of BACKUP methods of birth control (not just one contraception method or condom use) and personal responsibility for birth control, (not just take a woman's word or man's word for it) all parties would be better off and I think unintended pregnancy would become non existant.

Secondly, the law has put the final decision on whether a person want's a fertilized egg to grow to a full term baby solely on the women, for practical reasons. It would be pure chaos otherwise. The opt out of fatherhood option wouldn't work either because then government would force tax payers to pick up the bill even worse than they do now and that simply won't fly with taxpayers.

I would support an opt out of fatherhood contract before sexual relationship takes place if the welfare state was obliterated completely and forever.

[victim soul]

read later and bump

[Porterville]

Haven't you figured it out??? Don't have kids in America. Do it somewhere else then move back.