Roe v. Wade for men?

[General Ma Chao]

I got started on this line of thinking due to this comic. Note to the moderators: If this topic gets too flametastic, feel free to lock it.

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20080218

It got me thinking about the bizarre double standards and expectations we have for sex and pregnancy here in the US. If a couple does the deed and a pregnancy results, the man legally has no influence over the woman's choice. All the emotional, financial, and societal damage that can come from this is scary to think about. And then we get a case like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

We have an intelligent and international crowd. What do you all think? Should an unwilling father be allowed to wash his hands of the responsibility for a kid he made if he doesn't want it? Should he have some power to fight the abortion if he is willing to solely care for the child himself? Discuss.

 

[Easykill]

My father raised my half-sister with no support from the mother after an unexpected pregnancy. I have never even heard of the opposite happening, although I'm sure it has. Women should have the right to have a baby if they want to, but the father should either get the right to decline involvement in the child's life if it was an unintentional pregnancy, or the system should at least affect everyone equally. I don't like how women get custody and aren't as often required to pay child support. Unless she is a stay at home mom, there is no advantage to having a mom instead of a dad, and she doesn't need support any more than a man would. I'm interested in what other people will say to this.

 

[General Ma Chao]

A man should definitely have his say, but not the final decision during pregnancy.
If a man does the deed and his girl gets pregnant, (A smart guy uses protection no matter what) than he is accountable for the child. If he is not ready for children than sex should not be an option period. It's the whole wanting the benefits of being an adult without the responsibility.
I am a strong beleiver of abortion, if that is what a woman wants, than she should have that option. If the husband wants the child, the woman can find ways to have an easier child birth, give him the child, and wash her hands of it. But if a man has sex, and gets a woman pregnant, he should be heald accoutnable for that action and thus have to father,(either physically or monetarily) that child. Sex leads to having kids, it's in alot of books movies and T.V. shows. If a woman says she can't get pregnant, she's either a man, or will probably get pregnant anyway.

Now, I know for a fact that alot of people will disagree with me, but unwed (and single) teenage mothers just piss me off. They're the ultimate sign of ignorance in the world.

EDIT: As for the man being able to fight the abortion: Hell no, unless he's somehow going to bare that child, that is never a man's choice to make.

Very well argued. But what if the condom broke or the pill failed to work?

 

[Easykill]

A man should definitely have his say, but not the final decision during pregnancy.
If a man does the deed and his girl gets pregnant, (A smart guy uses protection no matter what) than he is accountable for the child. If he is not ready for children than sex should not be an option period. It's the whole wanting the benefits of being an adult without the responsibility.
I am a strong beleiver of abortion, if that is what a woman wants, than she should have that option. If the husband wants the child, the woman can find ways to have an easier child birth, give him the child, and wash her hands of it. But if a man has sex, and gets a woman pregnant, he should be heald accoutnable for that action and thus have to father,(either physically or monetarily) that child. Sex leads to having kids, it's in alot of books movies and T.V. shows. If a woman says she can't get pregnant, she's either a man, or will probably get pregnant anyway.

Now, I know for a fact that alot of people will disagree with me, but unwed (and single) teenage mothers just piss me off. They're the ultimate sign of ignorance in the world.

EDIT: As for the man being able to fight the abortion: Hell no, unless he's somehow going to bare that child, that is never a man's choice to make.

It kinda seems like your saying it's always the guy that has sex with the girl, instead of the girl having sex with the guy. It's just seems wrong that girls have a way out of unplanned pregnancy, and guys do not. A condom breaking can ruin a guys life. And I do disagree, having a kid shouldn't mean you need to get married in my opinion, although I can't see many teenagers having the resources needed to raise a child single handedly.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

A man should definitely have his say, but not the final decision during pregnancy.
If a man does the deed and his girl gets pregnant, (A smart guy uses protection no matter what) than he is accountable for the child. If he is not ready for children than sex should not be an option period. It's the whole wanting the benefits of being an adult without the responsibility.
I am a strong beleiver of abortion, if that is what a woman wants, than she should have that option. If the husband wants the child, the woman can find ways to have an easier child birth, give him the child, and wash her hands of it. But if a man has sex, and gets a woman pregnant, he should be heald accoutnable for that action and thus have to father,(either physically or monetarily) that child. Sex leads to having kids, it's in alot of books movies and T.V. shows. If a woman says she can't get pregnant, she's either a man, or will probably get pregnant anyway.

Now, I know for a fact that alot of people will disagree with me, but unwed (and single) teenage mothers just piss me off. They're the ultimate sign of ignorance in the world.

EDIT: As for the man being able to fight the abortion: Hell no, unless he's somehow going to bare that child, that is never a man's choice to make.

Yeah.. that kinda implies all women are mindless drones that are incapable of deciding whether or not sex should happen. If there is consent from both sides I don't see how the guy is any more to blame than the girl. And no, a guy shouldn't be able to force a woman not to have her baby. But if he doesn't want her to, telling him he can stick it up his arse because he's not a woman so it doesn't affect him, but oh wait, you have to fork out continously for the child hardly seems fair.

 

[Haliwali]

I'm in high school right now, and I see plenty of teen pregnancies. I've seen the SEX IS TEH SUX videos, and I've noticed something-It's ALWAYS the guys fault, never mention that the girl may have wanted the sex too.
As for the man's role in that decision, I definitely think he should be able to have a choice, provided he can do everything.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

Very fair points above. However, bearing in mind people are all really stupid and give into base animal instincts, surely the law should not instantly become hopelessly skewed towards the woman's side soon as an unwanted pregnancy occurs?

 

[John Galt]

I don't think an unwilling father should be forced to raise a child if he was led to beleive no child would come of the act (the girl lied about being on the pill or the condom broke). If he knew fully well a child could be the result of such an act, and the woman refuses to have an abortion, I feel that the man should also have to care for the child. Essentially, you break (make) it, you buy it.

I feel that the woman should have the final say in an abortion because after all, it's her body. If you force a woman to negate her own judgement in favor of her partner's, then you're essentially giving the partner control over what is a personal, bodily matter.

If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, then she should not be forced to undergo the rigors of child birth to please someone else. I find it ridiculous that people should be forced to have children unwillingly.

Very well argued. But what if the condom broke or the pill failed to work?

Then the producers of said condom or pill should be held accountable for making a faulty product.

 

[Haliwali]

Pulling out doesn't actually work, found that out a few days ago.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

No matter what is going on in a persons mind, they always have the option to say no. Basic instinct (to my knowledge) has never overcome common sense. The thought process is always present, saying "Well, my natural instincts took over and I had no control over myself", then the judge should say, "Okay, well, now you're going to sit for the rest of your life in a madhouse because you're a potential uncontrollable rapist.". You really have to think about it from a larger perspective.
Can a person truly lose control over themselves when not in a fit of rage? It'd be about the same as the man saying "God made me have sex with her." It just doesn't hold up. If this ever does happen, the law should either 1: Force some sort of abortion, it's one of the few ways to avoid the man paying out his ass, or 2: Take the child away that the woman couldn't use it as leverage.

Then why are there these cases in the first place? Because people give in.

The Law is there to provide justice. Being an idiot does not mean you are exempt from justice. It's just that a idiotic woman is likely to get custody of a child she wants and cash from a guy she doesn't, or just get an abortion, whereas an idiotic bloke is likely to either pay for a child he wants, while not getting custody, pay for a child he never wanted, or watch a child he wants be killed in the womb.

Is female idiocy somehow less to blame than male? If not, then why is she so unlikely to get punished in any way, whereas the guy is almost certain to in some way?

 

[Objulen]

The issue I see with TheNecroswanson's opinion, as stated above, is that it places all the responsibility for the act on the man, which isn't an objective point of view. A man and a woman have sex together, and it's not just the man who's taking the risk; both the man and the woman are taking the risk, and in a society with a legal doctrine of equality, it's not consistent or equitable (or just) to force the man to pay child support if he has no say in whether or not the child is born.

Morality isn't a valid argument. While the responsible action would be to take care of the child, the law isn't a platform for dictating "proper action" in a society that purports to respect individual freedom. As such, we need to look at the 'balance of power' in the interaction

A women has control over her body. Thus, it is her decision over whether or not to have the child. The man has really no say in the matter. Thus, any comparison of risk is automaticlaly invalid, since the man suffers a proportionally greater degree of risk from the simple fact that the he has no legal power to terminate the pregnancy, while the woman does. Allowing the man to avoid child support in instances of outright deception or misinformation simply makes it so that the woman and the man have equal shares of risk; the woman can terminate the pregnancy, while the man can avoid legally enforced support.

I find it interesting that one would consider a forced abortion better than simply abrogating financial responsibility, perhaps in a legal fasion where the father or mother dissolves their legal status as a parent. Not only is that much more invasive and callous about an individual's control over their own body, the logical inference is that it's better to terminate the fetus than have the father not finanically support the minor.

 

[John Galt]

I'm going to give in to my instincts and diverge from the topic for a bit.

I think that it is possible to reduce a human to such a state that they operate off of instinct. I feel that as a living organism, we have a rough imprinted knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Our higher-order thinking and reasoning allow us to form societies that do not require instinctual knowledge.

In short, if you raise a person in the wild, they will demonstrate instinctual behavior, however, who is raised out in the wild anymore?

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I think guys tend to forget that the whole basis of Roe vs. Wade is not economic, it's about sovereignty over your own body. You get to decide what to do with your own organs and so do I. The ruling says I don't have to use my uterus to house and grow a fetus. It says nothing about how you or I have to house and grow a child once it's outside my uterus. That's a separate argument. My uterus, my decision, just like they are your balls, so no one can force you to have a vasectomy, regardless of how many children you may have fathered on how many women. And I am not taking a "Men are Evil Impregnation Machines" stance here, I'm just saying that sort of situation is the closest we could get to a comparable situation for guys.

When you say a man should be able to "opt out of the pregnancy" that's a logical fallacy (omg I almost typed "phallusy" - excuse me lady, your Freudian slip is showing) because the only person who can opt out of a pregnancy is a pregnant person. What you mean is that I can opt out of the responsibility of child-rearing by means of opting out of the pregnancy and you can't. I guess this is where the biology-is-destiny argument that I see popping up on a regular basis on these boards, that some things about society seem unfair but they can't be changed because women are designed for making babies and men are designed for playing first-person shooters, comes back to bite you in the ass.

So how do we make the it fair that I have a means to opt out of child-rearing that you don't? I really don't know. Do I think the way child support and custody in this country is handled is frakked up? Absolutely. So if you want to talk about child-support and custody issues, then talk about child-support and custody issues. Leave Roe vs. Wade out of it, it doesn't apply.

 

[Objulen]

It's not about idiocy, it's about our government not having hard enough grounds for pregnancy. And lawyers who are more than ready to exploit it, are abundant. A man is most likely going to be punished because a woman can't incite a pregnancy, unfortunately plane and simple. The problem with the law, is it's not supposed to factor creationism or evolution into law, yet it does. It says we have basic instincts, but that we are not animals.

The law is limited, but the entire point of discussion is to develop and advance the law, not lament the fact that it is fallible. Creationism and evolution aren't particularly factored in however; it's a simple acknowledgement of human nature.

If a person gave into his basic instinct, would he then would not feel compelled to raise such a child? Example: A dog has basic insticnts. Mate, and perpetuate your species, IE, survival. When a dog mates (And an animal is never truly domesticated, thus, basic insticnts) it's first notion, is to raise it's children. So, if a human has basic instincts as well, then after giving in to them, would he then not feel the need to raise said child?
Some do, yes, but more often then not, no. (and here it gets even murkier because now the woman has the choice to say no to giving birth) The law should view it as such: If you did not want a child, you should not have sex, but it doesn't. And yes, a woman will most definitely exploit our laws. And that's why men suffer for sex more than women, exploitation of laws.
I am a firm beleiver that if you claim to have a basic insticnt, you should be treated as an animal. A dog will reject it's puppies, when it does, it usually kills them.
And beleive me, the first time I use insticnts to excuse my action, put a leash around my neck, I'll probably deserve it.

EDIT: So in short, instincts belong to animals, and if we are not animals, then we do not have them.

That's irrational and excessively judgemental. Human beings are animals, and as such, we have instincts and emotions. We also have reason and logical capacities that other animals do not. To simply label instincts as "animalistic" and thus "bad" is to oversimply the complexities of the human mind to such an extent that any sort of real conversation becomes impossible. Someone might abandon a child due to guilt or inadequacy, due to selfishness, anger at the other parent, or many other reasons.

It seems you expect people who do give into their urges instead of excersizing complete control to either abort or take care of their children, simply because it's a nice analog to what happens in nature. Unfortunately, the human animal is a much more complicated crature that can't be so easily reduced to A or B processes.

 

[Objulen]

I'm going to give in to my instincts and diverge from the topic for a bit.

I think that it is possible to reduce a human to such a state that they operate off of instinct. I feel that as a living organism, we have a rough imprinted knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Our higher-order thinking and reasoning allow us to form societies that do not require instinctual knowledge.

In short, if you raise a person in the wild, they will demonstrate instinctual behavior, however, who is raised out in the wild anymore?

Even then, people develop instinctual responses to stimuli, such as someone who develops a dislike for a particular kind of liquer after a hangover. There are also factors like emotional stimulus, etc.

 

[Objulen]

The ruling says I don't have to use my uterus to house and grow a fetus. It says nothing about how you or I have to house and grow a child once it's outside my uterus. That's a separate argument.

Except that it's not. A woman's control over her own body is absolute, but the simple fact of the matter is that the situation is not equal because the man does not have a means to avoid parentage that the woman does. Just as you would expect society to protect the woman's right over her body, wouldn't you expect society to render equal treatment for all parties involved?

There are multiple legal possibilities, such as allowing a parent to dissolve legal gaurdianship in cases of deception, or where the man made it clear that he did not want a child from the outset. Of course, this can be difficult to prove and interpret, but if the law didn't get complicated, it wouldn't require peopel to interpret it or render judgements on it.

 

[Easykill]

The Necrowanson,
Even if god does exist, all we are, are advanced animals. We do have instincts. Your opinions feel like they come from what you beleive the universe should be like, not what it is like.

I think we need some more female viewpoints. Maybe Erin Hoffman, it would be interesting to see what she would say. Oh, and for the record, I don't think the man should ever have the right to force an abortion.

 

[Objulen]

So, than it could be possible than to have a legal battle to have an abortion... That, I like.
The problem with the equal rights thing, is yes it takes into account that sex is a mutual act, but the man gets the woman pregnant, that no longer sounds so equal to me. Sex is a risk, yes it is a severely greater risk for the man financially, but is that an excuse to allow him to get someone pregnant than refuse to take responsibility?

That violates a woman's control over her own body, and in my opinion isn't a viable option. You also seem to be stuck on the notion that "the man get the woman pregnant", as though the woman has no part in it. The fetus may grow in the woman, but a man's sperm doesn't do anything without an egg either. Any notion of equality is a pretense until you can accept that both individuals bear equal responsibility for the act.

The thing about it all, is that we may be animals, but we are not raised as animals. If you are uncontrollable in your urges it is because you were not raised to be in control of said urges ( just saw a creepy A&E special about children who were partially raised by animals). So now the law protects you and says you don't have to own up to what you have done. Animals are not sentient creatures, they cannot control their urges, that is what seperates us from them. Sex and procreation is more practice in us than instinct, but that statement is theoretical and thus cannot be the basis of my argument now that I look at it in writing/typing.

That's irrational and simply not true. People have emotions, and those emotions can override their self-control and reason. To try to make it into a black hat/white hat issue is immature and simplistic view. People can commit murder with the malice of forethought, or they can be in a rage, or they can do it simply as an accident; the law differentiates between these states and applies appropriate penalties for the mens rea, the mental state, even though the actus rea, or the action, was the same. Two people who don't want to have a child and wouldn't normally wouldn't have sex to avoid that can be overcome by their emotions at the time for a varietyexc of reasons; trying to lump all situations together into one universal law is an exercise in futulity, since there are many gradations of the human mind, even from moment to moment.

The human brain works on so many levels that other creatures do not, yet the law dictates us to be working on those lower levels, for justice.

No, it recognizes the realities of human existance. The notion you espouse is an escape into suppuriority over creation, instead of dealing with the simple fact that human beings are animals and have urges because of that, and that we act on those urges and are not always in full control of ourselves, even if we might wish otherwise.

A good long time ago people took responsibility for their actions, it wasn't really until the 'if it feels good, do it' era that the law needed to step in on children and parenting. The universe is indeed a strange, and confusing place, and I can't wait till science finds out how it truly works.

That's one of the most common fallicies I hear. There was no mythical era where perfect people existed that we must try to "reclaim" or otherwise go backwards for. That simply results in regression. There have been people avoiding responsibility, and taking responsibility, for their actions for as long as there have been human beings.

 

[sammyfreak]

In response to the original topic. If the child is born i think either parent should be able to demand that the other pays up. If they dont want to take care of the kid, fine! But i think concieving a child is a rather big deal and the least you should do is pay up.

I also think a guy should be able to oppose an abortion if he is willing to take care of the child. I gues my view is based on that i oppose abortion in general (not because of religious reasons) and that the child is the decendant of both. Sure i gues it sucks for the woman to be pregnant for 9 months and i think its reasonable that she shouldent need to pay child-support as compensation if she doesnt want to keep any parental rights.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

The ruling says I don't have to use my uterus to house and grow a fetus. It says nothing about how you or I have to house and grow a child once it's outside my uterus. That's a separate argument.

Except that it's not. A woman's control over her own body is absolute, but the simple fact of the matter is that the situation is not equal because the man does not have a means to avoid parentage...

Let's make a distinction on the definition of parentage here. It is my opinion that providing 50% of DNA does not make you a parent. If I give up a child for adoption, the people who adopted it are the parents, legally and morally responsible for its upbringing and welfare. If they die in an accident, nobody can come back to me and say, "You have to take care of the kid now," because I'm not a parent. I am then the birth-mother, but I am not the parent. You have no choice about whether a human being bearing your DNA is squeezed out into the world, I do, and that can't be modified without violating my physical sovereignty. "Parent" is a legally and socially defined role. Woman as sole owner of uterus is not. So they really aren't the same.

Seriously, do you care if a person carrying 50% of your DNA exists in the world if you don't have to pay for it or even know about it? Probably not. This is an economic and social argument and needs to be addressed as such without talking about whether or not I have the right to determine what I do with my internal organs.

EDIT: I'm going to go ahead and be up front here - I take this argument very seriously because I had to make that choice. It was a classic case of drunk and stupid for both me and him, so I'm not going to try and make any defense based on risk or responsibility. Neither of us had any excuse. I'm willing to discuss whether or not I had any right to make him pay for anything, kid or abortion, but I will never, ever concede the right to decide for myself, by myself, whether or not to have an abortion.