Roe v Wade...For Men

*bangs head on table* You don't believe a woman should have a right to reproductive choice.

That's correct. But if the law must allow choice, it should be choice for both genders, or it's sexist.

Don't muddy the waters, this isn't about abortion. If there is a pregnant man somewhere, then we can discuss the issue as equal. Besides, to paraphrase your line... If you don't want to be a father, then don't have sex.

This is about what to do with a baby. I'm all for a man having the same rights as a woman in this case. So long as any law is enacted in such a way that no parent can duck legitimate child support - but I didn't want my 13 year old!!

If the condom breaks, then you have a leg to stand on. *snicker*

Oh.. and if anything was unclear.

I am 100% pro-choice. Any man who wants to terminate his pregnancy. That's a decision between he and his doctor.

You are absolutely correct, this isn't about abortion, this is about reproductive choice. It appears you don't want men to have a choice. So stop saying you are pro-choice, you are pro-women-choice, end of story.

Actually I would support this..

No double standards.. if a woman can choose giving a child up for adoption, abortion, etc..the man should be able to choose to opt out of financial responsibility. Why should women have the right to keep or abort, but men (who dont have a say) have to stick with the responsibility..

If a man has to stick to paying child support of an unwanted baby, then the woman should have to give birth to it and not get an abortion. EQUAL rights..isn't that what NOW wants?

That makes no sense, Kevn. You'd be punishing a woman for making what you consider to be the right choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry.

Oh definitely. If a man really wants more control over this, then he should support research on male birth control and male pregnancy.

Well, I could be swayed to make abortion illegal.

But if a woman has reproductive choice, so should men. If a man "opts-out" the woman still can have the baby. But if the man wants the baby he has no choice. So the woman still has more rights.

I would support a law that would force the government to pay the father's share, if the woman chooses to not abort. I would also support a law that would pay the mother's share should the father want the child, but the woman doesn't.

The reason I would support this is it is the government that allows "reproductive choice" by ruling in favor of reproductive rights. So it would be the government's responsibility to support the conclusion of these choices.

Personally I'd like to a form of birth control for men that last in 6 months periods..priced about what womens birth control does..

of course I'd also like to see a man not be laughed at when he says hes been raped, or abused..

I myself was raised to not raise a hand to a woman (in fact I refuse to punish my fiance in anger in the midst of our dominant/submissive lifestyle so as to not overreact). I may have spanked my submissive but never while angry, and I could not see even hitting a woman who was tryign to rape me. Which -has- happened before. I couldnt even make a fist towards this woman. Because of how I was raised.

Now.. perhaps this puts things in perspective in terms of equal rights. I have been -laughed- at in my face when I admit I was raped by a woman. If I was a woman would they laugh?

There are societies where male or female, you have very little say in the community or respect from anyone until you are a responsible parent.

Before that you are considered childlike, or at best, having far lesser stake in society.

In one of these, tradition dictates that babies do not touch the ground until their first birthday. I've personally observed that they observe this rather seriously.

The difference: it is not such a burden if an unexpected child is born there.

The incredible pressure on women (and men) who are single parents is something societies create for themselves, as a consequence of many things both casually incidental and insidiously cruel. It does *not* have to be this way.



The society I've referred to isn't perfect, by any means. But - I would say, it has something to teach the Western world. A rare few of you may know where I am talking about. I'm going to be quite evil, and let anyone interested try to find out where this is for themselves.

If you have trouble imagining such a place, I suggest travel. Many wonderful things were left by the wayside, in pursuit of the isolated, anonymous, pay-your-monthly-subscription Western dream.

I find it telling that so many spend thousands to come online for a sense of family and community, sometimes including 'pretend' grandparents and children.

I am opposed to this. In principle-you cannot opt out on a child. And the childs rights are an issue. If you are a father, you knew what you were doing when you had the rumpy pumpy, so now you have to live with it. The child did not ask to be born. The mothers incresed rights are the result of biology, not legal discrimination. Als once the child is viable, then its the babys interests that control not mom or dads.

From a practical stand point, if men could opt out they would, whether or not the kid was intended. Now a big chucnk of child support goes from fathers back inot the welfare system to reimburse the governemnt for welfare expended on the child. Thus child support is a source of state income. The more child support paid back inot the system, the more money the states have to spend on things othe than welfare.

Thus the opt out program is just giving deadbeats relief under the guise of some equal protection violation. Which is not true, and wouldn't matter if it were true.

Nope. It's about what to do with a baby after you've already reproduced.

Evidently you skipped over this...



Not sure how you can make that pro-woman choice. I just said that women and men should have exactly the same right to duck out of their responsibility post-birth, unless they are married... then the non-custodial spouse gets to pay child support.

I'd really appreciate it if you could stop trying to tell me what I think, when you haven't bothered to read and retain my clearly stated opinion.

Thanks so much.

We are talking about "opting-out" before viability.

I agree, this has been long overdue. But lets make it affordable. The Nuva ring, which is what I use because it's low dosage, not messy, very effective, and once a month costs about $50 each if you don't have insurance, which I don't. Get the price down to the $20 a month range and then we can talk.

But then I favor reversable sterilization for everyone at puberty with you having to demonstrate financial and emotional stability before being able to get it reversed. Yup, that's the fascist in me - unfortunately it would be so abused based on whatever the Powers That Be at that particular time wanted.

"Opting-out" before viability is the issue. We aren't talking about after the baby is born.

Despite your best efforts, this thread is not about abortion. Please contribute to the thead topic, or go back to the abortion threads if you feel you can't contribute on any other subject.

I agree, it's about reproductive choice. As I have said.

I know you didn't read my post. Did you read the article? This isn't some argument about if the father of a fetus can force a women to have an abortion or a pregnancy, this is about what to do with a born child.

Women get more say on abortion because of biology. It's like breakfast, the chicken is interested, but the pig is committed.

Either you lack the reasoning skills to truely understand the argument, or you are deliberately pulling everything back to your pet hobby horse. Either way you have earned a spot on my ignore list as a waste of time.

Before I mute you. It's about MONEY. Does dad have to pay child-support for a kid he didn't want. Bye, bye

Child support being extracted from men for any purpose other than to support their child is wrong on so many levels it defies any justification.

This is a wee bit off topic, but something that should be addressed here. I don't know about you all, but I get really fucking tired of people whose entire forum existance seems to be about trolling instead of engaging in reasonable debate.

There is only one way to deal with this kind of individual. Ignore them. Either they will wander off to somewhere else, or they will get a clue. Yeah, I know..I've been guilty of feeding them in the past too, but I'm going to make a determined effort to stop.

What is really sad is, some people confuse a contrary opinion with trolling. The reason for that is some people think it's unreasonable to disagree with their opinion.

I agree, that sucks.

Do you really think so Jake? Now growing up I knew a number of single moms who were scratching along while Dad had moved on to a new wife and new family, and basically abandoned the first family, but I was hoping that attitude was the exception, not a basic attitude. Does it matter if the child is a boy or a girl? Some guys are a bit nuts about "their son!!" Of course, I'm a bit nuts about my son, but not in some dynastic, bloodline, family name sense.

If it is true, do you think it's still some sort of fundamental biological 'back to the cave" kind of drive? This ties in for me with men who don't want to raise other men's children. I'm not trying to be judgemental, but I'm wondering if this is nature/nurture.

On the flip side, I know men my own age who are fiercely attached to their children, whether married to the mothers or not.

This sure isn't an easy issue, and the kids get lost in the skirmish.