Reply #54: Doesn't curtail your options... [View All]

It doesn't change them one whit, it merely says that if you disagree with the other biological parent of the potential offspring and choose to go ahead with the pregnancy against his wishes or without his consent, you do so knowing you've chosen to accept the responsiblity for the child's financial support (presumably also entailing exclusive parental rights as well).

It sounds fair to me. However, I would think that any choice to end the pregnancy should also involve a requirement for the father, if he agrees with the choice, to incur 50% of any costs involved with the abortion. If he disagrees, since this ultimately involves the woman's body, alas, all he can do about it is refuse to pay for half the termination fees.

Choices come with consequences. As the woman does, in fact, actually have the final choice in the matter, and it does involve her body in a vastly more serious way, affirmative birth control should also be her responsibility--her choice. If she chooses to use birth control, so be it--the man cannot deny her. If she demands that he use birth control, so be it--and while the man can deny her--she can deny him access to the act itself. If either party desires birth control, they can have it (though the choice of either not using it or potentially even the choice of using it may give the female cause to deny sex entirely). If they don't want a pregnancy but are both irresponsible--alas, the final burden, the final responsibility for her own body falls on the woman.

Since the choice for a woman to continue or abort a pregnancy exists, and is hers, it hardly seems fair that she should be able to choose for the man, against his preference, that he will bear the either the responsibility for the child's financial well being and/or it's parenting. He doesn't get any choice other than to use even greater care than the woman with regard to birth control in advance or to abstain entirely? While society tends to think of sex as being of much greater value to a man than a woman--that is, well, he got to partake of the pleasure--so if a pregnancy occurs, he must therefore pay for the rest of his life. Sex may indeed be more important to a man--no doubt quite a debatable notion, but that hardly makes up for the fact that the man has no further say in the matter and is utterly inconsequential by comparison to a lifetime of obligation without representation. In fairness, the act of sex itself should be considered to be of equal value and equal responsibility to either gender and the one should not be exchangable for the other. Of course, this is merely my humble opinion (which is something that should go without saying).

It is sort of a tough question. For instance, if both parties are deeply "pro-birth" (I disagree that those who are anti-choice are 'pro-life'), then there is a foregone conclusion that there is no acceptible choice with regard to termination. Therefore, if pregnancy occurs, it will be carried to term and since neither party can choose otherwise, the man must necessarily be held accountable for child support (and should also be both accorded and required to provide parental rights/duties). If the two parties differ on the question of whether or not a pregnancy may be terminated... they'd probably be better off not taking the chance even if that means no sex. Still, if both, going in are okay with resorting to abortion if an unintentional or unwanted pregnancy occurs; then the man should be accorded some rights in the situation--if only the right to choose whether or not to accept the burden if the woman's choice would force an unwanted parenthood on the man. That is, he should have the right not to be "put upon" based upon the woman's choice. Though, to be honest, any man worth his salt would probably choose to accept responsibiity for his offspring anyway.

It's almost ironic that having greater choice should result (if the laws did recognize a man's rights) in an even greater need for responsible/careful consideration of sex vs birth control. Nevertheless, if a woman gets to choose, so should a man. This does not alter a woman's options, though it does make one of the options a little more weighty--and well it should be weighty if she decides, for the man, against his will to proceed. Of course, too, it should make one option 50% less difficult to manage--in that he should be held responsible to assist in that choice, if he agrees with that choice (if he doesn't agree then he should be held accountable to accept child support/parental duties). Choices, choices, choices. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Where will it all end.