My Own Thoughts and Questions on the Child Support/Abortion Debate

NOTE: This is the first time that I have EVER started a separate thread on a hot-topic issue. I know there are already 2-3 threads, and I'm sorry, but I think, after thinking about this all day, that I've finally hit upon my own frustration with the issue. I would like to discuss what I think that I've found to be the primary issue, and to remind people that this is a debate that demands that people get in touch with real humanity, and not simply rely on sloganeering and glib absolute claims.

In the post, below, I was responding to a poster who has claimed, over and over, without any explanation, that the mother's right to choice is absolute, and the child's right to support is absolute. This is from the ra-ra, tell-em-like-it-is thread, started by flvegan.

Title: There's something fundamentally inhumane about your argument

I can't quite put my finger on it -- and I don't like to argue in these kinds of terms (morals), but you're setting up a clear hierarchy of rights that goes, from "no rights" to "most rights": fetus--->father--->child--->mother.

You're claiming two moral absolutes:

1. The woman's uterus is her own (fetus has no rights of its own, father has no rights over the fate of the fetus).
2. The child supercedes the father (child has rights that come before the father).

On a legal level, because abortion is legal, you can claim no. 1, but, I think, when you start to think about it in terms of moralily (not Christian morality, but ethical morality), that it's really not quite that simple.

I think, by and large, except for a few fringies, that most people consider a fetus in utero to be a potential child. Not by legalese, or heated pro-choice argument, but by something kind of prevailing psychology that lies within us. In most cases, even a woman who has an abortion doesn't take the deed lightly. Expectant parents plan a life, a future around an in utero fetus. They are given names, they are given dreams before they're ever born.

Willingly expectant fathers, in my opinion, have a psychological stake that is equal to that of the mother. The fetus also shares both sets of DNA -- the fetus itself IS the property of the mother and the father. In terms of sensitivity, the feelings and emotions of an expectant father are no less important than those of the mother. Yet, the mother can destroy the potential life, at will. The father has no claim over the child -- because we return to the fact that the child must be carried within the woman's body. There is no situation like it. It is a moral gray area that doesn't, cannot call for glib pronouncements or seemingly hostile, rally-round-the-campfire moments. This is a quiet, human question.

So the mother, only by necessity, has the sole right to destroy the fetus. At whichever whim that she chooses, the father can be imprisoned or have his wages garnished by the state, for the next 18 years, for failure to support the mother's choice. The pro-lifers say, "it's not a choice, it's a child," and by virtue of that, the pro-choice movement MUST consider that fetus a choice. There is not a lot of room for movement -- the legal territory is staked out on the question of, as you said, the right of the mother to 'rent out' her fetus without state intervention -- the mother's choice. The pro-choice position DEMANDS that the fetus be a non-human entity that does not have the full, legal rights of a citizen -- however contradictory it may be to how most people view a potential life to be.

So, then, in 10 hours (or more -- mine was 46) of labor, the fetus suddenly changes into a full-blown person with human rights. At that point, you're saying, the father's rights are to again, be placed behind this other human beings (and the mother's, I assume). The fetus goes from a "choice," a non-human entity, to the most privileged member of the entire enterprise.

I think here is where my problem lies: If the father is informed of the pregnancy, before "fetus" becomes "child," why is the father -- and ONLY the father -- held to understand and have his own rights based upon the potential life? He cannot opt out because the fetus may some day become a child, but the woman may opt out, regardless. At that crucial time, in utero, the father is held to the standard of "living child," while the mother is held to the standard of "non-human entity." The reluctant father is called "deadbeat," while the mother, who can take the physical body of the potential life, and have it sucked out of her womb, to end up in a plastic bag in a garbage dump is not responsible for that life.

That's my sticking point: If, while the fetus is legally considered a non-human entity, why does one have the option to opt out, and the other does not? There can be arguments made that could potentially equate the property of one's livelihood with the property of one's body.

And what of the child, in either state? A deadbeat dad makes for, potentially (but not always) a child in danger of poverty. Abortion makes a "ghost," -- a negative, the zero in the binary. We cannot judge, because we do not have the wisdom, foresight or the cognition to make the determination of which child is better off. I've heard people argue that the "unwanted" child who is aborted is somehow a more preferrable outcome than the "unwanted" child who is alive. In some cases, this may be true. In many cases, it is not.

This is heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking for me to type. I am a woman, and I have a child, and I can still have babies, and I might not want to raise another child. I am also a libertarian, and reluctantly err towards choice, only because I believe there is no absolute answer to the moral question -- and that we all must consider the moral question. There is no one but ourselves who can.

My problem with the primary arguments are that they originate at a place that is somewhat inhumane, but then end up demanding upstanding morality. It's very sad, to me. Particularly coming from liberals. And I'm kind of a cold, cynical postmodernist. Not that much gets to me.

is because of personal experience. I had a "deadbeat dad" who opted out of the picture when I was five, never to pay a dime of the $15 a month child support he was supposed to give -- and this was for two kids (even though we're talking the 1950s here, I think we can say that wasn't a large amount of money). Even today, in certain situations, a man can "get out of" paying child support. I've known of this happening, and of women forced to raise their children in staited circumstances-this has to bring along with it some bitterness. And yes, all the women I'm talking about had been married to the fathers of their children. I think anyone who takes that extra step of marriage commits himself to more obligations than one who merely shares a bed with another.

As to your moral dillemma-I have heard of times when a child was conceived and the man wanted it aborted. The woman did not, and the child was born. Does this let the man off the hook in regards to child support? I answer this with another question-should people think about possible consequences before having sex? Because that's what it comes down to, I think. And there are people who take responsibility for their actions, and those who always try and weasel out.

So should a woman get an abortion? I think there are times when it is entirely justifiable, and the father of the fetus should have absolutely no say in the matter-and this is in cases of rape or incest. In those cases, the man has committed a criminal act, and in doing so abrogates any say he has over what the women does with her body. In cases where there is a medical problem, I think the father of the fetus should be consulted, but the final say has to be that of the mother-after all, she is the one who has to live with the consequences. In other cases, such as aborting because of financial problems, etc, in most cases the decision should be mutual.

You know, I don't know the answer, and that's why I'm so freaked out about it. :) My reaction is to posters who seem to have all the answers, and can't really back any of that up with a thoughtful discussion.

I agree with what you're saying -- that, in theory, under normal circumstances the choice to abort/not abort should be mutual -- but, really, it's meaningless, because the woman can do whatever she wants, anyway, with no legal consequences. Is this good? I don't think so, but I support it, simply because I have to. Can the man get out of paying child support? Sometimes, like you said, the answer is yes -- but there's always a "but," lurking around the corner. If the man, when it comes down to supporting the child is responsible for his choice to have sex, why isn't a woman, stuck in poverty, raising a child in a difficult situation, any less responsible? If there is no child support, which parental "sin" is the child being punished for? The mother's? The father's? It's tough.

in that both parties are responsible for whatever outcome when they have sex. But that is why I am pro-choice-I think that the responsibility should be left on the shoulders of the individuals and not be taken away by a state that mandates only a certain outcome.

That kind of stuff is posted here all the time.

People will say the decision should be made between the woman and her lover, the woman and her doctor, the woman and her family, but I don't think they mean that.

For example the decision is between a woman and her doctor. You ask the doctor's advice and he says he's pro-life. What then? You get a new doctor who will have the opinion you want him to have.

The woman makes the decision in consultation with her husband. So she listens to her husband or doesn't listen. Who cares. It's the woman who will decide. The husband can talk all he wants but he has no power.

It's not a decision between a woman and _____. It's the woman's right to choose and that's the way it should be, and really must be.

Thank you for the sensitivity and careful thought you put into that.

The situation does kinda seem unfair. It's a quandary. Have faith, though. On some levels, we're not that far removed from being a gaggle of monkeys slinging feces at each other. The evolution of the human spirit moves at its own pace, but the day will come when the inhumanity you speak of no longer has reason to exist.

Until that time comes, though, treasure the child that you do have. Next to that, all of this quibbling and infighting doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

blessings unto you and yours,

-fl

But I keep trying. All day, there was just something sticking from those threads that I couldn't quite work out. I am glad I figured out what it was that was logically troubling me, about the threads. I was so excited, I had to start my own thread. Though, I'm sure many people may have figured this out, already. I've simple pleasures. :)

but practically speaking, the woman must have ultimate choice, because it is her body. This may not be perfectly fair: a man and a woman having wild unprotected sex together, consensually, ought to bear an equal resposibility for what happens, and an equal vote in the matter. But "what happens" happens only to the woman's body. The situation is inherently unfair, and the legal system tries to make the best out of this tricky situation.

The woman can opt out only for one reason: she bears the burden. Not fair, maybe, but fortunately, every single man knows what he's getting into when he has sex -- that is the "escape valve." Again, not a perfect solution to the situation, but it's what we got.

Laws can not make the world perfectly fair and just. We can only work at making them as fair as we can, while taking nature and its inherent unfairness in account.

I don't see a better way than legal abortion and child support laws... do you?

I'm not really outright questioning the woman's right to abort. My real line of questioning concerns the discrepancy between how the mother's and father's rights are guided by two differing standards. Pro-choice demands that the fetus not be a human, endowed with rights. If the fetus had rights, it could not be aborted. But, the father's legal responsibility, while the baby is in utero is to the potential child, or the idea of the post-birth human, with rights.

I don't know how much child support is, and it depends on the income of the male, but, say $500 a month, for 18 years is $108,000. That's a pretty severe burden. It's not the burden of the body, but it is a burden, nonetheless. If one wants to argue that the cost or ability of raising a child shouldn't come into play, that knocks a whole lot of pro-choice rationalization out of the equation, and lends creedence to the pro-life argument of "abortion as birth control," or "convenience."

I don't think I'm really questioning choice, because I'm pretty firmly pro-choice, though I feel abortion is a tragedy (and, again, I'm not the sentimental type, so I'm not really lamenting the lost "lamb," but something that speaks to humanity, as a whole). Again, it's the question of whose rights are being considered in relation to what entity.

the choice is i'm the one who has to carry the brat in my body for 9 months, give birth screaming and in pain or knocked out on drugs, then raise the kid for 18 more years

the other one only has to come up with a few hundred dollars a month

jeesus pleesus the man already has the best of the bargain

and you want him to have the choice to opt out, of course then even if he was a nice guy, for legal reasons of future liability, his insurance company and his lawyer would force him to opt out, no man would ever provide for any child, even if he were a good guy, he wouldn't be allowed to, employers are already trying to get employees to get their families off the insurance plan, in the world proposed where men could "opt out" of caring for their own damn children, no man who "opted in" would even be employable, the bums would be the most attractive to corporate insurers

what an evil world you would create

who think they have all the answers, and turn this debate into some kind of battle-of-the-sexes grudge match, and who view pregnancy as "carrying the brats" in their bodies.

by damn i was an unwanted child but my father put food on my table and a roof over my head

you would have had me legally in the street or dead

I agree, technically, that the opt-out option would be mostly for men who I wouldn't otherwise feel are very good people. That said, who am I going to fault more -- the man who won't give up the cash, or the woman who won't "rent out" her uterus? I think abortion is kind of trashy, to tell you the truth -- just as trashy as bowing out of child support. And, again, I am pro-choice, just as I am pro-choice with pornography, but against it, and with a whole bunch of other things that I'm against.

You seem to think that I have no clue, but let me tell you a little story. I became accidentally pregnant from a man that I knew for about 3.5 months, who was a drunk, moved around from flophouse to flophouse, and worked a shitty, low-paying job. I decided to have the baby because the man promised me that he would change, and he seemed genuinely willing to be the father (stupid on my part, I know). I had to go on pregnancy medical, from the state of Washington, and my pregnancy -- which should have been beautiful -- was the lonliest, saddest time of my life. I was physically abused by this drunk, mentally abused, and every attempt to shape my life into something whole or beautiful, for my son, was met with a brick wall -- an empty bank account, the defensive brick wall around an alcoholic -- even rejection from some of my best friends. I was poor, lived in a 700 sq. foot moldy bungalow. My neighbors thought I was trash. I drove a car from 1985.

During my pregnancy, I gained over 100 pounds, due to a depressed metabolism from three years of dieting, prior. Some months, I gained as much as 21 pounds. I had to have a minor episiotemy, and I messed up something royally, in my chest, from pushing so hard. My back has numb spots since the epidural. I don't enjoy sex as much. Yeah, my body has paid a price. My pride has paid a price. I had to go on welfare. I had to experience my pregnancy in an abusive, ugly home.

Things have gotten much, much better. There are still emotional distances, and the occasional drunk driving episode -- and I suppose that I will leave, one day -- but I've been able to provide a decent life for my son, by giving up my own primacy, and sticking with, and working hard to help his father, who now has a good job, and is sober most of the time. And it could get worse -- it could get bad again. Who knows how our son will take it when we split up? Who says that the exposure that he has had to an alcoholic father won't fuck him up? Who can say if my son will be an alcoholic?

But, no matter how bad it gets, I wouldn't do it over any other way. That was my choice. People get to tell their abortion stories, and they're lauded as somehow being heroes, or something. There's a weird cult of abortion that is just as ridiculous, to me, as the cult of the fetus. The pro-lifers would call me a "hero." I'm not a hero. I'm simply a mother. But what my position has brought me, is a personal realization that all forms of dedication to a child -- bodily, money, emotional etc. -- are difficult, and are sacrifices. I don't consider one to somehow outweigh the other, as if it's horse and pony show for "which parent is the biggest martyr." That, to me, is the inhumanity of it all.

I don't really believe in evil, so this whole point is moot. But I do believe that somehow, we've gotten way off track in how we view childrearing. I don't want to see children starve -- and my reasons for even discussing this are very complex. I'm just asking questions.

I think is an excellent idea.

Ideally I'd like to see the money come from the state's general fund.

However, if that's not practical, the money could come from each parent, mother and father. Each parent would contribute to the pool each month and the money would be sent out to each child.

That way each parent pays and each child gets the same amount. It doesn't seem right that one child should get 10 times more child support than another child just because his mother bedded a rich guy that night.

The other solution I would suggest as an improvement to the current system would be my proposal that I've been explaining for three years now based on everyone being able to choose when and whether they become parents. Here's the basics.

As soon as a woman realizes she's pregnant, she has a stated amount of time to make a good faith effort to tell the potential father.

The man then has a stated amount of time to file a government form either accepting the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, or declining them.

The woman gets a copy of this form and then makes her decision on whether to birth or abort. It is her decision to make alone.

The advantages of this system I believe are that the woman gets to make the call on whether she becomes a mother or not.

The father gets to make the call on whether he becomes a father or not.

It's the most fair system I've been able to come up with.

And, I think that my post at least lays a foundation for why it's fair -- or at least there's some other possibility besides the normal absolute pronouncements. I'm not saying I'm in favor of it -- more likely -- I'm waiting for someone to hit me upside the head with a superlogical argument that tells me why it is OK for the two parents to be held to differing standards.

I mean, I never even thought about it that way before. I hope someone passes this into law.

in all states, and all areas of each state.

A woman has a period in which she must notify the father of a pregnancy if she wishes to pursue paternal responsibility. Then the father has a period in which he signs on, or signs off.

The woman can then make an informed choice - whether the father will be involved or not, she can then choose to have the child, abort, or surrender for adoption.

In any case, both parents have an informed choice.

I may have missed some details from the proposal, but I think that's the gist of it.

why does one have the option to opt out, and the other does not? There can be arguments made that could potentially equate the property of one's livelihood with the property of one's body.


i find that hard to believe

let me put it to you in words of one syllable, the woman's body is changed forever, even if she is lucky enough not to suffer from gestational diabetes, post-natal depression, and the other illnesses that come with carrying a child to term, the fact remains, her body is changed forever

yes, if a man has a child and he has to pay child support, he's out some money

you know what?

you can always make more money but i can't go to the store and buy a new body

every woman in the world understands this

the day that the baby is implanted in the man's body and it changes his body forever and his desirability forever and his health forever even if he gives it up for adoption that's the day i'll give a damn abt his choice

the choice has to be up to the woman because it's only ONE body to a customer and it's HERS

dude, you can always make more money, but you can never never never in any store be you jackie o herself you cannot buy a new body, forgive me for calling you "dude" but despite your claims to be a woman in your post i find it damn hard to believe there is a woman on his planet who isn't aware that we're the ones who carry the babies in our bodies

I'm going to reject your argument, on its face, because you're not addressing my argument, at all. I'm not arguing about whether or not the woman has the choice over her own body. I am pro-choice. I am simply trying to figure out how it makes sense that each person is held to a different type of obligation. Simply, the mother to the "fetus" and the father to the "child."

You can't simply say "he's out some money." Well, if he doesn't support the kid, mom and kid are "out some money." It's about being a stakeholder. Yes, the woman has a stake -- her body. The man has a stake, his future income, and, perhaps income that could be taken away from any other child he has, in the future. Only one of them, however, is obligated to view the fetus, in utero, as a non-human entity. The other must view it as a child. Giving the father an opt-out option doesn't affect the ability to abort.

I, personally think that this discrepancy is a chink in the pro-choice armor, that that the pro-choice position would actually be strengthened, if a father had an opt-out choice.

I'm not even advocating this -- I'm looking for a reasonable rebuttal. I've already stated that hysterical "one syllable" explanations will not suffice. It's too loud, and disrespectful, and smacks of inhumanity.

that I've been making this proposal for three years and I bet half of all the responses I've gotten have been to the gist of "Women must have the right to choose."

This leaves me perplexed since I agree with that and my proposal clearly states it.

I think some people regard any discussion of the topic of pregnancy or child support as an attack on a woman's right to choose.

Progressive values should work towards expanding individuals' rights, and the right of a man to choose when he becomes a parent should be as fundamental a right as a right of a woman to make the same choice. How does forcing someone to be a parent against their will correspond to any type of progressive values?

Some will say it provides for the children, but they only close their eyes to other proposals people have made that provide better for the children than finding the guy who had sex with the woman and making him pay. Does he have means? Is he reliable? Who cares. He needs to pay.

There are better proposals out there that do not force parentage onto people without their consent and are better for the children too.

Let's try to find better ways. Let's not settle for, "Tough. That's just the way things are." I don't know what kind of political philosophy that is, but it sure ain't anything close to progressive.

good job in holding to your position. I applaud you!!!

Seriously. I do. The opt-in/opt-out idea is a brilliant thing. It needs to be implemented immediately!

Hey, how about this, if a guy opts out of a pregnancy, have it so that he should pay for half of the abortion if the women choses to do it. :)

Win-win.

each person is held to a different standard because it is a biological reality that having a child costs the woman more than it can ever, ever cost the man

and what's this stakeholder crap?

i am a stakeholder in enron and worldcom

again, gambling is fine when it's a money game, but we are talking about a human child

by your argument once the child is born if the father doesn't want to be a father then infanticide should be legal, that is just as moral as forcing a mother to sell her baby or to give it away like it's a damn unwanted puppy!

no, i'm sorry, the man cannot unilaterally opt out of caring for the child that has already been created

i almost think you are faking this stance to be provocative

what smacks of inhumanity is saying that a man's right to keep some $$$ in his pocket trumps his child's right to eat food and have a roof over her head

some issues have a simple and clear answer because the right thing to do IS simple and clear

sorry if you can't agree that providing for one's child is the right thing to do

the mommy carries the baby inside her. I will be posting my own abortion story on DU. Short end of the story - no life was lost, I was told by my g/f that if she got pregnant she wanted to have an abortion. That was her choice. It was my choice to be celibate. So she got to keep her "choice".

the mommy carries the baby inside her




seems like pretty basic birds and bees stuff, don't it

and yet some pretend not to notice this...

why the right to a legal abortion must remain the woman's and the woman's alone so she an choose whether and when she becomes a mother.

But what does it have to do with a man being able to choose whether he becomes a father or not?

the woman's body is changed forever, the decision must be hers

you don't like the facts of biology?

fine

you have hands and vaseline don't you?

you DON'T have a god-given right to stick a baby in a woman and walk away

sorry but the right of the child to be fed, housed, and educated trumps the right of the man to refuse to provide for his own offspring, if "opt out" were allowed, within a generation, no lawyer would allow any man of means to "opt in" and no child would have a father

You chose when you took your woody out of your pants mister.

You chose when you took his woody out of his pants missy.

I also believe that if two strangers have sex and the woman chooses to birth the baby, the child can be fed, housed and educated without forcing the guy into fatherhood without his consent. I think other options like a state custody pool filled with general funds would be better for the children than the current system where one child gets 10 times more money than another just because his mother got lucky and bedded a rich one.

and the govt should have policies to address the results of strangers having sex. When you fuck, you might have to pay 17.5% of your income for 18 years. This might be a lucky result; fucking strangers could lead to AIDS / HIV.

When a guy fucks a girl, he is taking a chance that he might become a father. There is only one way that a man can be guaranteed not to become a dad- don't have sex.

No sex, no possibility of a child?

but sex is good...unwanted pregnancies are bad...

I was just looking for clarification.

a women might be forced to have sex...resulting in pregnancy...

I am not against sex, I am for men paying child support when they father a child. I apologize for my muddled statements. :kick:

I agree with not being against sex, and if that sex produces a child, that you need to accept that responsibility as well. I pay child support, and it never entered into my mind that I shouldn't have too.

and we will hash this out. It is so simple and direct. I can't understand why men have such a problem with this issue.:kick:

Yes, a man can keep it in his pants... but a woman can say no too.
That is a two way street.
What a hypocrit.
Your argument is that if men don't want babies, then don't have sex??? Well, if women don't want babies, then don't have sex!

My only stance is one of personal responsibility. When a man and woman have (consenual) sex, they KNOW that pregnancy is a possibility. It is inherent that SEX = BABIES. So, when a child is conceived, both parents are equally responsible to care for that child - no matter what choice is made. Even if they agree to give the child for adoption - the father should be responsible for half of the bills incurred during pregnancy. The only point that personal responsibilitly ceases to exist (for the man and the woman) is when the baby is a) aborted or b)adopted out. Otherwise, you ARE a parent for LIFE.
Sex has really big consequences and it seems that so many people don't want to accept that they made a choice to have sex (or even to take proper precautions) and they are responsible for the outcome of that choice (whether it is babies or an std).

To the original poster: I understand your argument, and I don't have an answer for you. I, personally, hold both mother and father to the notion that they have created a baby (a living human entity). A woman aborts a baby - to attempt to minimize that by calling it something else, I think, is an insult to the difficulty of the decision and emotional pain involved in an abortion.

I am pro-choice, but I am unsure how much of a say a father should have in the woman actually having an abortion - I think it is fairly common-place for a man to suggest that a woman get an abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurs; and a man wanting the woman to carry the baby to term against her wishes doesn't seem right because biology causes the woman to bear the burden of that pregnancy...

not sex = not a daddy. Having sex = man loses reproductive choice to his female partner. If you have sex with a women, you run the risk of getting her pregnant. If y'all get pregnant, it will be up to the women to maintain the baby, to deliver the baby. It will be up to the women to stop drinking, stop smoking, and start to become a mommy.

Men should be aware of who they fuck. Don't have sex unless you are willing to let the women be in entire control of your son or daughter. The only control over your children that men have is their ability to determine who to reproduce with. If you don't want your kid to be aborted, make sure that your lover will never have an abortion. If you are unsure, don't have sex.

There it is ladies. The mans role in the abortion debate. Holla!

Once you fuck, you give up your "reproductive choice" and submit to the women's decision making process. If you don't want your child aborted, don't sleep with a women that will abort your child. If you are unsure of the womens motives, then don't have sex with her.:kick:

It is so simple and direct. Be aware of whom you sleep with.

by both parties. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

There are consequences to having sex and accidents do happen. If two people are going to willingly engage in an act they must be prepared to deal with whatever happens as a result.

Pregnancy and disease can happen.

My children knew this when I educated them about sex. Sure they know the biology, but even more importantly, they understand and comprehend the repercussions.

No matter the preparation, shit happens. Women get pregnant, sexually transmitted disease is spread and for many there are emotional issues as well.

I blame society and religion for the dilemmas we now face. If sex hadn't been treated so taboo that can only be practiced in marriage for the purpose of propagation, people would see it as a physical act that can be emotionally fulfilling for a mature couple who are prepared to deal with the consequences.

people are used to the idea that the woman pays and now they are outraged that DNA has changed the world and now the man must pay in equal share

this upsets their sense of the right of things

you see, only the woman should suffer when mistakes are made, since men could walk away throughout all of time and history, they feel they should have the same right today and all down through the future, there should never be a time and world where men suffer a fraction of the unfairness and unexpectedness and upset of plans that women have ALWAYS had to deal with

you see when it happens to a man -- suddenly it's a huge injustice!

Even some here believe that. I'm still getting over the shock.

Me too. DAMN. I had no idea there were so many low-life scum-bag deadbeats and deadbeat defenders here. No wonder the support system is so fucked up.

Until very recently and unless a woman literally endangered her life in an attempt to stop an unwanted pregnancy, a woman who got pregnant had the child, period. Even if it ruined or took her life. She had no choice and most men didn't seem to have a "problem" with that. If she was unmarried, it was her fault for being a slut. If she was married it was her duty to bear children. Now, suddenly, some are filled with angst over the idea that the situation is in the hands of the woman and they want a say in the whole matter? Please. Most single men do not want to take the responsibility either way. They don't take extra measures to try not to impregnate a woman by using a condom for instance, or not having sex with a woman who they don't even know, let alone trust to be honest about her own precautions, nor do they want the financial responsibility if she does have the child. But they do want to have a say when it comes to her aborting it, should it conflict with THEY WANT. I see a pattern developing here.

This is not to say that men, real men, aren't effected emotionally when a woman they are involved with choses to have an abortion. The OP makes it sound like women personally rip fetuses from their womb like picking a fucking scab, it's not easy for anybody. But "fairness" doesn't enter into it. It never really did, did it?

That's what choice does. And, for the umpteenth time, I am in support of choice. The woman also has the option to walk away. Historical guilt has very little relevancy in this argument (and, believe it or not, I'm in favor of reparations to blacks and returning land to Native Americans, so I don't discount historical guilt).

That's my problem, a singular problem. Not that the woman shouldn't have the right to choose, but really, only one half of the parenting couple has the right to walk away.

It's my belief that The male, every time--every time, he ejaculates in or around a vagina, must understand that he may, ultimetly create a life. And be responsible for that life. I think women have carried the burden of sexual responsiblility and birth control too long, and too far.(I long for the day of really effective male birth control. And I bet many men do as well) If every man understood and accepted this it would be a start, and may lead to less contentious opinions.

Once the Male has made the decision to ejaculate in or around a vagina, If he cares, he may offer his opinion, but the choice, the choice, must be left to the one taking the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. The Woman.

The fetus itself? So many opinions, and now with medical advances so many options. A fetus may be "viable" much earlier than previous years but can suffer life long complications with birth. We have the "fetal pain debates" The pictures, of both aborted babies, and women who have bleed to death from botched abortions. My father says that every abortion is murder. My daughter sounds much like you, should would never have an abortion, but doesn't believe she has the right to tell others what to do. I believe a pregnant women is carring a baby, rather than a embroyo, fetus, parasite-- whatever language is used-- when she says she is. And that it is an individual decision.

Then we have the fertility clinics, with their frozen fertalized ova, or mothers with multiple pregnancies due to fertility treaments choosing which fetus to abort so that the others may live. The ones that make the news are the ones who choose to carry all to term. There are urterine and cervical deformities, where a woman may choose to get pregnant over and over again in hopes of having a child, with full knowledge that every pregnancies has a less than 50% chance of succeeding. Some women will lay on thier backs for 9 full months if they have too to actually bear a child. So while the abortion debate rages on, there are nuances and complications that are left out, unconsidered. Does a women with a uterine deformity have the right to keep trying? How about a woman with a history of miscarriages? Is aborting a fetus in a multiple birth to save others murder? And what of the frozen ova, much in the news, where many men strongly feel they DO have say so, because pregnancy--implantation hasn't occurred yet?

I think those of us who sound angry and hardcore, and I'll admit to being one of them, use historical precedent-- we go back to the time when women had no rights, to when we were property. We remember the ones who became sexually active, or were thought to be became "sluts" or more recently, "bitches and ho's" to be used and left if we're dumb enough to be fooled by the pitiless.
We fight tooth and nail for the right to control our own bodies. And we fight with all the weapons we have words, attitudes, legislation, tee shirts, Organizations, money. Everything we have, or can come up with. Because the only visable option is going back that time of no choice.

I couldn't agree more!

It is my belief that the male, every time, every single time he ejaculates in or around the vagina, must understand that he may ultimately create a life, and be forced into being a father without his consent.

It is also my belief that a woman, every time she allows a man to ejaculate in or around her vagina, must understand that she may ultimately create a life. However, the decision on whether a life is created or not must be her's and her's alone as it would be outrageous to force a woman to become a mother without her consent.

With as many brilliant people there are in the USA who can come up with brilliant proposals, I have trouble believing we should settle for the current one.

As RFK said, "Some people look at the world the way it is and say why? Others look at the way the world should be and say why not?"

How about if we all sit down and think of better proposals than "My Body, My Choice, Our Responsibility?"

But it doesn't seem to be. Somewhere, somehow, the so-called sexual revolution got stalled, and it's my personal belief that we are stalled in our social/sexual evolution.
Part of the problem with the whole thing is that it's a political red herring--although the danger of women losing their right to choose is very real,if it suits the political purposes of the current powers that be.
If their was no debate on a woman's choice, THEN we could come up with more "humane" answers. But it keeps coming up and keeps coming up and keeps coming up until we can't sit down with one another and discuss real ideas and real solutions. We are always discussing "choice" Whose choice, what choice, who gets to choose? In this way we get divided and are prevented from talking to each other, in this way we become "us and them"

There are very intelligent people who are out there on both sides of the issue with ideas, and some even agree with each other, but as long as this basic right is held from women, they won't be heard.

the facts of biology and needs of the child mean "my body, my choice, our responsibility" is the only way it can work unless you want a society where no child has a father

within a generation of providing an opt-out clause, no child would have a father, for a variety of legal reasons no man no matter what a great guy he might be in personal life would be able to opt-in, the lawyers and the insurance cos. wouldn't allow it

be real

there isn't a better proposal that you've heard yet?

How can you say there isn't a better proposal?

I guess people have said there was no way to go to the moon, no way to win the Civil War and no way to fly in a heavier than air vehicle.

Actually there isn't a better proposal until there is one.

I'm old but hopefully I'll never get so old that I say they'll never be any new, better ideas.

You are assuming that all men are assholes, and that's a pretty big stretch. There are lots of fathers who are willing to parent and support their child, and who willingly have children. That said, I do share some concern with you, and that is if, by making a male form of opting out legitimate, in a certain window, during the in utero period, that males who start out enthusiastic, but have decided that parenting is "not for them," will psychologically identify as "no worse" than the males who opted out.

Listen, again, I'm not outright advocating this -- I'm waiting for someone to tell me why it is legal and logical for the two parents to be held to two different standards, while the baby is in utero.

That is the flaw in your argument: he consented when he had sex. Men and women both have choices...mens' choices just come earlier than women's (excuse the pun).

Men's choice to be a father: sex without birth control / or leaving the birth control to the other partner/ or birth control fails

Womens' choice: when she gets pregnant.

Men and women are biologically different...and their choices come at different times. Should they be able to change their minds after conception? Hell no. He must live with the consequences.

we - not biology - created.

Biologically there's the very same choice - once a child is conceived there is little or no choice.

If we can create one mechanism, we can create another to acheive balance.

As I stated earlier historically there has been little balance for women. Recent history requires men to take responsibility for their actions.

Not created--biology. Men choose to take the risk to have kids when they choose to have sex and abrogate their birth control responsibility to another. They choose to have kids when they don't use birth control, or when it fails. Women choose to have kids when they choose to carry it full term.

Stating what responsibilities each partner is willing to take in the event of conception.

The people who are backing this suit chose their case very, very well. If the man is to be believed, he was assured repeatedly by this woman that she could not get pregnant. If that's true, I believe, legally, the case should be decided in his favor, provided he gives up all parental rights.

I don't believe that is in the best interest of the child, however. I suspect the mother in this case, again, if the father is telling the truth, is probably going to drop some major head trips on that child in the long run.

and all women say that the man spun a tale abt how he has no sensation in his penis if he uses a rubber because he has clinical depression or he is on blood pressure medication or he's only 18 and never had it even once w.out a rubber, or he's 40 and can no longer maintain an erection if he uses protection, blah de blah de blah

the courts would be tied up until doomsday if we allowed this sort of he said, she said to be heard in the courts

sure, some women fib to get laid, but the man is just as guilty since he too fibs to get laid without the rubber

I haven't seen any articles where the woman in the suit denied his allegations. I saw one interview with her where she simply reiterated that he was obligated to financially support the kid.

taken away from us, it is a quick and easy slide back into being property again. Personally, I don't think we've come that far in terms of actually changing the way people feel about gender relations, but one thing is for sure--we're better off now than our grandmothers were.

We're angry because we have a right to be angry. Hell, I'm surprised there aren't women out there demanding reparations for female slavery, as some descendants of African slaves have done.

I was just thinking...

A woman and man have sex but don't know each other's names.

The woman decides to birth the baby and the man is obligated to pay child support for 18 years.

What are some other situations in life where there are two just two individuals and person A makes a decision and person B who is not a relative or even a friend is held financially obligated or responsible by the state for the decision of person A?

I haven't really thought of this. Are there other similar situations in life where a person you don't know makes a decision and the state orders you to pay?

ever been in an auto accident? absolutely the other person can make decisions that impact you and what you have to pay

or here's another, ever had a disease? got insurance? so many times the insurance company gets between you and your doctor and decides whether you get this treatment or you get that treatment, sometimes they decide if you live or die, for instance, a friend had cancer for which the only treatment is bone marrow transplant prescribed by surgeon, insurance co. says no we won't pay, i think having to sacrifice your life is a way more dramatic than being asked to pay support for YOUR OWN FREAKN child and this is something i know of personally to have happened

the reality of life is that it is complicated and the BIG decisions of life are fucked with by all sorts of third parties in all sorts of situations

you must have lived a very sheltered existence not to know this

well you'll find out, and hopefully not the hard way

seems a good one.

A person decides to run a red light and smashes your car, and you end up paying for medical bills and auto repair deductibles. You would then sue the person who made the decision to force him/her to pay for the decision he/she made though.

The health insurance example doesn't really answer the question I asked as it doesn't involve two individuals like the question I posed. You ay get turned down by an individual at the health insurance company, but then you could appeal the decision to a larger committee, so I don't think that one fits.

Thanks for the thought though as I really headn't thought of the question before tonight.

I don't think I've ived a very sheltered life, but I guess that's relative. Anyway, I'm an old married dad.

It is entirely possible to make 100% sure that one will not be ordered by the state to pay child support, ever. Having said that, when the argument is made that my argument is like the one pro-lifers use against women, I'll surprise whoever makes it and say I won't deny it. The arguments are similar. But, there is one very important difference. Pro-lifers are trying to physically control another person's body by eliminating the right to chose. Pro-child support advocates are making sure children get what they are entitled to. Personal autonomy overrides the keep your legs closed/keep it in your pants argument. Leaving children without the support of both parents does not.

It's not as though women are never held responsible for child support as well. Neither parent can walk away from an existing child without obligation unless both have decided to terminate parental rights and give the child up for adoption. Due to biology, it is impossible to make things 100% fair bewteen men and women. Holding BOTH parents responsible for any children who come into being is the closest we can come. If we follow your proposal, it puts the responsibility entirely on women, and how fair is that? It's taking an inequitable situation and making it even more lopsided. Men will never have to take any responsibility, women have the entire burden placed on them, and more women and children end up in poverty. Hold both men and women accountable for their offspring.

make the woman entirely responsible?

Under my proposal the woman would have an absolute right to decide whether the baby is born or not.

If the woman decided to birth the baby and then decided later that she had made a mistake and was not able to adequately parent, she would have the right to put him/her up for adoption.

Also, in other posts, I've suggested a pool of money that should go to children in situations like this so the kid would end up with more than they currently get.

I just don't se how that makes the woman entirely responsible. She would have many options and much support.

Fair or not, a child is entitled to the support.

The kid exists. For whatever reason, he/she was born. He needs to be fed. Clothed. Sheltered. Those needs aren't any less pressing because his parent didn't want to be a parent. He can't make that parent want to be a parent. But pretending they aren't his parent doesn't make it so. He can't make them love him or want him. No one can do that. But he can make them pay for his support. The state does it for him, and rightfully so. His needs are no different from the kid who was lucky enough to born to a parent that wanted him. Hs parent didn't ask to a parent. But, he didn't ask for that person to be his parent, either. He didn't get to make a choice, either. He's a kid, and and the parent is an adult, who made a decision that resulted in his existence.

Whether you like it or not, women biologically hold the cards. It's not as if that's always a boon for us, either. Men, by virtue of the fact they can't get pregnant, sometimes become parents when they don't want to be. It's always been that way, and always will be that way whatever the law says. They're still a parent. That kid is still there. It doesn't go away because the father didn't want it. It's needs aren't any less. A man can go to court and cry all he wants that he's being made a parent against his will, and if he's lucky the court might decide in his favor. But the kid is still there. And, if the court did decide in the father's favor, all it really did was tell the kid that he didn't matter. The court took away that child's right to demand of the parent (that they didn't choose! Talk about having no choice in the matter) that they get what they're due from their parents. Food. Clothing. Shelter. The adult who had sex but didn't agree with the consequence mattered more, and gets to pretend they're not your parent. Screw you, kid. Society may take up the slack, and that's always fun to rely on, huh? Charity might help, too. And your parent, who's pretending they're not your parent, is off scott free.

What it amounts to is people who propose that men can decide not to be legally held responsible for their children are really proposing that children get screwed. They want to say to the child "We will no longer help you get what you are due." What all children are due. Support from the adults who brought them into the world, be they man or woman. Whether you are a man or a woman, your child exists and is entitled to that from you, the adult. Cover your ears and and scream "I didn't want this!" all you want. The kid is still there. He/she doesn't care that you're a man, and so you weren't the one that carried the pregnancy and didn't ultimately have the decision, do they? They don't care that you had sex, but didn't agree with the consequences. That had nothing to do with them.

proposing the kid get much more than kids are currently getting from their reluctant dads.

I propose a much larger expenditure and from a much more reliable source, the general funds of us all.

I believe kids are the responsibility of all of us and I'm willing to pay more than my share to make sure they have more than adequate means.

We barely have enough as it is, before the glut of fatherless kids with no support hits the system if such a ludicrous proposal actually ever comes to fruition. I completely understand that's what you're saying. Reality doesn't support it. Reality says that children who rely on public assistance overall have it MUCH worse than children who do not. Reality says that social programs for children are already being cut because people don't want to pay the taxes it requires to take care of every child properly. Reality says that there are millions of homeless children already in our country. But, most importantly for this discussion, Reality says that people aren't going to want to pay to support children that a parent could support, but simply refuses to. Look at the resentment we already have, for social programs. It's a big reason why the right is so powerful, because they play to greed. Because of this, I don't think we really have to worry that anything like removal of child support will happen. People simply will not go for impoverishing millions more children and the burden on society that entails simply because "I don't wanna!" gets legal backing.

Please know that I'm not saying you don't care about the children. I'm saying that I don't think you fully realize the ramifications of what you're pushing for. I also disagree with you and assert that child support is entitled by the child. It is indeed an entitlement, whether or not society can step in and replace it or not. Until society can provide that for everyone, that support must come from the parents, whether they wanted to be a parent or not.

that society wouldn't pay for that society is now paying for.

Society wouldn't pay for other people's retirement until FDR started Social Security.

Society wouldn't pay for public schools until it did.

Society wouldn't pay for poor people's healthcare until LBJ started Medicare.

Society wouldn't pay to feed other people's ids until the school lunch and school breakfast programs were started.

I just don't get this "It will never happen argument."

I realize it won't happen overnight that it might be a generation long educational campaign before child support can be an entitlement like public schools and medicaid, but what's with the hopelessness?

Our current system sucks. One child gets $ 3,000 a month in child support and another just as deserving and needy child gets $ 110 a month. What kind of system is that and why are so many people defending it?

No matter how we allocate them, there is only so much money to go around. Every dollar we have to pay because a father "opted out" is a dollar that could have been spent for a child who needed the funds despite having parents willing to claim them, who just don't have the money themselves. A dollar that could have gone toward improving a school in a poorer district, or could have gone to build a community center, or gone toward more nutritious lunches, better clothes, more resources to better the community they live in.

If we allow men to simply opt out, and we take up the slack, that money HAS to come from somewhere. That is the crux of my "It will never happen" argument. Society should take care of its own, no doubt about it. But we could care for the truly needy children much better if we also didn't have to worry about the children who wouldn't be needy except they drew the short straw and got a petulant father who simply thought he had the right to walk away because the woman he had sex with didn't get an abortion. The less money we have to pay for them, the better we can make the lives of the children who drew a different kind of short straw and got parents who love them and want them, but can't afford to do it on their own for whatever reason.

No one is saying the current system should stay as it is. They're saying it shouldn't be gutted entirely, and replaced with a system that has to dip even further into funds allocated for needy children because a father who makes enough money to support a child he fathered simply doesn't want to pay.

Which is the whole point. There's no reason financial responsibility has to be tied to physical responsibility, especially if that has to come at the child's, and ultimately society's, expense. Child support isn't punishment levied on the man by the woman. It is a right the child is entitled to.

...as a reason to have a child from my experience. As if that is going to make things better. Talk about irresponsibilty.

Gosh, I didn't know the life-altering decision to go through a pregnancy, give birth and raise a child was a "whim;" nor did I realize a medical procedure was done a on "whim." Like, "I have a free afternoon - have my nails done or get an abortion?" is a whim.

Here's what it boils down to: during pregnancy, the fetus is wholly dependent on the bodily resources of the woman, and only the woman. She gets to make the choice to donate those resources or not. Once childbirth has taken place, the fetus becomes a human being who is dependent on others - any capable adult - to feed, clothe and shelter it. We as a society expect the parents to do that. The mother is almost always the one with physical custody, which means 24/7 taking care of the child. A man is asked at the very very least to provide money to make sure it has food, clothing and shelter. A man is not forced to clean it, place the food in its mouth, rock it to sleep, take it to the doctor, teach it to speak, any of that. He is merely required to provide money. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but blame biology for that. When men can get pregnant, then they can decide whether or not to terminate pregnancies in their bodies. Until then, they must be sure never to let sperm out of their control with women they do not trust completely.

should have the right to terminate pregnancies?

I haven't seen that.

is all about opting out of financial responsibility once a child is born. Men can't terminate their financial responbilities by terminating pregnancies, so (a very few) men try to by dreaming up these strange contortions of logic ("where's my choice?" - dude, where's your UTERUS?).

Men, by a quirk of nature, can only control where their sperm goes. Once it's in a woman, it's literally out of their control. If the woman becomes pregnant, what she does with the pregnancy is her concern, because it happens in her body. If a child is born, the child is responsibility of both parents by custom of society; even though society pays quite a bit for the upkeep of children, allowing men to 'opt out' of even the small burden of helping to finance the feeding, clothing and sheltering of their own offspring would place unfair burden on those who have no direct responsibility for that child.

Keep in mind that sending a check once a month is the very, very least part of raising and caring for a child. If that's all there were to it, I might have some; but ultimately, the custodial parent - usually the mother - has the greatest burden in the drudgery of actually tending to the needs of a child.

for children even if they are not our own, not just the dad.

That's why I support public schools even though I'll probably never have a kid attend one. I do not consider my school taxes an undue burden.

It's the price I happily pay to make sure kids get enough of something that's very important.

But you make a good point - "they must be sure never to let sperm out of their control with women they do not trust completely."

That describes my husband's situation completely. He had a one night stand with a woman he didn't know very well (he was 18 or 19 at the time), who lied to him about being married and created a child with her.
I posted about his situation in another thread... but long story short: the mother gave my husband's son to social services because she didn't want him anymore. That is when he found out he was a father (his son was 2 at the time). He signed away his rights to allow his son to be adopted into his foster family because he was in no position to take his child. He paid everything he owed in back child support and medical bills. Had he known about his son sooner, he would have taken care him.

Now, his son will be 11 this year. He has never known his child - never had a chance to know. And all because he did not use any discretion about who he slept with. The whole situation has really broken his spirit - he hopes to find his son one day; and if a relationship cannot develop, he at least wants his son to know that he cared, that he wasn't a deadbeat, and he thought adoption was a better choice for the wellbeing of his baby than what he was able to give.

It is unfortunate that situations like this happen to men and women who were looking for instant gratification and self-pleasure - even though they know where babies come from. But it is all about personal repsonsibility and both parents share equally in that regard. We each have a personal responsibility to be selective with who we have sex with, to take proper precautions if we aren't ready for the consequences, and to step up to the plate and take care of our "consequences" (be it baby or std).

I'm not even going to comment on your arguments, because this made me really angry. Children, fetuses, embryos, whatever--they're not "property."

Both parents have an emotional and physical investment in that conception, but I'll be damned if they OWN it.

There is way too much room for moral relativism when you use phraseology like this.

(For the record, I am the mother of a beautiful, intelligent child who is in no way my property, nor the property of anyone else.)

I didn't mean "property" in the chattel kind of way, I just meant that two willing parents are equal emotional stakeholders in the actual fetus. Sorry to put it in financial-like terms, but I don't mean "property" property." :)

"The pro-choice position DEMANDS that the fetus be a non-human entity that does not have the full, legal rights of a citizen -- however contradictory it may be to how most people view a potential life to be."

Including the idea that abortions are routinely performed throughout the entire pregnancy and the fetus has no consideration until it comes out of the womb. Nonsense.

where the "fetus" "suddenly" goes to "child"


here's my take on the whole mess tonight
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x622528

Being pro-choice means believing that a fetus is a "non-human entity" until birth according to the OP. Not according to most law or even Roe, which limits abortion to the first two trimesters. For most women, abortion is a difficult but necessary decision. Referring to it as a "whim" pretty much discounted anything else he had to say.

The fetus, in utero, is a non-human entity that does not have the rights of a full citizen. This is argued in absolutist terms, ad nauseum, here at DU. It is the ONLY justification for abortion. If the fetus is endowed with rights, then abortion is murder. That's why the pro-life position has attempted to (and pro-choice has reacted with such fear toward) endow the fetus with rights in cases of murder, drug consumption on the part of the mother, etc.

The only wiggle room in the argument is that the state takes a non-position on rights, and that reason choice is legal is because the state cannot make the decision for the woman -- which is TRUE. That said, the state can imprison the father, and garnisht the father's wages because there is no in utero opt-out period where the father may view the child as a non-human entity, and take steps toward his own interests, accordingly.

That also said, if the state takes a non-position, currently, but if enough people feel that abortion is murder, there is no reason why the pro-life movement cannot fight tooth and nail to change it. There are no absolutes, and the law is fluid.

and I've never seen it "This is argued in absolutist terms, ad nauseum, here at DU"

although I often see this-- and pro-choice-- misrepresented on DU

You've never heard "it's a parasite," "it's a tumor," "it's a clump of cells," "it's a virus," etc., on DU? I find that VERY hard to believe -- but, I guess it's possible. I, however, have read it over and over again.

I'll bite, though. If it's not a non-human entity without rights, then what is it? If it is a human, it is entitled to human rights. If it is killed, it is murder. Explain the contradiction. Is it like an animal? Like a cow? Hamburgers don't have rights. If someone tortued a cow, they might go to jail, but it still doesn't have rights.

I say the government has no right interfering in life decisions.

The government has no right to tell you whether or not you can have an abortion, nor should it have the right to tell you whether or not you must pay for child support.

In the end child support is mandatory (if the woman choses to get it from the man). At this point child birth is not. Where is the discrepency here? Where is the fairness?

As I stated earlier: men and women both have choices. Their choices come at different times in the process. When a man chooses to have sex leaving birth control to women / not using birth control / it fails--they are choosing to take the risk of pregnancy. That is when they choose the responsibility.

Women's choice comes when they get pregnant.

Both have choices, they just come at different times in the process.

From reading these threads, it seems that most people believe the initial choice to have sex, unless it is rape, is a shared responsibility between men and women.

The choice to have sex--for a man is the choice to support the result. Because he is biologically different than the woman his choice to have the baby comes earlier than the female's.

ALL men are CHOSING to have a child even if they wear protection? Ask the girl to wear a diaphram? Say they don't want kids? That's utter and complete BS. Sex isn't about having babies, it hasn't been for a long time, and it especially isn't for men.

Ya don't take responsibility for birth control--you pay. If you do wear protection and it fails--you spun the wheel and lost (or won). Nonetheless, the attempt to avoid consequences for actions by "choosing" whether or not you want to pay for your child is a continuing symptom of what our society has become--and a bunch of BS.

You play--you pay.

a legal and medical mechanism to provide for it.

That mechanism can be undone - and will, if the antichoicers have their way.

Or additional mechanisms can be created to achieve a more balanced set of options for both partners.

...to take it away.

Women do. Women have the choice to abort. Men don't. Thus men should logically have the choice to opt out. It's about being forced to be a parent. We don't want the government forcing women to be the parent (ie, banning abortion), then we shouldn't want the government forcing men to be the parent (ie, forced fatherhood).

You people are using the most bizarre logic I have EVER seen in a discussion. It keeps turning into this thing about "respnsiblity" when men have no choice in the matter after a certain point, whereas women do. They have more choices, they have more outs, we don't. It's very clear.

Your argument about "responsiblity" could be made in favor of anti-abortion. It's a really disturbing argument. "Women made the responsiblity to get pregnant thus they should have the baby."

of "opting out." You created a life--whether it was during a drunken stupor in the parking lot of the bar or not--there are consequences to actions. And that life will need your support.

Biology gives people choices at different times...is it "fair?" Women have had to accept the societal stigma of pregnancy and forced delivery due to patriarchal power and control. Life is not always fair.

Use your condoms and hope they don't fail. Cause the consequences to pregnancy are life long.

once conception has occurred, a woman might choose to terminate an unplanned pregnancy relieving both parties of the obligations of parenthood, when a man cannot.

But think about it. Along with the legal right to terminate a pregnancy after conception, comes a great deal of additional responsibility. The woman has to be willing to fulfill all the moral responsibilities of parenting without being able to count on the help of a willing partner. She knows that her child will not likely have the advantages of children born to willing and involved fathers. She knows that she will suffer in pregnancy and childbirth far more than she would if she terminated her pregnancy. In many, if not most cases, she knows that her standard of living will likely decrease. In many ways, it's a wonder that women ever choose this hard road.

Given all these additional responsibilities, it hardly seems like much of a favor that a woman has a few extra weeks when she can choose to terminate a pregnancy given that the risk of pregnancy when a man properly uses a condom is 2% and that the risk is even lower when combined with the pill or other hormone contraceptives.

When a child is born, once a man is identified as the legal father of that child, he has RIGHTS as well as legal obligations. He can ask a court for the sole or joint custody of his child. He has a right to be involved in the upbringing of his child: regarding medical treatments, schooling, and religious training.

As far as I know, men do not pay child support for a fetus. A man compelled by the court to pay child support is not paying for 18 years to support a mother's choice. He is supporting the child HE FATHERED.

There are legal penalties that will likely be applied to either party for failing to meet their legal obligations. If a mother has a child and then fails to support that child or neglects that child's welfare, her child can be removed from her care, her wages garnished, and be may be imprisoned for neglecting for failing to provide court-ordered financial support.

He is supporting "the mother's choice." Remember -- "it's a choice, not a child." If it is considered a child, then an aborting mother is a murderer. In the case of the unwilling father, the man is supporting the woman's absolute right to choose.

And, that is my question, which I didn't think of, which could settle this whole damn argument. When a baby is put up for adoption, the parents have the option of terminating their parental rights. I'm not asking for a man to retain parental rights, but get out of supporting a child. Can anyone, at any time, surrender their parental rights? I know that people can transfer guardianship.

enter into a legal contract with a woman BEFORE intercourse that would relinquish his parental rights and responsibilities?

This is currently the case for sperm donors and could be more widely applied.

Would that satify you?

It's simply about providing a rational explanation for a sticking point.

How does your suggestion change the dynamic? It changes it drastically -- simply, it reminds people of the consequences of sex, before the act. Each person has to make a gamble. A man wants to have sex, but the woman won't sign the contract. Does he do it? A woman wants to have sex, but knows that she could end up pregnant and alone. Does she do it? Her bet is heged with birth control -- birth control that is only 99 percent effective. It's a quandary, alright.

would that eliminate your moral quandary?

I think you answered that yes it would-- is that correct?.

As a staunch supporter of a woman's sole right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, I think allowing a legal contract that would determine parenting obligations and responsibilities prior to intercourse is a good idea, as long as the both parties understand that without such a contract both parents will have legal obligations and rights concerning any child born as a result of the relationship, just as the do now, in the absence of such an agreement.

I'd be willing to bet that men asking for this contract won't be having too much 'casual sex' because women will be factoring in their risk. Any woman that has hesitations about exercising their right to abortion would have to consider why she would want to sleep with a jerk that wouldn't support a child if an 'accident' happened.

I'll bet a happy side effect would be a new and wonderful preference for the use of condoms by men.

You can surrender your parental rights, but that still does not relieve you of a financial responsibility if a judgement has ruled for you to provide for the child in question.

I don't know much, but I know what my husband paid... I don't know if child support varies from state to state or what.
His child was adopted by a foster family at age two (that is when the mother turned him over to SRS). He was given a paternity test, found to be the father, and court-ordered to pay for his child (which he was more than happy to pay).
His bills consisted of: medical bills incurred by this child, bills involving pre-natal care and the pregnancy, his paternity test and tests for 2 other men, and back child support. Overall, it totalled about $13000.
So, he didn't pay child support for a fetus, but he ended up being responsible for bills relating to the pregnancy.
I am unsure if this happens in every state or what

responsibility and repercussions. That is why the woman must retain ultimate control over the choice of whether or not to carry to term. The physical risks fall entirely on the woman. To me, this is an entirely separate issue from the financial responsibility, which both parties bear when a child is born. Both male and female presumably understand the financial risk/obligation when they engage in sexual activity.

It is really something to think about. It is amazing how many people here are reading something completely different than what you posted. I had to keep scrolling to the top of the page to make sure I was on the same thread.

I totally understand what you are saying. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing until I think about it all, but I think you make a good point.

I support choice for women, because I know what happens when there is no choice.

I advocate for responsible choice, and for justice for all parties.

The problem we haven't found our way through is that, in the case of an unplanned, unwanted, risky, or problematic pregnancy, justice for all parties is often unreachable. I wish we had a way to negotiate that justice, that at least made some efforts in that direction.

It's biology dammit. To have it any other way is to allow a man to have dominion over the woman's body, when all the woman *may* get is dominion over some of his money for raising the child. The courts cannot force a man to physically be present in the child's life, can't force him to undergo any medical procedures for the child, and can't interfere with his personal liberty in any way other than ordering him to pay a few dollars each month. Men need to get the fuck over this.


And for those of you who think that these deadbeat asshole punks pushing this issue will actually step up to the plate and ever be fathers, let me remind you people of the stats involving actual involved fathers- most don't handle any childcare issues and don't even know which daycare their child attends; most don't handle any healthcare issues and don't even know the name of their child's pediatrician; and the vast majority of the time when a child is sick, the woman is the parent forced to spend a vaction/sick day to stay home and care for the child. Studies repeatedly show that even the much more involved fathers of this generation still basically suck at being a truly involved parent. Not all, and many do try- but the results still aren't there yet.


And I've posted this before and I'll say it again- men really already have an opt out in that they can already sign away their legal/parental rights concerning the child. The people pushing this shit are really probably trying to take away the stigma of being an asshole male who could give a shit about another human being. And from many of the posts I've seen in the last few days, I'd say they're succeeding. So many people not focused on the best interests of the child, so many people opining about those evil harlot women who all want trick a guy into impregnating her (because every single solitary woman who has sex has this ulterior motive of course), and so many people worrying about the "rights" of the supposed male human being who wants to walk away from his offspring- and all of that on a supposedly liberal message board.

If any of you men out there wonder why so many women think that the vast majority of men are assholes, I think you need look no further than DU for the last few days to see why.

Not. At. All. Please READ the initial post. I have one question, and one question ONLY. Why, when the baby is in utero, are the biological parents held to two differing standards? The closest anyone has come is to offer up that "the body" is a greater "sacrifice" than "the money." I think that this claim is not an absolute, and that one's property extends equally to their person and their property. Think of the dual halves of court punishment: imprisonment of the body, and potential monetary fines.

To settle this, it would have to be shown that, overall, pregnancy takes a greater toll on a woman's body, than unexpected pregnancies take on the financial lives of men. I think, unlike some, that the choice to have sex means that partners equally offer up their stake in the matter -- the body, the money, whatever -- and, yet, only one party has the option of considering the forming fetus as a non-human, while the other, from the get-go, is required to view the fetus as the potential child.

Further, the moral question of whether the mother should get to kill the fetus, or whether the father should get to abandon it, for me, are equally important. One doesn't seem any less callous than the other, in my opinion. In both situations, the reasons seems similar: it is an inconvenience, it will cost me something, I must sacrifice, I am indebted (whether bodily or monetarily), it will determine my future, it will change my lifestyle, it could affect future children, etc. Making an abortion decision on the potential "experience" of life, for the child, doesn't really hold water. It's like saying that a handicapped child, or a gay child, or any other kind of "disadvantaged" child should never have been born.

All your and the others' arguments are doing is legitimizing that abandonment, rather than expecting society to look upon such a parent as a deadbeat.


I didn't say that you were arguing for such dominion- merely pointed out that it is the response to your question as to why men can't get an equal share in this one decision. It's merely biology. I'm sure most women would be more than happy if the shoe was on the other foot- I know I would. To never *really* have to worry about birth control and its hormonal effects on the body, to not have to worry about the safety concerns of birth control past age 33 or so, to not have to worry about pregnancy sickness, gestational diabetes, hypertension, preeclampsia and the like, to never have to worry about getting "knocked up" and left to raise a child on your own, to never have to make the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy. Yes, I'm quite certain that most women would be quite happy for biology to be different.


So you know, it really just sounds like you have a personal problem with abortion and have extrapolated those feelings into this child support debate. From things you've said in your posts about the abortion procedure and reproductive rights, you might not be a libertarian as you think.

Because, then, yes, this would be a moot point. And I HAVE already stated my concerns, as you say, with the legitimization of child abandonment. It's my number one concern. However, if it is possible for a father to simply "sign away his rights," then why do we have all the problems with deadbeat dads, in the first place?

After researching this, in the middle of this post, it seems that what you're saying isn't necessarily true. It varies from state to state, and circumstance to circumstance, but, I would say that the answer is largely "no" -- that a man can terminate his rights to avoid paying child support. Courts have also decided, in the case of sperm donors and voluntary agreements, that men can still be sued for child support:

State Superior Court rules sperm donor must pay support
Saturday, July 24, 2004

By Mark Scolforo, The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- In a case that bioethicists say could have wide implications, the state Superior Court invalidated a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor and ordered him to pay child support for twin boys born nearly 10 years ago.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04206/351160.stm

I do have a problem with abortion -- but it's not a sentimental or religious problem. It's a problem of logic and humanity and fairness and law, which I think is different. That said, I vote for pro-choice candidates. The only type of candidate that I would vote for who was not pro-choice, would have to be a progressive anarchist/libertarian who simply believed that all potential life should be protected -- meaning that that person would also have to be relatively ideologically pure in all other ways -- be a vegan, refuse medical treatment tested on animals, be anti-war, etc.

I am a libertarian, and, sadly, this question figures in for libertarians, as much as it does for conservatives and liberals. If I believe that everyone has the right to his or her property -- and I'm not religious -- there is a conflict between whether or not the mother or fetus' rights should supercede one another. Whose body is whose property? I have no idea. I just ask questions.

This part of the debate, however, is interesting to me, because there is a logical glitch that no one has been able to effectively counter. Each potential answer leads to a new question. I simply want to know why, when the baby is in utero, the woman has a set of options to allow her to walk away, and the man does not. Everybody has reasons why they might not want to have a child, and it seems that the male and female reasons are very similar, as I tried to explain, above.

I still haven't received a sufficiently logical answer. As I said, what it comes down to is whether one's body or one's livlihood is "worth" more. No one has cared to elucidate on that, rather than shout empty accusations.

I am not a mens' rights advocate. I am pro-choice -- but I'm not a robot automaton, either, and I don't like to think of myself as a raving lunatic that can't slow down and do some critical thinking. Even if the outcome is the same -- for instance, I'm not going to change my stance on pro-choice -- I still like the discussion. Grab a pipe and a brandy. It's political/philosophical talk.

Cats I think you did a great job summarizing how I've personally felt through all of these various threads this week. Your post is calm with good analysis comparing the various situations and how they change depending on the situation in question.

is 100% responsible for their own bodliy fluids in a sex act.

2. Each person involved in a pregnancy has responsibilities, unequal and separate. They cannot, by design be identical or equal.

3. The woman is responsible for her body- nutrition, rest, abortion, risky behavior, pre-natal care, labor, and birth. she is also responsible for half of the costs involved in reacting to the pregnancy.

4. The man is responsible for supporting the woman during the pregnancy. (support meaning whatever she defines, or the couple mutually defines as support, within reason and is legal for her to request- I define support as, but not limited to: driving her to appts, whatever their nature, regarding the pregnancy. Sharing in the costs of necessary pregnancy-related medical events and emotional support as well. etc...)

5. each person (if a child is the result of that pregnancy) is separately 100% responsible for that child. emotionally, physically, financially, etc...


there is a simple bottom line here, women cannot and should not be coerced or forced into either continuing or terminating a pregnancy, and this idea is a slippery slope to that end.

Condoms cost a lot less than child support.

I used to date a catholic guy once, who wouldn't use condoms. He said that birth control was a sin, although it was okay if I endangered my health and went on the pill, as I am a protestant.

I told him that the sin was the sex without marriage. The birth control thing was a secondary sin, that wouldn't even be an issue if he wasn't so eager to commit the first sin. He didn't get it, nor did he get any from me.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5


Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." 1

Men should be given the option to opt out. I'm a woman. And when I have sex with a man... I am having sex. Not just the man. Condoms can fail, hell, they can fall right off! I've had that happen many times. Birth control pills (and etc.) can fail to do the job. Sometimes accidents happen.

If I am to get pregnant; I have the option to keep it, or abort it. My body, my choice right? And if I want to keep it, and the man doesn't- I don't need him. He can opt out if he wants. I won't ask him for financial support, and he can just never see the child. I don't see why this is such a big deal to people. I grew up without a father, and it didn't screw me up in any way. My mom was mom and dad, the uber parent, and she certainly didn't need to keep me. She wanted to, and she did just fine.

I'm a woman, I enjoy sex just as much as any man I choose to have sex with- we are both choosing to have sex, and if there's an accident, I believe there should be options on both sides. He can't force me to have the baby, and I don't see why he should be forced to support it, if he says to me "I don't want to be a father."

I don't think a man needs to simply keep his dick in his pants any more than I should keep my pants on. So I can agree with these guys, in so far as, giving up financial support also means never taking a part in that child's life. Ever. I also think any decision like that should be made ASAP.

----

I'm going to add more for the sake of this thread.

My dad, my birthfather died before I was born. Shit, he died before my mom even took the pregnancy test! My mom could have gotten an abortion. She could have given me up for adoption. But, she kept me. Later on down the road, she had another kid. My little brother. Her and my brother's dad split up after awhile. My mom never asked for child support. She didn't want it. And when my brother's dad had my brother, he didn't ask for child support. He didn't want it. My mom worked her ass off to raise me. One income. I always had food in my stomache, I always had clothes, I always had shoes. I always had everything I needed. Now I understand these are different circumstances- my father didn't walk away, he died. However, I grew up with no father and no second income in my house. My mom did the best she could for me and I had more than what I needed, and all the love I could need. My mom didn't need a man to take care of her, she chose to have kids and she worked for us. I know others around my age who were raised by single moms, with one income, who worked their asses off for their kids. And didn't resent that at all. I have a friend who is currently a single mom, and her child never met his father- but she works her ass off and her kid is one of the happiest little guys you could ever meet.

So ultimately, having been raised with no man's second income, I find it insulting, that I would need a man's money if I chose to have a child. I think it's insulting to my mother, who chose to be independent and made a good life for me and my little brother.

Furthermore I find it insulting that everyone seems to think sex is all about the man. Women are just as sexual and just as responsible when it comes to consentual sex. It almost sounds like I'm a victim everytime a man takes his pants off! Screw that, I say. I have no problem saying I enjoy sex just as much as the man I have sex with. To say a man should keep his pants on if he doesn't want a kid is ridiculous to me. I think everyone should have rights, and options. Anything less is a joke.

Another point I have made in another thread. If I decide I want a kid, and the sperm donor doesn't want to be a father, to hell with him. Because I would not ever want to raise a child who has to deal with a father who doesn't want said child, a father who resents me for having the child. Better to not know the father than to know a father's resentment and lack of love. Better not to have to deal with that sort of negative bullshit.

I've gone in all different directions, take my post as you will. Hopefully I've made sense to someone.

to LET him opt out. In this scenario, you'd both sign off on his paternal rights to the child. HE doesn't opt out. He can ask you to let him, and you could if you so chose to do so. Does that sound feasible?

Let everybody's taxes help out single mothers. Have a liveable minimum wage, welfare, and a SPHC system.

Unfortunately, we're nowhere near that point as a society.

Bottom line is, the choice HAS to be the woman's because it is her body. But I don't think allowing men to "opt out" if she decides to carry to term is anything remotely resembling an equivalent situation. I think it's perfectly logical to make distinctions between, say, a fertilized egg or a fetus (and the law does make distinctions between, say, the first months of pregnancy and the last- women are not running around getting late term abortions on a whim), and a baby- once the baby is born, a certain level of support is demanded by a humane society. Clearly, if these asinine anti-abortion laws keep passing, I think these fucked up fundies ought to foot the bill.

But -and I'm pro-choice, too- I don't agree with you that "choice" should mean fathers get to duck out.

I'm a motherand I'm happily married to my daughter's father.

I would personally not have an abortion unless there were an extreme circumstance because that is my moral choice.

But I'm talking about laws here and yes the laws need to be based on absolutes. And yes you are right about my beliefs regarding those absolutes. I am not willing to give up legal rights to the use of my body in any way just because I would personally not choose to use that right.

I'll answer your question too.

"If, while the fetus is legally considered a non-human entity, why does one have the option to opt out, and the other does not? There can be arguments made that could potentially equate the property of one's livelihood with the property of one's body."

Again, you are confusing two unrelated issues. The mother should have a right to opt out of her body being used if she doesn't wish her body to be used to continue the pregnancy for no other reason than that her body belongs to her. Just like I can't be forced to hold something up with my hand for any period of time to save it, I also can't be forced to gestate against my will, even to save something. This is less about the status of the fetus and more about the fact that it can't survive without using the woman's resources. If the woman can't make that choice for herself, then she is enslaved to the state; her body does not belong to her. The idea of that is absolutely abhorrent to me and in my opinion should be to any thinking person.

If a child is born and the parents aren't together, one parent will get custody. This isn't necessarily the mother but it usually is the mother. I think ideally parents would each get half custody and no one would owe either child support because they'd have equal time and resources supporting the child. But it is usually the mother who has custody. Regardless, both parents are responsbile to the child if a child is around and has physical needs. That child shouldn't live in poverty because the father at some point decided to "opt out".

"If, while the fetus is legally considered a non-human entity, why does one have the option to opt out, and the other does not?"

It's a matter of the type and degree of investment. I think that other posters have pointed out that when a person makes a biological decision that may result in pregnancy, there is a reasonable progressive difference in how the option to opt out is weighed philosophically.
Both men and women have options when considering and before the sex act.
If a pregnancy occurs, we hope very much that there is a level of maturity that will result in mutual decision making.
If not, the fact that the biological investment to be considered has permanent and potentially physically damaging results requires that the decision lie with the person whose body would experience the consequences.

Just as it would not be reaonable for anyone to have a right to legally demand a biological investment of organ donation from any individual, it is not reasonable to demand an investment of pregnancy from a wife, girlfriend, or stranger.
In order to be legally consistent, we must also require that no individual be allowed to demand abortion.

"There can be arguments made that could potentially equate the property of one's livelihood with the property of one's body. And what of the child, in either state?"
I don't think so.
The right of a living woman to decide what happens to her body supercedes any potential rights that a fetus incapable of surviving without the participation of her body could possibly have. The fetus is never physically attached to a man.

Child support is in the interest of the child.
Those who raise concerns that women do not contribute enough financially do not weigh the facts.
Custody requires a time and emotional investment that can be exhausting.

Women still make 75 cents on the dollar and often, the lack of childcare and therefore time required for parenting efforts can hamper their career advancement.
If men were more involved in parenting, and didn't mind women advancing in the workplace, maybe this would work out a little better.

More men just really need to get involved in the 3rd wave women's movement if they want things to be more equitible.

"If a pregnancy occurs, we hope very much that there is a level of maturity that will result in mutual decision making."

This sounds like you're saying the woman and man should decide jointly whether to birth or abort. I don't know how that would happen? How can you have a 1-1 tie on the question?

Then you posted ...

"The right of a living woman to decide what happens to her body supercedes any potential rights that a fetus incapable of surviving without the participation of her body could possibly have. The fetus is never physically attached to a man."

This seems to say the decision must be the woman's and the woman's alone.

I agree with that view. Someone has to make the decision and that someone must be the womn.

So why do people constantly say things like "mutual decision making," between a "woman and her spouse," or between a "woman and her physician."

To me all those postings are complete twaddle. People don't mean abortion should be between a woman and her .... They mean it should be a woman's right to choose. Period. What's with the making believe other people have a say when they don't, and shouldn't?

Two people have a sexual relationship and if they are mature about it, they make decisions together about what the outcome would be if there were a pregnancy.
Pregnancy occurs.
In a mature relationship the agreement is followed.
If the pregnancy was accidental and the agreement was not followed, the woman excercised a right pertaining to her body because an outside party cannot force an individual to undergo a surgical procedure or to endure a pregnancy.
If a pregnancy ensues, third party interests are the priority because the child deserves to have the best opportunities that can be provided despite having a parent who did not handle the pregnacy well.

What does that mean?

How can two people make a decision on abortion together?

Okay - the man says he's thrilled that he's going to be a daddy and the woman says she doesn't want to be a mommy yet and therefore will have an abortion. So she has an abortion.

How was that decision made together?

PRIOR to pregnancy decisions regarding pregnancy can very very very very easily be made via discussions. Two people sit down consider their lives, and the direction of their lives and decide on what the protocol on BC is.
At that point they hopefully would also have a discussion on what would happen if an accidental pregnancy were to occur.
If they disagree and have an adult relationship, they would try to come to a solution that is ultimately satisfactory to both parties.
It is possible that that outcome could be that a woman would not have an abortion despite that being her first inclination. WHY WHY WHY is it so difficult for you to understand the possibility of adult relationship where two people do consider each others opinions as valid?
The point is that there are some men who consider their DNA a serious investment, if a women doesn't want a guy feeling like he has such rule over her body once his DNA enters, she maybe shouldn't sleep with him.
Men who find the position of my body my choice position offensive should not sleep with a woman who holds that opinion.
When two people have a sexual relationship and if they are mature about it, they should be able to make decisions based on who the other person is and what their beliefs and philosophies are.
In this case, if there are divergent views, that includes planning to the best of their ability in order to avoid eventual unplanned pregnancies.
If they have an adult relationship, they should also be capable of negotiating their common or different ideas and beliefs to come to agreement- hopefully in advance and as I stated above it is most ethical and mature for such agreements to be followed.

We are discussing issues which pertain to interpersonal relationships. How is this so difficult understand the idea of an interpersonal negotiation process, legalities aside?

...arguments that "originate at a place that is somewhat inhumane, but then end up demanding upstanding morality" is a natural one.

I haven't read the thread you're referencing, but I would like to tell you why I believe the woman has the final say regarding ending or continuing a pregnancy, but children still have the right to be supported.

I'll tackle the second part first. In my opinion (as a mother of 2 teens, and as a woman who miscarried and aborted), children don't ask to be born (at least not in this realm they don't). Therefore, once they breathe, they have the right to safety and security, and yes, financial support. If men don't want to support a child, they don't have to have sex. Period. I know that sounds simplistic, but to me it really is that simple.

Now, as to the double standard this creates with abortion. One could argue the inverse of what I just posted about men--that women who don't want to have a child can simply not have sex. Of course, there's that whole rape thing, but for the sake of the argument, let's stick to consensual encounters. In this case, should the woman have to go through with the pregnancy, or should she have the final say in a choice to abort?

The woman has to have the final say in a choice to abort. Why? Because she is the one that is physically pregnant and, therefore, physically at risk.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not on par with financial obligations, or any social consequences that men can suffer, because pregnancy and childbirth can kill a woman. Even in this day and age, with state of the art medical care, women die from pregnancy and childbirth. Men do not.

I loved every minute of being pregnant. I wanted so much to be a mother. But by the last trimester of my last pregnancy, I looked like death warmed over and felt worse. My family members sincerely feared I would die. It turned out that none of my difficulties with that pregnancy were life threatening, and my son was born a tad blueish, but is now a healthy 15 yr old young man.

You are right that fathers of wanted babies feel an emotional attachment long before birth. I've seen that happen too. But in the delivery room, those men are not at risk. That is what "un-sticks" the issue for me.

That single fact keeps me pro-choice, and guides my belief that the woman who is pregnant, and nobody else, must decide what happens. Nobody else takes the risks she does. Nobody goes through what she does.

I don't know if I have offered anything new or helpful. I hope I have.

One more thing, you should not feel bad about being at a sticking point. People who speak to you in absolutes are the ones who should feel bad. Try as we might, we cannot and do not know everything. And none of us have all the answers.

Peace.