Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because that is the way it is ... and it will NEVER change. You are talking about changing a law for 100% of men that less than 1% would ever even think about, and only 1% of them would WANT to have a say in it.

The thing you need to realize is this: If you give the man an equal say in whether or not this child lives then it would only be a matter of time before someone would argue against having to pay child support because they did not want the child. Our government gets a percentage of the paid child support and that would be taking money out of their hands ... THAT they will not allow ... EVER.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And then a judge, who is most likely man says "You have baby" That is dangerously clse to using women as breeding machines

You could also say that having police is dangerously close to having martial law.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Because that is the way it is ... and it will NEVER change. You are talking about changing a law for 100% of men that less than 1% would ever even think about, and only 1% of them would WANT to have a say in it.

The thing you need to realize is this: If you give the man an equal say in whether or not this child lives then it would only be a matter of time before someone would argue against having to pay child support because they did not want the child. Our government gets a percentage of the paid child support and that would be taking money out of their hands ... THAT they will not allow ... EVER.

Should a father have to pay child support if he didn't want the kid?

If a mother can say 'you can't have baby" to a guy, should he not be able to say "You can't have money" to a gal?

It's his wallet, after all.

Of course there should be a discussion, it is a monumental decision, but to suggest a situation where the man has some kind of veto over a womans body is completely wrong in every sense of the word. Morally, ethically, legally and practically wrong. End of story.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And then a judge, who is most likely man says "You have baby" That is dangerously clse to using women as breeding machines

You could also say that having police is dangerously close to having martial law.....

No, not even close. Police are her to protect us from criminal. That is just a false analogy. you are saying women should be forced t carry a child she does not want.
Ok, would you also support this. Men saying that women should get an abortion because he doesnt want the child to live?

 Ouze wrote:
man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.

While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.

I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.

I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*

 Slarg232 wrote:

Should a father have to pay child support if he didn't want the kid?

Yes. If he engaged in the sex act, he knew the possible consequences. The fact that he didn't want a child doesn't make said child any less deserving of a nurturing, healthy environment, and both parents have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to see that their child gets one.

 Ouze wrote:
Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.

I'm still waiting on an answer to this, did you just miss this post Slarg?

Oh yes. In a loving, trusting and mutually supportive couple both sides should have a say in such an important issue. Thing is, reality isn't always as idyllic and I can think of a dozen situations where having both parents' consent to perform an abortion could lead to injustice.

Certain things are better left out of the written law.

 whembly wrote:
While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.

I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.

I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*

I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.

I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.

I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*

I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.

You're probably right...

I'm not too hung up about it, I just thought it was an interesting slant... ie, it's easier for a woman to get an abortion compared to married men getting a vasectomy.

That's just the way it is and we *men* just need to deal with it.

I wouldn't wish abortions to be made illegal... but, I do wish it's rare.

Yes, I'm also pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm like, stoked about abortions either. It's a very hard choice and I imagine it probably haunts most women in at least some way for the rest of their lives, but they are the best equipped to decide what their own circumstances are like.

 Ouze wrote:

feeder wrote:
Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers

A woman is a person with a full set of rights. Those rights don't allow someone else to trump them so she can become an unwilling uterus for an unwanted baby. That idea is pants on head insane.

Your rights end when they keep someone else from making their own medical decisions for their own body, in my opinion, whether it be a woman having the sole right to deciding if she wants an abortion or a man deciding he wants a vasectomy. I feel just as strongly about the latter as I do about the former.


If a man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.

I agree with this.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I'm also pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm like, stoked about abortions either. It's a very hard choice and I imagine it probably haunts most women in at least some way for the rest of their lives, but they are the best equipped to decide what their own circumstances are like.

Yeah...

I wished there's more education/programs available that NOT having an abortion is more viable.

*Public Service Announcement: Yes, whembly would be okay with government assistance, programs regarding this... please don't die of shock.

First of all, I only approve of abortion in the case of rape, forseen complications that could likely kill the woman and/or kid in child birth, or if signs show the kid will come out severely handicapped to the point of not enjoying life. Other than that, I'm against it. Accidents do happen, but if you want to be sexually active, you should be aware of all the risks. Abortions shouldn't be a form of birth control. Anyone doing that is disgusting and should just get their tubes tied. When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.

That said, if an abortion is necessary, it should be discussed between the two parents-it's really the woman's choice, but she shouldn't just up and do it without talking to her S.O. My ex did this-she got an abortion and never mentioned it to me until the night she broke up with me-told me "it was taken care of". Messed me up for a long time, because I loved her and I suspected she was pregnant and was looking forward to being a parent; especially sharing that with her. When she broke the news it was done and we were done at the same time, it just about broke me-it was rough. To this day, I wish her all the pain and suffering any human being could survive for what she took. Had it been discussed, it might have been different. But as in my case and others, the kid isn't just the mother's: it's also the father's. He might not get the deciding vote, but he should at least have his say.

I've been swayed in a couple of my thoughts on here by a decent opposing argument, but this is one thing I won't budge on. My opinion is set in stone.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.

Do you actually think that women like that exist in any reasonable number? Considering both the emotional and physical ramifications that getting an abortion has, it's not something that any sensible person would take lightly.

I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.

However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.

Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.

 Fafnir wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.

Do you actually think that women like that exist in any reasonable number? Considering both the emotional and physical ramifications that getting an abortion has, it's not something that any sensible person would take lightly.

There are some really ed up people out there. It can happen, but it is not common place.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.

However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.

Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.

This. Or just submit paperwork stating you are the father, you didn't want to have the child and want nothing to do with it.

Except abortion falls under most civilized countries' medical care plans, so no one has to pay individually in the first place.

I do not support "opt out" fatherhood. Someone's gotta pay for the kid, it may as well be the father.

feeder wrote:
I do not support "opt out" fatherhood. Someone's gotta pay for the kid, it may as well be the father.

If the Father asks for an abortion, offers to pay for it, and the mother says "no, I want the baby", then the mother should pay for it.

 Ouze wrote:
Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.

This. I don't think OP has thought it through this far though.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis.

So what? You're talking about "killing" a blob of cells that has less "personhood" than the cockroaches you squish without hesitation. That kind of abortion-as-birth-control is probably stupid in that it's probably more expensive than conventional birth control and had a much greater potential for harmful side effects, but it's not like there's any moral issue involved here.

The father can get a say when the mother's body isn't required to carry the foetus to term.

There's also no moral reason abortion shouldn't be used as "birth control."

I would not have any qualms whatsoever if my partner decided she didn't want to go through with it, no matter how much I would want it myself. As a male, I don't have to go through the agony of pregnancy and childbirth, so my opinion is secondary, even if the responsibility is shared.

In the opposite, if I didn't want one, but she did... I don't know. With my current mindset, I would bolt from the situation and create a new life somewhere else. My entire family had kids before they wanted to, and although it all turned out okay, I don't want the same thing to happen.

Child support is such a pain though. I despise those who manage to escape responsibility, although every day of their lives must be waking paranoia and misery at the thought of that letter coming in the mail.

From my point of view, life is not precious at all. We've advanced to the point that we have the ability to prevent needless birth, quite easily, and the ability to change the lives of individuals to how they would like it. Moral obligations are holding that potential back.

I've met several women who have had not one or two, but several "abortions" of different types, and they seem perfectly fine with it. The regret that many imagine would accompany making the conscious decision to abort is not necessarily realistic.

It's the woman's body that carries the baby and her that has to undergo any procedure. A man cannot realistically be allowed to make that decision where she has an operation for her. Certainly he can make his wishes known but he cannot reasonably compel the woman to undergo an operation, or prevent her, thus forcing her to carry a child to term.

Sometimes someone suggests that if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it should excuse him of parental duties and support money. That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered. So that won't wash either. Sorry, men have to take back seat on this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:

feeder wrote:
Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.

A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.

If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.

Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.

Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?

It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.

And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.

Right, so how quick are these 'cases' going to be heard? The longer you wait for an abortion the worse it is psychologically and physically for the woman. Either you take the woman's word for it that it was rape or you need a full trial to prove it. Ideally an abortion should be done within weeks not months.

Say it's not a rape and there's a judge that will hear the merits of the situation from the point of view of the mother and father? How long will that take? Can you appeal?

Is this actually workable at all?

And finally, are you happy that a pregnant woman could be told by the father/court that she isn't allowed to terminate a pregnancy and be forced to carry it to term? Won't this just encourage people to look for other ways/places to abort outside of proper hospitals?

Search for the last 10 abortion threads to get everyone's opinion because this thread won't be any different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Searching for threads also saves me time because I can just copy and paste my answer!

You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.

Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.

Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.

And

Abortion is bad. That's why the vast majority of people that are pro-choice are not actually pro-abortion.

Provide the incentives to actually have the child and raise it instead of passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law while also legislating away all benefits and programs to help these parents raise their child. Keep it pro-choice, and give these women all the help that they need so that they will choose life. Care as much about an actual living breathing human child once it is born as you pretend to care about while it is still a sack of cells.

Abortion: Keep it legal, keep it safe, provide all the resources they need to make it more rare.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered.

Only if you live in a country with no real safety net and a belief that if you're poor it's because you deserve it. If the woman doesn't have to worry about being stuck in crippling poverty if they keep the child then the man doesn't have that power over her. The solution here is to fix the belief that "socialism" is the end of civilization, not to continue to promote the idea of "personal responsibility" as an excuse to avoid society's collective obligations.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's the woman's body that carries the baby and her that has to undergo any procedure. A man cannot realistically be allowed to make that decision where she has an operation for her. Certainly he can make his wishes known but he cannot reasonably compel the woman to undergo an operation, or prevent her, thus forcing her to carry a child to term.

Sometimes someone suggests that if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it should excuse him of parental duties and support money. That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered. So that won't wash either. Sorry, men have to take back seat on this issue.

I think that an issue like this should have a certain degree of compromise, and it should be based roughly upon how the pregnancy has progressed. So in a two week old foetus whereby ending the problem is just taking a few pills? The two should confer, and if the woman wishes for a baby and the man does not, then the man should be able to opt out. He signs a bit of paper saying he does not wish to be a father, and in turn is legally excluded from ever having any rights as far as the child is concerned for good.

On the flip side, if the father wants a child and the mother does not? The mother prevails 100% of the time on that decision. She is not a baby machine, she should not be forced to carry to term.

Once the foetus reaches a point whereby abortion is a surgical procedure though (about ten to twelve weeks in), that's where I would draw the line and say that the father no longer has any opt out. Why? Because an abortion is now large enough and problematic enough issue, and aborting it is no longer a simple procedure. You would have had two or three weeks at least beforehand in most cases to make your decision, and you've either procrastinated, or changed your mind. Neither of which is fair to the mother. If you procrastinated, it was your fault, and if you changed your mind, then you need to bear the responsibility, which is that the mother may not wish for a highly invasive surgical procedure and may instead prefer to carry to term.

 whembly wrote:
Do the mirror opposite.

Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.

Is that right?

I did some searching on that and I couldn't find any laws that required this.

There are many physicians that require it to cover their butts in case the spouse sues for some reason, but it doesn't seem to be a legal requirement anywhere.

It seems more like a HIPAA violation than anything else.