Interesting op-ed: A Man's Right to Choose

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
Isn't it wonderful for you that you won't ever have to make the choice to have an abortion, since you can't get pregnant?

Its just as simple for a man to NOT have sex with a woman as it is for a woman to NOT have sex with a man. Yet most men that I've spoken with feel like not having sex is like living without your head...its just impossible.

Someone in another thread made a great point: A woman can use every form of birth control known to man at the same time and she can STILL get pregnant, since NOTHING is 100% effective except ABSTINENCE. You men want a choice? CHOOSE to keep it in your pants, and then you won't have to worry about having to pay child sipport.

There's a whole lot of generalizations in there, and some unfair characterizations. As a married, faithful husband, it would be beyond my comprehension why I shouldn't have some choice in my wife's pregnancy.

I can see situations (abusive significant others) where it would work the other way - but can't you understand situations where the husband should have the right to choose as well?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSigkid
There's a whole lot of generalizations in there, and some unfair characterizations. As a married, faithful husband, it would be beyond my comprehension why I shouldn't have some choice in my wife's pregnancy.

I can see situations (abusive significant others) where it would work the other way - but can't you understand situations where the husband should have the right to choose as well?

You have no choice.

If you have sex with a girl and it results in a pregnancy, she has the right to end that pregnancy.

If you have a child, the judge and courts can give full or main custody to the mother. You have no rights. Check out dadsrights.org

If the mother decides to keep the child and you're no longer in the picture, she will also take money from you for child support.

You have NO rights, priviledges, but only a hefty responsibility.

-Rudey

[MTSUGURL]

"-that would have required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands." (Emphasis mine.)

I've stated elsewhere that I don't agree with abortion, but where it is a choice that someone has already made, I agree with this proposed law. It's not saying, "that requires women seeking abortions to notify their partner." Being in the context of marriage, it is unreasonable to tell the man to zip it up or wear a condom - it's his wife, and subsequently, his child.
Actually, (and let the flames begin), I think all women seeking abortions should notify their partner (with the exceptions of rape or incest). I've known a few men (not many, mind you, but a few) that would have gladly taken over care of the child and let the mother sign away rights, not even accepting child support.

[Kevin]

Child support is a funny thing. I'm working for my dad's law firm right now -- we're one of the bigger players in the family law game here in town, so I see a lot of child support cases (one of our cases was in the national media just recently). In my time here, I've observed that men and women at think of child support very, very differently.

Women tend to see it as a right, something that they're owed, something that the man pays -- I've even heard a woman who just lost custody on a motion to modify custody exclaim "Child Support?! I thought that was a man thing!" -- no shit.

I've never seen a woman offer to forebear on collecting child support in exchange for custody -- not ever -- or at least not without the man terminating his parental rights (in Oklahoma, you can't agree to not collect child support, but many try to make deals anyhow).

Men see it as an obligation to pay the woman, and 9 times out of 10 they will GLADLY offer to refuse child support in exchange for custody.

Those are my observations based on a pretty significant caseload in central Oklahoma

[ASUADPi]

Originally posted by MTSUGURL

Actually, (and let the flames begin), I think all women seeking abortions should notify their partner (with the exceptions of rape or incest). I've known a few men (not many, mind you, but a few) that would have gladly taken over care of the child and let the mother sign away rights, not even accepting child support. [/B]

But on the flip side...

How would you feel if you got pregnant by accident and you wanted an abortion and you were told you couldn't have one and you were forced to carry out the pregnancy, even though you were willing to sign your rights away?

9 months is a long time.

To tell a woman they must continue with a pregnancy, whether they are giving their rights up or not, is just not cool in general.


Like I said, in some relationships this is something that needs to be discussed, but for someone to force something upon the other is just not cool.

To force a women to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want to is just as bad as forcing her to get an abortion.


Just my opinion Feel free to disagree.

[damasa]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
It seems to me that the man's inability to get pregnant sort of places him at a disadvantage when it comes to decisions about abortion and pregnancy in general. I don't think it is fair for women to always automatically take the position of "hey, its in my body, so screw you. I'm gonna do what I want when I want and how I want". The guy cannot help the fact that he can't get pregnant. He is. however, equally responsible for the pregnancy and the fact that he cannot get pregnant does not mean that he loves or cares about the pregnancy or the prospect of HIS child coming into the world any less than the woman. His inability to get pregnant often restrains a man from being active in decisions that are just as important to him as they are to the woman and THAT isn't fair to me.

I don't know that I would support mandatory consent from the man prior to having an abortion, but I also don't support a "forget about you, its my body and, therefore, all about me" attitude either.

[Coramoor]

It seems that a lot of the females here are all about 'me, me, me'. I guess it's pretty convienent to forget about a life in the face of a little adversity. Speaks a lot of the caliber of some of the women out there.

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by Coramoor
It seems that a lot of the females here are all about 'me, me, me'. I guess it's pretty convienent to forget about a life in the face of a little adversity. Speaks a lot of the caliber of some of the women out there.

Are you kidding?

You can't judge someone else's life, cause you aren't perfect either.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by ASUADPi
How would you feel if you got pregnant by accident and you wanted an abortion and you were told you couldn't have one and you were forced to carry out the pregnancy, even though you were willing to sign your rights away?

I hope you'll kindly note that this point has interesting consequences for arguments (such as Rudey's) attacking the current child support system.

Originally posted by ASUADPi
9 months is a long time.

To tell a woman they must continue with a pregnancy, whether they are giving their rights up or not, is just not cool in general.

This argument, as stated, takes a relatively sound argument ("you don't have to carry the child") and turns it into something flaky (almost an argument of inconvenience).

I'm not a fan, needless to say.

[sugar and spice]

In any married/committed relationship, this needs to be talked about BFEORE it happens. I've never had sex with any of my boyfriends without making it clear that if I were to get pregnant at this point in my life, there would be a strong possibility that I would abort it. If he doesn't like that, he doesn't have to have sex with me. But it's not like the result is going to be a surprise to him.

You shouldn't be first approaching the topic of "What would we do if we got pregnant?" AFTER the pregnancy test has already confirmed you're knocked up.


That said, I don't agree with the way the current child support system is set up, either.

[MTSUGURL]

Originally posted by ASUADPi
But on the flip side...

How would you feel if you got pregnant by accident and you wanted an abortion and you were told you couldn't have one and you were forced to carry out the pregnancy, even though you were willing to sign your rights away?

9 months is a long time.

To tell a woman they must continue with a pregnancy, whether they are giving their rights up or not, is just not cool in general.


Like I said, in some relationships this is something that needs to be discussed, but for someone to force something upon the other is just not cool.

To force a women to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want to is just as bad as forcing her to get an abortion.


Just my opinion Feel free to disagree.

Honestly, I would be completely devastated if I were to get pregnant by accident at this point, but I know before I have sex that it is a possible consequnece, and would accept the 9 months and delivery as a consequence. I had the fun, I can't escape consequences simply because they are undesirable.

[Kevin]

Actually MTSU, you can... That's what's being discussed here

[MTSUGURL]

What I mean by I can't escape consequences:

I see it as highly irresponsible to to not accept the consequences of my actions and therefore consider it inexcusable and not an option. Pregnancy is always a possible consequence of sex unless you are unable to have children or your partner is unable to father them. And, I really believe that as cliche as it might sound, it is not just the woman's child and the father should have a say.

[Kevin]

I agree, but if this were to be allowed, what other restrictions would you think would be permissible to place on women seeking abortions?

How about the case of a man wanting to compel a woman to have an abortion? What then?

What if he didn't want to have the kid and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support for the next 18 years?

The way I see it, there are always going to be inequities as long as women are the ones carrying the kids around for 9 months. The best way that I know to cure the inequity is to change the test for custody -- in other words, place the child with whichever parent is best able to care for them, and reject the premise that women are necessarily the better caregivers (an untrue stereotype).

We'd have a whole new ballgame if women who decided to carry the child to term against the wishes of the father would also have to face losing custody and ending up being stuck with the child support payments.

[MTSUGURL]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I agree, but if this were to be allowed, what other restrictions would you think would be permissible to place on women seeking abortions?How about the case of a man wanting to compel a woman to have an abortion? What then?

I said that I believe the man should be notified. I don't see that as a restriction on the woman, but the guaranteed opportunity for the man to have input, for lack of a better word.

What if he didn't want to have the kid and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support for the next 18 years?

Oh well. That's HIS consequence. No one said they were restricted to the woman.

The way I see it, there are always going to be inequities as long as women are the ones carrying the kids around for 9 months. The best way that I know to cure the inequity is to change the test for custody -- in other words, place the child with whichever parent is best able to care for them, and reject the premise that women are necessarily the better caregivers (an untrue stereotype).

We'd have a whole new ballgame if women who decided to carry the child to term against the wishes of the father would also have to face losing custody and ending up being stuck with the child support payments.

I agree with you. I live with my cousin, who has custody of his 2 children because he is the better parent for them to be with. I agree that the assumption that women are always the better caregiver is completely untrue and that our system needs to be rid of that bias.