Men should have the right to "abort" as well.

[CriticalThought]

I agree that men should have the right to terminate their parental rights before a child is born. They obviously should not have that right after the child is born anymore than a woman would.

Of course, terminating parental rights means that a man doesn't have to pay child support to a child, but it would also mean they have no say in how that child is raised and no rights to see or visit that child for the entirety of that child's life.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes you could, and I'd agree with you. But this is a thread about how MEN are dealt some sort of "unfair" blow by an unwanted pregnancy, isn't it?

Actually it's about the unfair blow that is dealt to men by the double standard.

 

[Tucker Case]

I agree that men should have the right to terminate their parental rights before a child is born. They obviously should not have that right after the child is born anymore than a woman would.

Of course, terminating parental rights means that a man doesn't have to pay child support to a child, but it would also mean they have no say in how that child is raised and no rights to see or visit that child for the entirety of that child's life.

I would only add that if the man is never made aware of the pregnancy until after the child is born, he should have the right to terminate his rights as a father upon learning of the child's existence.

 

[Glinda]

I would only add that if the man is never made aware of the pregnancy until after the child is born, he should have the right to terminate his rights as a father upon learning of the child's existence.

Absolutely.

 

[Arcana XV]

It's a great idea in theory. Fair's fair. In practice, not so much. Women who have abortions don't place a heavy financial burden on the rest of society, whereas men who refuse to financially support their offspring do. Someone will have to help pick up the tab when the mother can't do it alone. And that someone is the taxpayer. Now, is that fair?

 

[Captain America]

I agree that men should have the right to terminate their parental rights before a child is born. They obviously should not have that right after the child is born anymore than a woman would.

Of course, terminating parental rights means that a man doesn't have to pay child support to a child, but it would also mean they have no say in how that child is raised and no rights to see or visit that child for the entirety of that child's life.

I think that's a fair option.

But, in the end, just like abortion, it's the kids that get screwed.

 

[rivrrat]

It's true that you gets in a car and you takes your chances. But see, here's the thing, newborn infants don't endanger strangers on the road with their mere existence on the planet.

Failed analogy. Try again.

Has nothing at all to do with newborn infants. They aren't part of the equation or analogy.

Hardly failed. People drive cars for many different reasons. People have sex for many different reasons. People hope nothing bad will happen when they drive a car. They try to drive safely, they use their seat belts. People also hope that nothing bad will happen when the have sex. They use protection. In both scenarios, many positive and some bad things are possible outcomes. However, engaging in either activity isn't somehow some implicit consent for the negative outcomes to occur. To state that if one doesn't wish to have a negative outcome (accident) from sex they shouldn't ever have sex is quite the equivalent to stating that if someone doesn't wish to have a negative outcome (accident) from driving a car, they should never drive a car. I challenge you to show me explicitly how the analogy is failed.

 

[Cardinal]

The issue here is that both sides take the same stance, but in different direction.

Pro-lifers say the woman should have kept her legs closed and shouldn't have a choice in the matter, and pro-choicers say the man should have kept his pants on and shouldn't have a say in the matter.


The hypocricy problem though, is primarily ion one direction. Most pro-lifers actually think that the man should be responsible for his child and that he also should not have a choice in the matter.

However, most pro-choicers still take the stance that the man should not have a choice.

The real hypocricy is on the pro-choice side, for the most part, with rare exceptions like those who have spoken in agreement with the OP but are also prochoice..

It is unfortunate that the polarization of the issue makes it easy to wind up with a zero-sum position. The pro-life position takes it as given that abortion is murder (you might have heard that once or twice in the abortion forum) which negates any moderate position. So on the pro-choice side it's easy to assume an equally immoderate position when forced to counter the pro-life one. Hypocrisy is an inevitable consequence of adopting a fundamentalist position, but I don't have a dog in this fight so it's not necessary to drive my position as far left as possible at the expense of all logic.

Therefore I think the issue that Mr V posits has some merit, but it's not black and white. The entire problem is riddled with pitfalls that has to be addressed one specific situation at a time, and cannot be painted with a giant brush. In other words, the man has the right to abort his responsibilities, but not for just any reason.

 

[Cardinal]

To more fairly address the OP's concerns, I think it's horridly irresponsible that there isn't any such thing as pre-child-agreement contract, much like a pre-nup.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think that's a fair option.

But, in the end, just like abortion, it's the kids that get screwed.

From what I have observed, children born to uninvolved or abusive fathers are often worse off than children whose father left before they were born. At least with the latter option, the mother can look for a stable male figure to help raise the child.

Children have no right to vote, and as a result, they often hold the lowest status in American culture.

 

[Glinda]

Actually it's about the unfair blow that is dealt to men by the double standard.

But it's not really a double standard when you consider that only WOMEN can become pregnant, which means they carry all the responsibility for that growing life. When men can become pregnant, we can revisit the "fairness" issue, but as it stands now, I believe that because only women can carry a child, they have the trump card.

Really now, how "fair" is it that women have to go through the complicated and sometimes miserable effort of growing that child and men just sit around and watch (or complain, or just up and leave, whatever)?

The world isn't "fair," folks. You do what you do and deal with the consequences (both men AND women). If you don't want a child, don't do the thing that makes them. It's as simple as that.

 

[Cardinal]

But it's not really a double standard when you consider that only WOMEN can become pregnant, which means they carry all the responsibility for that growing life. When men can become pregnant, we can revisit the "fairness" issue, but as it stands now, I believe that because only women can carry a child, they have the trump card.

Clearly my pre-child-contract isn't growing wings here, but what if there was such a contract to the effect that the man in no way wanted to be a father and the mother agreed to that...in contract, and the woman still got pregnant and decided to keep the baby anyway. Would the man, in your opinion, still be responsible?

 

[Glinda]

Clearly my pre-child-contract isn't growing wings here, but what if there was such a contract to the effect that the man in no way wanted to be a father and the mother agreed to that...in contract, and the woman still got pregnant and decided to keep the baby anyway. Would the man, in your opinion, still be responsible?

Nope. See how fair I can be?!

 

[Cardinal]

Nope. See how fair I can be?!

Yup.

.........

 

[rivrrat]

But it's not really a double standard when you consider that only WOMEN can become pregnant, which means they carry all the responsibility for that growing life. When men can become pregnant, we can revisit the "fairness" issue, but as it stands now, I believe that because only women can carry a child, they have the trump card.

Really now, how "fair" is it that women have to go through the complicated and sometimes miserable effort of growing that child and men just sit around and watch (or complain, or just up and leave, whatever)?

The world isn't "fair," folks. You do what you do and deal with the consequences (both men AND women). If you don't want a child, don't do the thing that makes them. It's as simple as that.

Women have a choice whether or not to go through that "miserable effort". If they choose do so, that is THEIR choice. That is fair.

 

[other]

But it's not really a double standard when you consider that only WOMEN can become pregnant, which means they carry all the responsibility for that growing life. When men can become pregnant, we can revisit the "fairness" issue, but as it stands now, I believe that because only women can carry a child, they have the trump card.

Really now, how "fair" is it that women have to go through the complicated and sometimes miserable effort of growing that child and men just sit around and watch (or complain, or just up and leave, whatever)?

The world isn't "fair," folks. You do what you do and deal with the consequences (both men AND women). If you don't want a child, don't do the thing that makes them. It's as simple as that.

Yes, right. And as has been already pointed out, this exact argument can be used to argue against legalized abortion.

To use this argument in one context (with regard to a man), but then to deny its validity with regard to women is a double standard. Regardless of who ends up actually pregnant... It takes 2 to make a woman pregnant.

Men should take responsibility for their actions, just as women should as well.

"But," you say, "men don't get pregnant." ...Well, life's not fair. Better both parties take responsibility for their actions than one be given special preference over another under the law because of circumstances that ARE beyond their control (their sex).

 

[Tucker Case]

To more fairly address the OP's concerns, I think it's horridly irresponsible that there isn't any such thing as pre-child-agreement contract, much like a pre-nup.

Agreed.

Really now, how "fair" is it that women have to go through the complicated and sometimes miserable effort of growing that child and men just sit around and watch (or complain, or just up and leave, whatever)?

Ah, but the existence of abortion means that this is a choice made by the woman. She can choose to forgo the complicated and miserable task if she wants to.

If she chooses to go through it, it is 100% fair.

If abortion were illegal, it would be totally unfair. I would blame nature for it though, not men. :mrgreen:

 

[Glinda]

Women have a choice whether or not to go through that "miserable effort". If they choose do so, that is THEIR choice. That is fair.

Indeed. Men have the choice to just walk away and leave the woman to deal with the child THEY BOTH MADE on her own, an option a pregnant woman does not have. That's why abortion is legal and must remain so.

 

[Tucker Case]

Indeed. Men have the choice to just walk away and leave the woman to deal with the child THEY BOTH MADE on her own, an option a pregnant woman does not have. That's why abortion is legal and must remain so.

Women do have that option. It's called putting the kid up for adoption.

 

[rivrrat]

Indeed. Men have the choice to just walk away and leave the woman to deal with the child THEY BOTH MADE on her own, an option a pregnant woman does not have. That's why abortion is legal and must remain so.

Yess.... I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm also 100% for allowing the man the SAME choice insomuch as allowing him to walk away from a child he doesn't want so long as he lets his feelings known while the woman still has a choice. The woman has that choice, and so should he.

 

[Glinda]

Women do have that option. It's called putting the kid up for adoption.

We're discussing abortion rights. What to do with an unwanted child that has already been born is a different topic.

 

[Orion]

I'm not sure that the two issues are equivalent. Womens' abortion rights relate to body empowerment and removing control of the body from the state, whereas men's "abortion right" relates to parental responsibility.

If a suitable guardian is available to take the place of the father who wants out - one that can provide financial and emotional support to the child - then I would be in favor of it. Men being used as a financial resource only is not supportive to the child. Two parent households are needed.

However... if nobody can take his place, not even in the bare bones minimum of financial support, then the biological father has to take responsibility. Someone has to foot the bill and I would rather it be the father than the rest of society, and this is something that I'm sure you conservatives can understand.

And the response, "Well, she should have gotten an abortion then," is only blaming the woman - as usual - and sidesteps the fact that abortion is a medical procedure that carries risk. The choice is still hers.

 

[Tucker Case]

We're discussing abortion rights. What to do with an unwanted child that has already been born is a different topic.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said here then:

Indeed. Men have the choice to just walk away and leave the woman to deal with the child THEY BOTH MADE on her own, an option a pregnant woman does not have. That's why abortion is legal and must remain so.

Technically, the word "child" should be replaced with "pregnancy" if we are only discussing the pre-birth portion of the arrangement.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

We're discussing abortion rights. What to do with an unwanted child that has already been born is a different topic.

It's part of the concept that women have privileges to do things men can't do.

A woman can have a child with state support and give it up for adoption without having to pay a cent out of pocket, while a man can not opt out of paying child support for a kid he may not of wanted in the first place.

It's unethical and women tend to abuse it.

 

[Glinda]

Yess.... I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm also 100% for allowing the man the SAME choice insomuch as allowing him to walk away from a child he doesn't want so long as he lets his feelings known while the woman still has a choice. The woman has that choice, and so should he.

In a fair world, both the man and the woman would let their feelings about having children be known before anyone got nekkid. Unfortunately, what usually happens is nobody makes their feelings known beforehand. Waiting till she's preggers to let her know he has no intention of being a father puts the onus right back on the man, though.

Yes, this means both individuals bear responsibility to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but because the woman bears the full responsibility for carrying that life, she has much more to risk by unprotected sex. Which is one more reason why abortions should remain legal (and should be avoided if at all possible, i.e., don't to the crime if you can't do the time!).