What About A Man's Choice?

[OBleedingMe]

A recent experience with a close friend of mine has opened up my eyes to just how sexist and bigoted the abortion laws really are.
Take these scenarios:
1. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and does not wish to carry the child to term. The man also does not want the child. She has it aborted in the first trimester.
2. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, but does not want the child. The man does. She aborts it.
3. A man and woman have consensual sex. The women becomes pregnant, and wants the child. So does the man. The woman carries the child to term.
4. (now pay attention) A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and wants the child. The man does not. She carries the child to term, and the man must become the woman's indentured servant for the next 18 years.

Now, here's my problem: A woman has a CHOICE, but a man does not. Zero, nada, zip. Why should a man have to pay for a woman's CHOICE? If she wants the child, then SHE can pay for it, SHE can raise it.
A man has absolutely no right under the law to force a woman into motherhood. No woman, therefore, should have a right to force a MAN into fatherhood. Why should he have to pay for HER choice? Why should HIS life's DESTINY be decided by a woman? A man cannot force a woman to carry the child to term and claim responsibility for it, so why should a woman force a man to pay for a child he does not want?
Take one of the staples of the abortion doctrine: A woman should be allowed to have sex purely for sexual gratification. A man should also have this right. But he does not. He is forced to take responsibility. The decision is all the woman's, not his.
Now, I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to have an abortion. Absolutely not. But I AM saying that a man should have a choice of taking responsibility for his actions, just like the woman does. If the father does not want the child, then he shouldn't have to pay for it. Plain and simple. It's a woman's destiny, and she has control over it, and a man should have control over his own destiny as well.
Oh, and no arguments that the man should have kept it in his pants. That line of logic won't work, because a woman doesn't have to spread her legs, either. In fact, for anyone who's pro-choice to disagree with my statements here would cause them to create a double standard similar to the system they rebelled against, thereby making them hypocrites.
The problem here is that a woman has a right to shirk her responsibilities as a mother, but a father does not. He must support the child, even if he didn't want it. That is just as bad (in the eyes of a feminist logic) as forcing a woman to carry a child to term.
Women consistently state that a man will NEVER know the hardship of labor and child gestation. This is true, just as a WOMAN will NEVER know how it feels to be an indentured servant to another person for 18 years and having absolutely no choice in the matter.
This isn't Dominatrix-Land, where at the whim of a hormonally imbalanced female, a man's life and career is ruined. In fact, that's ANOTHER staple of the abortion doctrine - a man doesn't have a right to hinder, impede, or "oppress" a woman's future life and career through child bearing. NEITHER SHOULD A WOMAN.
Intelligent comments welcome.

 

[the_Baron]

OBM -

i started an abortion thread some months ago. i sat back and read the responses.

two people were killed; 4 maimed; three were called nasties; and one crazy bastard had a sex change operation.

believe me - this one gets people motivated and heated.

 

[OBleedingMe]

Good, it should get people motivated. There's a sexist law in place that needs to be amended so MEN have a choice. Just because you have a penis doesn't mean you have to take responsibility for everything a woman decides to do.
I just found thuis website. i knew there had to be other people who thought like me: www.choiceformen.com

If you aren't a sexist or a bigot, then you'll pledge your support immediately.

 

[Limeoutsider]

Isnt there an option that allows you to sign away your parental rights? Dosent that make you not obligated to pay child support?

 

[OBleedingMe]

I'm really not sure about that... I think there may be one or two states with that law, but not nearly enough. I know in NJ there isn't, and one state is one too many!

 

[WraithTickler]

3 points.

1st- I think Lime is right, though it may vary from state to state on the local law.

2nd- No matter how you look at it, woman face an unequal share of responsibility- having to protect the child, give birth to it, and probably nurse and raise it. The very act of conceiving already sets into motion physical and hormonal changes in a woman's body. I am direly opposed to abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and it's her or the child, but even still I don't know what affects that would still have on her body since the changes may have aleady started. Even in cases where you say they can opt out with an abortion, for most it is an emotionally wrenching experience and leads to turmoil later on, many often regretting their decision (yet another reason against abortion, but I'll digress). Regardless of the choice or the child, it still taks a greater toll on the mother.

3- It takes 2 and both parties are taking light of something, should essential for the creation of new life and the consequences of that new life including upbringing. The woman may or may not have a choice, but the child from conception on has no choice what so ever and will need assistance if it he or she is to survive- optimally from both parents for the greater well being of the child.

 

[maverick83]

Isnt there an option that allows you to sign away your parental rights? Dosent that make you not obligated to pay child support?

Yes, but I am fairly certain that for a father to sign away his parental rights (and responsibilities), the mother must agree to it, as well. (His signing away, that is) Not sure, though.

As for the original post (what OBM said), I agree.

 

[maverick83]

3 points.

1st- I think Lime is right, though it may vary from state to state on the local law.

2nd- No matter how you look at it, woman face an unequal share of responsibility- having to protect the child, give birth to it, and probably nurse and raise it. The very act of conceiving already sets into motion physical and hormonal changes in a woman's body. I am direly opposed to abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and it's her or the child, but even still I don't know what affects that would still have on her body since the changes may have aleady started. Even in cases where you say they can opt out with an abortion, for most it is an emotionally wrenching experience and leads to turmoil later on, many often regretting their decision (yet another reason against abortion, but I'll digress). Regardless of the choice or the child, it still taks a greater toll on the mother.

3- It takes 2 and both parties are taking light of something, should essential for the creation of new life and the consequences of that new life including upbringing. The woman may or may not have a choice, but the child from conception on has no choice what so ever and will need assistance if it he or she is to survive- optimally from both parents for the greater well being of the child.

2 - The point remains, though. They have a decision in the matter.

3 – Right, so why (in some cases) does the male face the consequences of a decision made entirely by the female?

 

[OBleedingMe]

To your last two point, WraithTickler.
Here's the crux fo the matter: A woman has a choice, a man does not. In fact, he must SUFFER for her choice, which is in some cases made by (of your own addmittance) a hormonally and mentally unstable female.
After what's happened to my friend, I'm joining up with this movement for a men's choice. I've already ordered one of their mugs and a T-shirt. I'm really moved by this, and I can't believe I didn't see this horible discrepencey sooner.
I don't Gloria Stein squawking her head off about this issue, I don't see Andrea Dwornkin writing books about a Choice For Men. The revelation of this issues just further convinces me that feminism is for the advancemnet of women, and only women.
I'm an Equalist.

 

[Mimi]

One of my arguments against abortion is the fact men have no say. I feel a man should be allowed some say in the matter if he does not want the child aborted. It's unfair that a woman has complete say in a decision that effects something that is equal parts both hers and the fathers.

That being said, however, it does take two to make a baby as well. If the father doesn't want a child, or the responsibility that comes with raising one, both emotionally and financially, he should be taking steps to prevent the chance of that happening. I know condems are widely frowned upon, because of the reduction in sensation, but if we're talking about 18 years of financial responsibility that you do not want, it may be a cheap price to pay. Do not trust a woman you don't know very well if she says "it's okay, I'm on the pill". Granted many are likely stating the truth, but not all are, and you need to take that into consideration when weighing the risks.

I am anti-abortion. But I also do not want to see millions of children being brought into this world to be raised by one or two people who never wanted them in the first place. It all comes down to taking precautions in advance, and protecting yourself from potential pitfalls. Both bad scenarios could be nearly eliminated with just one moments worth of precaution.

Mimi

 

[maverick83]

One of my arguments against abortion is the fact men have no say. I feel a man should be allowed some say in the matter if he does not want the child aborted. It's unfair that a woman has complete say in a decision that effects something that is equal parts both hers and the fathers.

True, but an argument of a similar nature could be made in favor of abortion.

EDIT: Ah, no. Nevermind. Took my mind a minute to register that for some reason. I agree that eliminating the option of abortion would grant the situation equality in that both people have no choice. Personally, I don't favor that scenario, but that much is a matter of opinion.

 

[sole seeker]

i started an abortion thread some months ago. i sat back and read the responses.

two people were killed; 4 maimed; three were called nasties; and one crazy bastard had a sex change operation.

LMAO!

 

[kis123]

Being a person that has been in a similar situation, I believe I can butt right in.

First of all, Lime is right. That is what I tried to get my oldest child's father to do. He signed away his rights when my son was a baby, then took me back to court when he was fourteen to regain his rights. So much for men not having any say. These are the some of the same men who don't pay a dime in child support (like my ex) but still have the right to be in my kid's lives. Men have more rights than you think.

Second of all, a major point is being missed and I know I'm risking hate mail and nastygrams, but it's still the truth. O Bleeding Me, you say that a man doesn't have a choice. I totally disagree. The man has a couple of options:

-Keep it in his pants and not have sex with the woman at all!
-Be just as responsible for the birth control as the woman(there's a novel concept considering AIDS and STD's are still alive and well!)
-Deal with the consequences and responsibilities of his actions like so many women including myself have been doing for years and raise the life you conceived to the best of your ability.

Sex comes with consequences and responsibilities. Everytime a person has sex, especially if not married, whatever happens they should be mature enough to be responsible for. This pregnancy represents a life, whether you like it or not. Deal with it or simply don't have sex until you can be a responsible adult. You simply can't have it both ways. But people are trying to do just that, which the abortion issue comes in. It is mostly used as a cop-out for their irresponsible behavior. I guess abortion has it's place in the world, but never for me! I'd rather live with the consequences of my actions and bring the child in the world than to spend my life emotionally suffering and wondering "what if". Everyone wants to scream about their rights, but very few step to the plate when it comes to being responsible for his/her actions.

 

[OBleedingMe]

Sure, Mimi, we could totally abolish abortion laws... then everyone would have to take responsibility. As the laws are right now, only one gender - the MALE, is forced to take responsibility for his actions. The woman can shirk her responsibilities.
Either BOTH genders have a choice in child rearing, or neither have a choice, but you can't allow one to have a choice and not the other. It's a double standard, it's sexist, and it's hypocritical.

 

[MrMacphisto]

hmmm....

This thread presents a very interesting angle on the abortion issue. Quite frankly, I'd never thought of it this way before. One simple fact remains, however.... There are tons of single mothers out there; some of them chose their fate, but in other cases, the man ditched her.

This is probably the reason why laws favor women on this issue: Consider a situation where a woman is against abortion, and therefore, wants to have the child. The man, on the other hand, doesn't want to raise the child, so he skips town. The laws covering deadbeat dads aren't exactly that binding. A man who gets a woman pregnant in any state can simply leave the state (and sometimes just leave town), and there's not a damn thing the woman can do about it. Marriage, of course, is legally binding, which is why it's far easier to obtain alimony than it is to obtain child support. As the current system works, men who pay child support are basically doing it voluntarily. All the man would have to do to keep from paying it is to leave the city and/or the state.

I'll admit that, by principle, the system seems to favor women. However, the reality of the matter is that men can easily avoid child support laws. This situation is one of the many reasons why abortion should remain legal. If abortion was flat out illegal, we'd probably have at least twice as many single mothers whose men skipped town.

One last note on the abortion thing... The irony of the Pro-Life movement is that, regardless of whether or not abortion is legal, people (and teenagers especially) will continue to have premarital sex. This is where the increase in single mothers comes into play. This is also related to how the "abstinence only" program is total bullshit. People are horny, plain and simple... Unless RU-485 becomes more affordable and marketed more publicly, abortions will remain a common practice.

 

[OBleedingMe]

To kis/MrMac:
Keep it in his pants? I believe I went over this. A women doesn't have to spread her legs, either. It takes two to tango, so don't you DARE try to place the blame solely on a man.
You are absolutely right sex comes with consequences and responsibilities. The problem is this: A woman has EVERY right to decide whether ot not she wants to accept those responsibilities. A man does not. He is forced to accept them. You CHOSE to accept those consequences, Kis. A man has NO CHOICE in the matter. When it comes to pregnancy, it's all choice for the woman and all responsibility for the man. A woman shirks her responsibilities, they call her "liberated." A man shirks his and he's a scoundral.
As far as contraception goes, I'm speaking of a situation in which contraception FAILS. It happens every day.
That's right, your father signed away his rights to you, but the only way he can do that is if YOU, the MOTHER, agree to allow him to do that. You have the option of forcing him to pay. He doesn't have the option of forcing you to have an abortion, so why should you have the option of forcing him to pay?
As for paying child support, you don't pay, you get arrested, plain and simple. It may take time, but eventually they catch up with you and bring you to court. A man I know, a trucker, forgot to mail out a child support check. They revoked his trucking license without notification while he was on the road. The next inspection station he stopped at, he was arrested and brought back to NJ.
Anyone who sits there and says it's as easy as "leaving town" to avoid child support is either ill-informed or a liar. A garnishment can be placed on your wages.
And do not minimize the affects of child support on a man. It can ruin his future, his career, and his life, just like an unplanned pregnancy can ruin a woman's future. Men have commited suicide over child support. It can be a horrible burden to bear.
A woman's body, a woman's choice. What about the labor a MAN'S body must go through for the next 18 years to generate the income to support a child he'll be allowed to see on weekends? Doesn't he have a choice too?
Again, I will reieterate - anyone who is pro-choice and only supports a movement for a WOMAN'S choice and not a man's is a misandrist and a sexist bigot.

 

[OBleedingMe]

One more thing, MrMac. EVERY single mother out there today "chose her fate." She had a CHOICE of what she wanted to do with her fetus. She didn't have to carry it to term. Therefore, she lives with her decision.
A woman has a right to have sex without consequences, therefore, so should a man. To advocate otherwise is a to advocate a double standard similar to that the pro-choicers "rebelled" against.

 

[ticklishbbw]

Ok..I have my flame resistant clothes on!

While I agree that if an unplanned pregnancy happens, the man can have less of a say in how it's handled, than a woman, I don't think that is necessarily unfair. It is the woman who is carrying the child, I don't find it much to ask that she gets a little more say in the matter!

With that said, I'll echo what some others mentioned in posts above. Sex has consequences, like anything else. Yes, there are accidents, faulty birth control for example, but, if you have sex with someone you have to be prepared for the consequences. If you're not, then you shouldn't be having sex. This goes for men or women. If a man is absolutely, positively opposed to having kids, don't have sex, or have a vasectomy. If a woman has no desire for children, she has similar options.

With everything we do, we have to be prepared for the consequences. I can give a personal example. Until recently, if I had become pregnant, it would have been a danger to my life (and a danger to the child). This didn't prevent me from having sex, but each time I did, I was accepting the consequences. No birth control is 100% effective. If I became pregant, I would have had to make a tough decision, have an abortion (and yes, I'm pro-choice--but still a difficult decision), or risk my life, and the life and health of a potential child. Those were the potential consequences I accepted.

Nothing we do is without risk or impact. You have to make a decision and be prepared for all possible outcomes. It's called being responsible for your actions.

 

[kis123]

hmmm....

One last note on the abortion thing... The irony of the Pro-Life movement is that, regardless of whether or not abortion is legal, people (and teenagers especially) will continue to have premarital sex. This is where the increase in single mothers comes into play. This is also related to how the "abstinence only" program is total bullshit. People are horny, plain and simple... Unless RU-485 becomes more affordable and marketed more publicly, abortions will remain a common practice.

We were in total agreement until this last paragraph. There is such a thing as being responsible for one's actions. Sex is not for children, it's for adults, preferrably married ones. If you want to do what adults do, then you deal with the adult consequences/responsibilities.

Birth control is as available as chewing gum in this society. Even though my 99.9% birth control method failed on me resulting in the birth of my oldest child, that was nineteen years ago. I'm sure there are many other methods out there that work. Most teenagers today have a mindset similar to what my grandmother used to say:
"people don't believe lard is greasy!"

What that means is, people don't believe that it will ever happen to them. When it does, they're totally unprepared. It is less likely to occur when one prepares in advance. If a person can't manage to keep their legs closed and their pants zipped until they get married or become an adult, at least go to the doctor and figure out birth control options.

RU 485 is an abortion pill. I wish they'd pull it off the market. It's bad enough that abortion exists as it is, let alone the potential for take a pill and do it yourself at home. This is not HOME DEPOT! This involves two human lives, the life of the unborn and the live of the pregnant girl or woman. This is a disaster waiting to happen! That can be even more dangerous than the abortion clinic.

P. S. the abstinence only program is not BS! More people, including myself and my own children are practicing abstinence until marriage. This way, you don't have to worry about pregnancy, disease, and the heartbreak that come with sex outside of marriage. And you certainly don't have to worry about abortion. I'd rather raise the child myself than my kids aborting my grandchildren! I hope we all make it through because it isn't easy by a long shot, especially if you've had sex before. If for some reason my kids don't think they can't contain themselves until they get married, we have the type of relationship where they trust me enough to tell me, henceforth birth control and safer sex. This society is sex crazed (including me...it ain't easy saying no to myself!) but not as much as you think.

 

[maverick83]

Re: ticklishbbw

1)Again, she chooses whether or not to carry the child.

2)Re: Consequences
But the issue presented here is an inequality in one's options for said preparation, based on gender. A woman can choose to have an abortion and not have to deal with the child. If she chooses not to, the man involved is automatically forced to support the child.

 

[OBleedingMe]

To ticklishbow:
Yes, sex has consquences for both genders, but a woman, as I have said time and time again in this thread, HAS A CHOICE TO ESCAPE THOSE CONSEQUENCES, A MAN DOES NOT. THERE IS NO CHOICE FOR THE MAN. Sheesh. I don't know what's so tough about this.
If a man does not want the child, he does not have luxury of CHOOSING whether or not he wants to pay.

With that said, I'll echo what some others mentioned in posts above. Sex has consequences, like anything else. Yes, there are accidents, faulty birth control for example, but, if you have sex with someone you have to be prepared for the consequences. If you're not, then you shouldn't be having sex. This goes for men or women. If a man is absolutely, positively opposed to having kids, don't have sex, or have a vasectomy. If a woman has no desire for children, she has similar options.

"Similar options?" Would you like to compare those options, ticklishbow?

Options for a pregnant female:
- Abortion.
- Adoption.
- Legal Abandonment in some states with NO forced child support.
- Keep the child and get financial support from the responsibile male.

Options for a male:
- Pay for the child. That's it. Nothing else.


The man DOES NOT have the same options, or even "similar options." In fact, he has NO options. He is at the complete mercy of the whims of a horomonally imbalanced (during pregnancy) female. I'm not saying a man should have control over a woman's body, what I'm saying is that her CHOICES shouldn't affect the man. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, that's perfectly fine. Just don't expect him to be your indentured servant because YOU think it's time for HIM to be a father.

 

[ticklishbbw]

You didn't read my post very carefully. I agreed that a woman has slightly more choice than a man.

However, a man has a choice whether to have sex or not. If he chooses to have it, then he has to be prepared for the outcome. If he's not prepared for all potential consequences, than he has other choices to make. He also has the choice to only have sex with partners that will (most likely--meaning no casual anonymous sex) include him in the decision process.

tbbw

 

[kis123]

One more thing, MrMac. EVERY single mother out there today "chose her fate." She had a CHOICE of what she wanted to do with her fetus. She didn't have to carry it to term. Therefore, she lives with her decision.
A woman has a right to have sex without consequences, therefore, so should a man. To advocate otherwise is a to advocate a double standard similar to that the pro-choicers "rebelled" against.

I am desparately trying to understand your point of view, but I don't. Since I can assume the women in question didn't impregnate themselves, a man was involved. Where does anyone get the idea they have the right to decide whether or not to have a child AFTER THE CHILD HAS BEEN CONCEIVED???? This is like closing the barn door after the horse got out.

There is no such thing as sex without consequences!! Anytime a person gets into bed and has sex, there are always risks and consequences. In today's society, pregnancy should be the least of concerns. That's the easy part. Be responsible with birth control or don't have sex. See how simple that issue was? How about the other issues like disease, and emotional upheaval with every broken relationship. Why is it okay to have all the fun you want, but when it's time to be responsible, someone gets to run? And that goes for single and married parents alike.

Men have been running away from their responsiblities since the beginning of time. My father did it to my family, and my son's father did it to him. The man had the audacity to be upset when he found out that my kid calls my ex-husband "Daddy". But my ex didn't run away from his children. He doesn't pay a dime in child support, which is why I packed my daughter's bags and let her live with him. He supports her now, doesn't he?

My son's father had the option to be a father to his child, but he chose to run. I didn't get the chance to run and I suffered and struggled many years. But I have raised a young man who after many trials does me proud to be his mom. If I would have aborted him because he had a deadbeat dad who enjoyed the sex but ran from the responsibility, I never would've had the opportunity to know such a fine young man. You're absolutely right, I had a choice. I chose to be responsible when the man chose to go out and find himself. I chose to bring that fetus, that form of life to full term and raise my kid by myself until I married. I am a woman who had sex and consequences, and I'm in a cast of thousands. So please help me figure out what you're talking about.

 

[OBleedingMe]

To ticklishbbw:

You didn't read my post very carefully. I agreed that a woman has slightly more choice than a man.

All right. You explain to me how she has "slightly more of a choice" than a man. THERE IS NO SLIGHT. She can shirk her responsibilities. A man cannot. That is huge difference. HUGE. A man's life is ruined, while a woman can CHOOSE whether or not to accpet her responsibilities. In fact, she CHOOSES for the man. SHE chooses HIS destiny. This is not Dominatrix-Land. No human being should force them to accept parenthood, regardless of gender.

However, a man has a choice whether to have sex or not. If he chooses to have it, then he has to be prepared for the outcome. If he's not prepared for all potential consequences, than he has other choices to make. He also has the choice to only have sex with partners that will (most likely--meaning no casual anonymous sex) include him in the decision process.

So does a woman. She doesn't have to have sex. But she can, BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES. So what if she gets pregnant? She can have it aborted before it has any affects on her body. What choice does a man have if she decides to have the child? Go to jail? He has no choice. He MUST assume his responsibilities of a father. A woman, on the other hand, has a CHOICE as to whether she wants to accept motherhood. You, as a woman, DO NOT have a right to force me, a man, into fatherhood. If you want the child so badly, then you pay for it. It's YOUR body... and it's MY money.
A woman can have sex without consequences. A man should enjoy the same right that a women has since Roe VS Wade. End of story.

 

[kis123]

Re: Re: ticklishbbw

1)Again, she chooses whether or not to carry the child.

2)Re: Consequences
But the issue presented here is an inequality in one's options for said preparation, based on gender. A woman can choose to have an abortion and not have to deal with the child. If she chooses not to, the man involved is automatically forced to support the child.

A man I dated years ago put it to me real simple:

"When you lay, you pay!!!"

That came from a man who knew what he was talking about considering he died from AIDS at the age of 29. But he was right then, and he's still right in lieu of his death.

When you get in that bed, you're saying yes! Yes to pregnancy, yes to disease, yes to any emotional consequence resulting from breaking up. Everyone wants to do as they please but when it's time to be responsible, everyone screams foul! If a person can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of sexual activity, I suggest you get out of the bed until you do want to deal with it. It's called growing up, being an adult, and accepting responsibility for your actions.

If you put life on this earth, you should pay the child support, plain and simple. The man should've thought about that before he was between her legs, not after the fact. But as it has been mentioned in previous posts, men have the option to not pay the support. And many do just that, too.