Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

sangha said:

No, both mothers and fathers support the children they have. Choice has nothing to do with it

Click to expand...

Except for all the choices the mother gets to make before she becomes a mother.

Removable Mind said:

I will say that while a lot of men grip like hell about this issue. Nobody has offered or has shown any type of language that could be used to implement some legislation to deal with the inequity you believe isn't right...and that you've pointed out...and are so unhappy with. Let me repeat it:

Click to expand...

I've already done this, even if I haven't gone so far as to write the exact legislation. It's bone simple: children do not have parents until their parents have signed their birth certificates. A woman chooses to bear a child, and chooses whether or not to keep the child-- as she does now-- and then she chooses a man to whom she will offer the child. That man, upon review, chooses whether or not he will accept the child. When this is done, both parents sign the birth certificate, the child is named, and they are both parents with full and equal responsibilities. If the chosen man will not sign, the mother has the right to choose a different man, raise the child alone, or give the child up for adoption.

It's really that simple. People choose whether or not to have children. People who do not choose to have children are not forced to be parents. People who do choose to become parents are more likely to raise their children responsibly.

Removable Mind said:

Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.

Click to expand...

Again, except for the one they already give multiple opportunities to opt-out. Really, this has nothing to do with holding people accountable for the children they produce, and everything to do with saving money on welfare payments.

Excon said:

What is stupid is you continually saying something that isAnd when asked to provide proof of your assertion you fail to do so.


If it were true you could show it.
You fail because you can't, because it isn't true.

If you want to believe that for yourself go straight on ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it isn't true.


If it were a true statement it would be so for all parties involved, but it just isn't.

Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child.

So, when two men have sex, is that consent to a child? Of course not.
When two women have sex, is that consent to a child? Of course not.

But to you, when a man and a woman have sex, the man is the only one consenting to have children by it. That is an absurd position.
She later consents or doesn't, when she finds out she is pregnant. Not at the time of sex.
You do understand the "or doesn't" part, right?


Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. Period.

Click to expand...

I note your total lack of evidence while expecting evidence from me.

That's why I don't put much effort into responding. Maybe practice what you preach?

Removable Mind said:

Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.

Click to expand...

And thus consent to sex is consent to have a child.

Jerry said:

I note your total lack of evidence while expecting evidence from me.

That's why I don't put much effort into responding. Maybe practice what you preach?

Click to expand...

You seem to be confused.
It doesn't work that way.

In general.
If something exists, evidence for it's existence can be shown.
If it doesn't, none can be provided.
Nor can evidence be provided to show something does not exist, which does not exist.

Therefore; Consent to have sex, is not consent to have a child.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Except for all the choices the mother gets to make before she becomes a mother.



I've already done this, even if I haven't gone so far as to write the exact legislation. It's bone simple: children do not have parents until their parents have signed their birth certificates. A woman chooses to bear a child, and chooses whether or not to keep the child-- as she does now-- and then she chooses a man to whom she will offer the child. That man, upon review, chooses whether or not he will accept the child. When this is done, both parents sign the birth certificate, the child is named, and they are both parents with full and equal responsibilities. If the chosen man will not sign, the mother has the right to choose a different man, raise the child alone, or give the child up for adoption.

It's really that simple. People choose whether or not to have children. People who do not choose to have children are not forced to be parents. People who do choose to become parents are more likely to raise their children responsibly.



Again, except for the one they already give multiple opportunities to opt-out. Really, this has nothing to do with holding people accountable for the children they produce, and everything to do with saving money on welfare payments.

Click to expand...

To save money on welfare?

Children do not have parents until their names are on a birth certificate? Good...thats great. Then make them all wards of the state...and that's only like 3000 a month for foster care.

Removable Mind said:

Purely magical thinking and very inaccurate...carry on. It's entertaining. Nothing but conjecture...and a wish list.

Click to expand...

Yes, we have seen your magical thinking.
Your posts are every entertaining, as well as wrong.

This thread, as well as the opinions expressed in it, shows the way thoughts about this are changing.
Your failure to recognize that is your downfall.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Except for all the choices the mother gets to make before she becomes a mother.



I've already done this, even if I haven't gone so far as to write the exact legislation. It's bone simple: children do not have parents until their parents have signed their birth certificates. A woman chooses to bear a child, and chooses whether or not to keep the child-- as she does now-- and then she chooses a man to whom she will offer the child. That man, upon review, chooses whether or not he will accept the child. When this is done, both parents sign the birth certificate, the child is named, and they are both parents with full and equal responsibilities. If the chosen man will not sign, the mother has the right to choose a different man, raise the child alone, or give the child up for adoption.

It's really that simple. People choose whether or not to have children. People who do not choose to have children are not forced to be parents. People who do choose to become parents are more likely to raise their children responsibly.



Again, except for the one they already give multiple opportunities to opt-out. Really, this has nothing to do with holding people accountable for the children they produce, and everything to do with saving money on welfare payments.

Click to expand...

I do not accept at all that it has only to do with welfare payments. It is kinda scary that you think being personally responsible for the children you produce is so trivial.

But I will bite anyway. Why in the hell should the state (read taxpayers) pay for the children of the women that you knock up if you have the ability to share some financial responsibility.

Excon said:

Yes, we have seen your magical thinking.
Your posts are every entertaining, as well as wrong.

This thread, as well as the opinions expressed in it, shows the way thoughts about this are changing.
Your failure to recognize that is your downfall.

Click to expand...

Prove me wrong...

Removable Mind said:

Prove me wrong...

Click to expand...

Oy Vey! :doh

It was already pointed out to you that the opinions expressed in this thread alone shows how opinions are changing.
What about that do you not understand?

Excon said:

Oy Vey! :doh

It was already pointed out to you that the opinions expressed in this thread alone shows how opinions are changing.
What about that do you not understand?

Click to expand...

I simply pointed out to you the legal realities. And it wasn't from guessing...nor was it opinion. Oh...apparently I understand more than most about this issue. And there's reason for such...which I'm not going to broadcast in a Internet forum.

thanks...for your kind responses...

Korimyr the Rat said:

Except for all the choices the mother gets to make before she becomes a mother.

Click to expand...

Choices have nothing to do with the matter under the law. People aren't absolved of the auto accidents they're involved in because they didn't choose to get in an accident.

ChrisL said:

An unborn child is not an injury or a disease but a natural occurrence when you have sex.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why anyone argues that something being "natural" adds any merit to it in any way.

I don't necessarily mean you, but some prolifers think that urging animalistic morality and standards makes their case. If you have something I want, natural law says I just take it if I want it and can get away with it. "Natural" law allows theft, murder, rape. Marriage is not "natural law" nor is monogamy. Getting the flu is a natural occurrence if you kiss someone.

The legal and ethical reason why the bio-parents including the bio-father are economically required to provide for the child(ren) he and they make is because SOMEONE has do pay. Thus, who has to pay is who made it happen.

Removable Mind said:

To save money on welfare?

Children do not have parents until their names are on a birth certificate? Good...thats great. Then make them all wards of the state...and that's only like 3000 a month for foster care.

Click to expand...

And it's more than that too. It takes more than money to raise a child. I believe the obligation - like it or not - goes well beyond money to the entire "parenting" set of duties.

sangha said:

Choices have nothing to do with the matter under the law. People aren't absolved of the auto accidents they're involved in because they didn't choose to get in an accident.

Click to expand...

That's true...and I'll tell you what else is true.

The reason why legislators won't ever exempt either parent or both parents from legal and financial responsibilities is that if a conception, which is brought to birth for any reason: The government created laws, which serves to protect a child because the child cannot provide for itself any of the hierarchy of needs (food, housing, medical care, etc). A child has no voice in political or legal arenas, which would allow a child to advocate for its own existence or needs or assistance.

And some people in this forum who scream out about "Constitutional Rights"...have somehow forgotten than once a child is born...KABOOM...it has Constitutional Rights which is government's duty to protect.

In addition, if either or both parents fail to meet the hierarchy of needs of a child. The state government (sometimes federal) will intervene.

In the case of both parents failing to meet a child's needs (including legally pronounced unfit). The state will take conservatorship of the child. The state will enforce its right to hold the parents financially accountable (in part of whole). The state will pursue child support from these parents in order to offset the expense to the state, which is also an expense to the taxpayers.

In the case of one parent failing to provide their legal obligation according to the respective state statutes, the state will pursue whatever legal means available to collect any possible or portion of monies that went to the child in the form of State or Federal Assistance. This can apply to a mother or father.

An opt-out law would remove one of the co-creators of the child from any legal or financial responsibility...and that isn't in the interest of the child, first and foremost,...nor the state. And when I say "State" I am also saying taxpayers.

Courts are used to settle disputes in relationships of all kinds. There are so many different types of relationships...I can't name them all.

However, the most common types of disputes are settled in family court. If co-creator (parent) was legally able to opt out of any responsibility for a child. That would render both the state powerless...and the guardian of a child, whether that be a parent or state conservator...to legally intervene ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD in order to protect its interest, which would normally implicate a parent (MEN) who would OPT OUT of responsibility....because life is unfair...

As a last resort...will a court terminate a parent's rights... for the very same reasons there will never be legislation to allow a MAN to OPT out of responsibility. It is simply not in the best interest of a child...the state...and taxpayers.

Oh, and even when parents are rendered unfit by a court...that does not terminate their rights...or the states rights to hold them legally and financially responsible.

Two people make a baby...two people will be held legally and financially responsible. Be prepared to pay the piper...

Thanks, Sangha...

year2late said:

But I will bite anyway. Why in the hell should the state (read taxpayers) pay for the children of the women that you knock up if you have the ability to share some financial responsibility.

Click to expand...

Why in the hell should anybody have to pay for decisions that someone else made? Answer that question. When a woman gets pregnant, she has all of the options-- as it should be-- but why then are other people responsible for her choices? A man does not have a say in whether or nor not she bears the child. (As it should be.) A man does not have a say in whether or not she keeps the child. (As it should be.) So after she has chosen to bear the child, and she has chosen to keep the child, both without any input or authority on his part... why then, and only then, is he suddenly "equally responsible"?

You deflect with parodies of pro-life misogynistic arguments, but nobody is willing to answer that simple question.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Why in the hell should anybody have to pay for decisions that someone else made? Answer that question. When a woman gets pregnant, she has all of the options-- as it should be-- but why then are other people responsible for her choices? A man does not have a say in whether or nor not she bears the child. (As it should be.) A man does not have a say in whether or not she keeps the child. (As it should be.) So after she has chosen to bear the child, and she has chosen to keep the child, both without any input or authority on his part... why then, and only then, is he suddenly "equally responsible"?

You deflect with parodies of pro-life misogynistic arguments, but nobody is willing to answer that simple question.

Click to expand...

I answered the question in post right above your post...minie is something like 1215. You just don't like the answer. And I doubt you'll get a better one.

And I can say the same to you. I've asked you how such an arrangement would be legally worded in order for a man to opt out.

You...like so many others want to ignore that a 3rd party has been created...which can't provide for itself..and no man...all things aren't equal for women in so many ways...but tough **** for her..because they choose to keep the bastard.

You've already said bunches of times..."the kid isn't important". He or she is just a victim of poor choices of the two people who created it....tough **** for the kid. How do you think the welfare state has gotten so crazy? You hate the welfare state, but you can't see the implications of one parent saying...I'm not doing this so **** you and **** the kid.

You tell us all what an EQUAL OR TRULY EQUITABLE solution looks like. But I will tell you that whatever it is...can't compromise the best interest of the kid. Sorry, Vik...but it's not a fair situation. Life ain't fair.

I still can't get over the argument that...hey a man and a woman ****...and a conception happens accidentally...and damn...the guy doesn't want it...so he tells the chick, if you want the kid...you're on your own...I'm out of here pal.

That's when the state will intervene...for the best interest of the kid.

You only see a punitive solution. You want to punish the woman for the CHOICE of having a kid (which he helped create)...and punish the kid by denying it SHARED support it would have gotten from BOTH parents.

Is it all fair? NOOOOOOOOOOO....when it comes to JUST THE MAN'S INTERESTS. And when he opts out...then it's not fair to the kid.

Everybody get tubes tied and vasectomies at birth...that's the solution. Or...it might be a hell of alot cheaper for a man to get fornication insurance...for those unhappy moments (if that type of insurance could be underwritten.) Why not...it would work and be a lot cheaper in the long run for man.

But now your gonna cry.,..but why does the man have to pay for the insurance. NO INSURANCE....NO NOOKIE! That's a choice...

Removable Mind said:

I simply pointed out to you the legal realities. And it wasn't from guessing...nor was it opinion. Oh...apparently I understand more than most about this issue. And there's reason for such...which I'm not going to broadcast in a Internet forum.

thanks...for your kind responses...

Click to expand...

You have pointed out nothing that isn't already known. So apparently you do not understand or know more about this issue.
But you do fail to acknowledged that things change. The change in opinion can be seen in this thread. Clearly showing you are unable to anticipate the future or what it holds.



You saying "legislators won't ever" is ridiculous. You have no idea what they will or wont do. They could very well determine that this would be in the best interest of the state and the child.
Constitutional protection to a born child can take other forms than those that exist now.
It doesn't mater about any third party considerations as they can go away as easily as they were created.

The responsibility truly belongs to the person who decided to bring a child into this world.
Just as it should be if a woman used a sperm donor.


And with the thought of an over populated earth for the resources, it is more likely than not that something akin will be implemented prior to full out and out forced abortions. Because as we know, the Constitution will have to protect those alive, not the unborn.

So can your horse**** arguing the way it is. We know the way it is. This is about the way it can be and most likely will be.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Why in the hell should anybody have to pay for decisions that someone else made? Answer that question. When a woman gets pregnant, she has all of the options-- as it should be-- but why then are other people responsible for her choices? A man does not have a say in whether or nor not she bears the child. (As it should be.) A man does not have a say in whether or not she keeps the child. (As it should be.) So after she has chosen to bear the child, and she has chosen to keep the child, both without any input or authority on his part... why then, and only then, is he suddenly "equally responsible"?

You deflect with parodies of pro-life misogynistic arguments, but nobody is willing to answer that simple question.

Click to expand...

I have answered repeatedly. You are under the assumption that all things should be fair and equal. With the case of men and women - they anatomically and physiologically are not equal. When you speak to fair and equal there can be no "fair" or equal. You have a false premise. Bottom line is that you are asking to have a man have control in what happens to a woman's body.

Now, you make like there is no choice.

Make the choice to have a vasectomy.

Make a choice to wear condoms even if the woman is using contraception (hell, planned parenthood will tell you that)

Only have sex with women you would like to have a family with

Have sex with post menopausal women.

keep you pants on and zipped up

You have a lot of choices. But you have no control over a woman's body. Accept the consequences of your actions.

And please stop asking for fair and equal in an anatomical and physiological situation where things cannot be equal.

joko104 said:

The legal and ethical reason why the bio-parents including the bio-father are economically required to provide for the child(ren) he and they make is because SOMEONE has do pay. Thus, who has to pay is who made it happen.

Click to expand...

And both men and women pay once the baby is born.

year2late said:

I have answered repeatedly. You are under the assumption that all things should be fair and equal. With the case of men and women - they anatomically and physiologically are not equal. When you speak to fair and equal there can be no "fair" or equal. You have a false premise. Bottom line is that you are asking to have a man have control in what happens to a woman's body.

Click to expand...

Explain to us how the rights of anatomy (which end at birth, by the way) give someone a right to not just themselves, but also to OTHER people.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Explain to us how the rights of anatomy (which end at birth, by the way) give someone a right to not just themselves, but also to OTHER people.

Click to expand...

I have the right to control my body. A man cannot control what happens to my body. What is so difficult about that?

If a man does not want to be a father and pay child support - he needs to get a vasectomy or wear a high quality condom properly each and every time. And of course know that if those methods fail, he is still on the hook (although if the vasectomy was botched, he might be able to sue, I guess)

year2late said:

Bottom line is that you are asking to have a man have control in what happens to a woman's body.

Click to expand...

No, I am not. Bottom line, I am asking that women have control over their own bodies, and only their own bodies, while men have the same authority, only over their own lives. You are the one fighting for a system that gives one person undue control over another person's life.

If you want to protect the fairness and justice in your own life, you shouldn't oppose fairness and justice in others' lives.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Explain to us how the rights of anatomy (which end at birth, by the way) give someone a right to not just themselves, but also to OTHER people.

Click to expand...

People have the right to control what happens to their own body (men and women)

After the baby is born, a man still does not have control over a woman's body, but then an infant needs to be supported by both parents.

year2late said:

People have the right to control what happens to their own body (men and women)

After the baby is born, a man still does not have control over a woman's body, but then an infant needs to be supported by both parents.

Click to expand...

Thus placing a man's life under the sole authority of a woman's decisions. You want the freedom to do what you want with your own life-- which, as I've stated repeatedly, you are entitled to-- but you also want the security of the State forcing others to support your decisions.