It really cannot be stated better than how Gilda posted, several times. And requiring a wife's consent for a vasectomy is fucked up.

It isn't a gender inequity under the law it's a biological physical difference between being male and being female. There's no law that says a man can't have an abortion, it's just physically impossible given that he can't get pregnant.

No. You cannot switch genders in this case because the woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't. Switching genders ignores reality.

And here is where this argument really breaks down completely. A man who aborts his parental responsibilites preemptively has in effect relieved himself of any consequences. This is not possible for the woman because reproduction is fundamentally different for the sexes. Barring a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage, a pregnant woman will have consequences that result from her being pregnant. Abortion is a negative consequence, having to undergo a surgical procedure, albeit a relatively safe one, is a negative consequence. Having to raise a child with no support from the father or give it up for adoption is a negative consequence. Once the pregnancy begins, there is no path that relieves the woman of all consequences.

An inequality based on the reality of biology. See my first response.

No, this would have to be resolved by recognizing the reality that women get pregnant and men don't.

Gilda

Well, sort of. She doesn't have 100% of the responsibility herself, though. If I put it there, then I share that responsibility. Whether she feels that way or not. She can't take it from me. I own it, this responsibility.

Disagree. It's our child, not hers, and any decision making needs to work within that understanding. We agreed together to have it, we went ahead and did it, and now it is happening and it is both of ours. She shouldn't get to take any more ownership than me at this point. She is the one carrying the child because, well, that's just how nature works. That in no way should give her the right to decide on an abortion after we've gotten to this point.

Of course there is no male equivilent to pregnancy. But both the man and woman know this already. Her being the one that carries the child should give her just as much responsibility to the man that gave it to her as to the child.

And neither can a woman, short of being raped.

I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.

Of course there will be cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother. I think that should pretty much sum up the types of abortions that should be allowed.

Or give a freebie, just for the sake of argument, to first-timers. Hey, mistakes happen. But if they don't learn from that one, well, then too bad.

I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.

Having said that, I'm not totally against the idea of abortions, I just think the majority of them are BS. And, going hand in hand with that, I think that a woman taking advantage of a pregnancy by claiming "It's inside me so I can do what I want with it," is just about the most irresponsible thing one can do.

This circular responsibility argument is something I have never understood. It's like saying you shouldn't speed because you'll get a ticket, and you get a ticket because you shouldn't speed. Abortion is the way to get out of the ticket, and so people argue that it is irresponsible because you're not facing the music for speeding/having sex. It may be a statement of fact that speeding is unwise because you could get a ticket, and it may also be true that the reason for tickets is to stop speeding, but it doesn't explain the real reason why they exist.

The reason speeding is illegal is because of the danger to the society (direct and indirect). Tickets are the way to enforce this status. But it isn't illegal because you'll get a ticket.

To ban abortion under the responsibility argument, you are mandating that there is a certain consequence (having to raise a kid) for having sex. Well why are you attaching this consequence. There must necessarily be something else about sex that is bad and therefore warrants assigning consequences.

It may be considered irresponsible to rock climb without all the right gear and training. Do we deny medical care to someone stupid enough to try it without said gear when they fall off a rock? To use the responsibility argument, we should deny that care (regardless of the individual's ability to pay for it) because otherwise we are creating an incentive to be irresponsible, right?

More specifically, to use the responsibility argument as it is used against abortion, we should deny medical treatment to anyone who contracts VD, as it as well is a consequence of 'irresponsible sex'. We certainly should not be spending resources developing treatments for these people should we? Afterall, if you aren't scared of an STD, wouldn't that make it more likely you'd commit an act of 'irresponsible sex'? Actually, this tactic is being followed by some more fanatical anti-sex groups.

you're arguing something that isn't really being discussed. how often do you really think a woman purposely aborts a planned pregnancy? i'd bet that it's near zero (not including health reasons). people don't abort planned pregnancies. they abort accidental ones. and if it's an agreement to have it, then it wasn't an accident.

a woman can have preganancy forced on her when an accident happens and she can't get an abortion (either abortions is illegal, she can't afford one, ca't afford to get there, is intimidated from getting one, etc).

if you think abortions from people being irresponsible is ridiculous, do you really think that those people are gonna be responsible enough to raise a child?

it sounds like you'd rather have a new larger generation of serfs then people raising children in good homes with hope for a good future. and when you consider how many people who had kids as teenagers end up having children who give birth as teens, i think your reasoning that they'd eventually learn better is misguided at best.

and why do you think that? it seems to me that it is in her and therefore she can do what she wants. if she had a tumor, would it be her choice about whether or not to get treatment? how is anything that involves her body, her health, her well-being not going to fall under the catergory of "things that she gets to decide how to handle?"

I can't answer your points because you're arguing a different point based on a different premise.

I wasn't arguing abortion rights, those are a fact of current law, and are used as a given for the current discussion.

The premise and question under debate is this: An unplanned preganancy has occurred. The woman wants the baby, the man doesn't. Given that the woman has the choice of abortion, should the man be permitted to opt out of any responsibility for the child during the pregnancy?

Your argument is based on the opposite premise, that the pregnancy was planned and the man wants the baby, and the woman might not (I'm not clear on that). Given that premise, the whole question becomes moot.

Also, in your eagerness to refute my individual points, you may have missed that we came to the same conclusion: the man should take responsibility for the child he fathered. I'm certainly not going to argue the point I've been making all along.

Gilda

Right, your argument is the woman has the right to choose because she's a woman, the man has no choice because he's a man.

Makes as much sense as whites can use the good fountain because they're white.

no. the argument is that because she's a woman, and she has to put up with morning sickness, with getting fat (and all of the financial costs associated like clothes, food, etc), possible high blood caused by the pregnancy, not being able to drink or smoke (if she wanted to). because her body is being hijacked (if it's an unwanted pregnancy) by a clump of cells. because her health and well-being may be compromised. because until she gives birth, the pregnancy affects only her.

the man doesn't have the right to choose because he doesn't own the woman, he can't tell her what she should do with her body. he can't tell her not to drink or smoke. he can't tell her to give up nine months of her life because of what he wants.

no, that's not the same as whites can only use the fountain because they're white.

No, that is not my argument.

Gilda

And my point is that it is absurd to allow a woman to cancel a (planned) pregnancy without the man's consent. Which is why I replied to your statement that seemed to say as much. The bigger picture and all, you know.

Well, I felt like discussing it. Lots of things are being discussed here.

Not in this crybaby, woe-is-me society. Why take responsibility for your actions when someone else will do it for you?

Look, an abortion is not a speeding ticket. And neither is VD (someone compared them earlier). When you put your penis in someone (or let someone put it in you), then you are opening that door. So do it right or don't do it.

Getting in a car does not cause speeding. Putting your penis in someone does cause pregnancy.

Just sayin'.

Regarding the specific topic of the thread, the OP, this guy should have no say in anything unless it is in support of the child and mother. If he doesn't want to be a father then he shouldn't have become one. There shouldn't be such easy outs for people for something of this magnitude.

Correct, but the law provides women a course of action to escape all the legal responsibilities of motherhood. There is no law that provides such a course of action for a man.

I understand that no matter what, there are going to be consequences for a woman once she gets pregnant. I also understand that providing this option for men relieves them of any consequences of pregnancy. But this would be an inequality based on biology, not the law. And the law states there cannot be an inequality between genders because of the law.

i have been reading through this thread from time to time, wondering if there would come a post that would enable me to see the real issue that is being debated--it is pretty clear---it follows the sad logic of the bakke decision and is effectively another curious conservative argument against abortion as a matter of law disguised as an argument about "fairness"....it seems to me that the claim is a straw man--nothing at all precludes discussions between partners prior to a decision being taken to have or not have the procedure....nothing precludes men from having an important role at every step--nothing at all. the only issue seems to be whether it is possible for a conflict situation to extend itself into lawsuits that would enable a man to prevent a woman who is carrying a baby that is also his from having the procedure if she wnats it and he does not.

if that were possible, i would expect slap suits from anti-choice groups being filed against every woman who would choose to have the procedure. this would operate under the figleaf of "protecting male reproductive rights"---if you filed enough suits, getting the procedure would effecitvely become impossible--because, presumably, a court would have to prevent the woman involved from proceeding until the merits--or lack thereof--of each suit was determined. in that scenario, worthless suits would be functional becuase they would delay delay delay.

the issue itself seems to me to be a fraud.

There have been several men's rights groups spokepersons on the news shows recently. From what I have seen they are asking for the ability of men to opt out of support responsibility if the woman choses to not abort and the man does not want to become a parent. I don't think they are asking for the right to force the woman to not have an abortion if she decides that she does not want to be a parent and he does. It seems like it is all about the money as far as they are concerned.

fistf: interesting. this is what happens when you dont watch tv, i guess. do you remember the names/acronyms of any of these "men's rights" groups? i am interested in checking them out.


btw this moves in quite different direction from much of the debate in the thread, but is interesting nonetheless.

The surface absurdity of this argument only helps magnify the absurdity of the pro-choice position on the unborn.

If the unborn has no inherent rights or value prior to whatever arbitrary date one assigns such rights and value, then it is not unfair for a man to think he has the right to 'op-out' of a pregnancy. While the woman may claim its her body and she has the right to do whatever she wants for it, for a majority of men child support will take the fruits of his labor to provide, and it is his body which must be used to provide such support. His body, and in many jobs his life, is at risk for providing for this child.

The semantics games played by the pro-abortion forces is what allows this argument to be made. The thought of forcing a woman to have an abortion, or even letting men 'op-out' seems absurd to anyone with a sense of self responsibility or even a shred of decency.

I have no sympathy for such men who would feel this sort of op out is a right of theirs. I have far more sympathy for men who wish to raise the child who have no say in its abortion.

below i alter a quote from ustwo to suit the entire "male reproductive rights" argument against abortion because the logic works just as well that way-better even:

but anyone can play this game.
it's called detournement.
it doesn't get anywhere.
maybe that is so easy will function to exclude this entire register of argument from debate.

Torestate what I gleen is the primary argument against "male reproductive rights" :
pregnancy is an inherently unequal proposition, from a gender/biological sex standpoint, and this fact is well known beforehand. A woman will carry the fetus to term, the man will not, and thus it is only natural that it is a woman's choice, ultimately, as to the treatment of the developing fetus with respect to the abortion decision.

It seems to me that this could be used as an argument to indicate that the woman, by virtue of this knowledge of the fact that she will be encumbered with the pregnancy, has a larger responsibility not to engage in casual sexual contact that might lead to pregnancy. Therefore, should consensual sexual contact with a man's filthy penis lead to pregnancy, she not only has 100% of the right to make the decision about abortion, but also 100% of the responsbility for any child she might choose to conceive.

Personally, I can not imagine abandoning a child I helped to conceive simply because I might find it inconvenient to my lifestyle. While I theoretically believe that it is not fair towards men, nor do I buy the argument that pregnancy is 100% a feminine phenomena (men do, on seldom occasion, have emotions involving their potential offspring. The emotional / psychological aspects of impending parenthood can't be thrown out of the case entirely, in my opinion.) - I don't see any way to practically make the abortion decision more equitable at this time.

What if a guy got a girl pregnant, knew that she was pregnant the next morning, and wanted her to take the morning after pill? If she refused, could she (or maybe theoretically should she) be more accountable for the child? If a fetus could be removed painlessly and incubated on the laboratory bench, should the male have the right to ask for such a procedure instead of the female having an abortion?

The practical aspects of this topic make me feel icky, because the losers in the scenarios where the men and women involved can't come to consensus are always the kids.

I guess if you're a right to life male, you'd better be damn sure the girl you're with is too.

I agree %100 that with our laws the way they are a man should get an equal choice in the matter. The unborn child is a bundle of cells, non-living and easilly disposed of. The woman can have the abortion and simply find another partner who wants a child.

Obiviously there are tons of problems with this, and just goes to show how ass backward our laws on abortion are in the first place.

"Great, we'd have a nation full of deadbeat dad who don't want to pay child support"

Interesting fact. THere are FAR more women who default on child support payments in the US then men.

All I can say is let's get that male birth control pill out. Only then will men have full control over their reproduction. Then it will be women complaining that men are taking away "their right" to have a baby . . . .

male pill . . hurry hurry hurry hurry

Sorry, I don't remember the groups name from those short news interviews. This seemed to be a hot topic on the news shows a few days ago. My wife and I sometimes flip between CNN, MSNBC and Fox at dinner time.

The following group was probably one of those represented:

Emphasis mine.

But honestly, do you (or others here in this thread) feel that is a large contingent of men (those men who wish to raise the child who have no say in its abortion)?

I can't say as I've ever met or heard of this type of incident--although I am certainly not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems to be a theoretical position expounded on here more for the sake of arguement.

I would imagine that the larger percentage of men truely concerned with reproductive rights are those concerned that they'll have to support a child they never wanted, and would prefer their partner aborted.

To be honest, I don't think I considered the argument very carefully the first time around.

I'm against this notion of male "reproductive rights". Yes, it's a double standard, but I'd rather have it half-right than consistently wrong. Better that only women are allowed to "postpone" parenthood til birth. If this double standard is to be taken care of, it should be dealt with by removing these fraudulent "reproductive rights" from both sexes.

this whole category "male reproductive rights" is modelled on the (sadly) successful legal strategy that the far right empoloyed to stand affirmative action legislation on its head...which was rooted in the fucked up logic of the bakke decision.

the arguments are superficially kind of tricky.

think about its origin in the right's "arguments" in its anti-affirmative action campaign--they take earlier legal arguments about discrimination--which were rooted in the logic of equal protection--and repeat them in such a way as to stand the initial usage on its head.
there is a formally consistent core to the argument--that it, the claims are logical in themselves---the trick for conservatives is to make this type of argument and then try to limit debate to that particular claim, to the exclusion of all other considerations if it can be managed.
a cynical chap could say, with reference to the anti-affirmative action claims, that affirmative action, which was designed to extend the logic of equal protection to a group previously cut out as a function of racism, itself discriminates against racists.

but that does not fly politically.

rephrase then: aa discriminates against the primary beneficiaries of the previous racist order.

that doesnt work either---so extending the argument--broadening it out to include something of its political motivations (that is to speak the truth about motivations)--undermines the power (such as it is) of the kernel of logic at the core of the argument--that using equal access arguments to expand a given legal space to include folk who were previously excluded function (in theory) in a contradictory manner to generate new types of discrimination themselves.

so keep the debate as narrow as possible and go on at great and snippy length about the injustices that follow from this very narrowly defined logical problem. if you are backed with enough money, you can buy legal counsel that will find a judge politically amenable to hearing such an argument and then you are off to the races/-ist.

that way you can gut equal protection as an argument at all, in the longer run, but defunctionalizing it. and so it is obviously best not to admit anything of the political motives behind it. narrow narrow focus is your friend.

so here:

for the equal access argument to operate at all with reference to abortion law, there has to be a category called "male reproductive rights"--that the category is in itself problematic is secondary to its logical function--to float this designation is to posit--that is, in this case, create out of thin air----a class of people, defined by a particular interest, which are excluded by laws that enable abortions to be performed.

if you accept that category, then the equal protection argument would follow logically.

the attempts to generate and maintain a VERY narrow focus on this fake "principle" of equal protection in this context has been the dominant feature of the posts which have weighed in as objecting to abortion under the pretext of objecting to the "violations' existing abortion law inflict upon this fiction called "male reproductive rights."

the politics behind it are obvious: the folk who argued for such a violation of "male reproductive rights" would, in other contexts, be squarely anti-choice.

so it is that this category is yet another tactic--at once more shallow and more problematic than others--of the anti-choice movement, the goal of which is to effectively eliminate the legal protections afforded to the procedure of abortion. period.
there is nothing else behind this, nothing else to it, and nothing else of interest about it.

there is no such category "male reproductive rights"....so the arguments that are predicated on them are meaningless.

from which follows the claim that the whole manoever is a fraud.

roach, i think i'm going to have to go ahead and kind of disagree with some of what you've said here. I think you're making a sweeping generalization about the motives of people who might have some concern about the lack of male involvement in the abortion/no abortion and/or mandatory father role. For instance, I'm staunchly pro-choice, and if it falls down one way or the other (legal abortion w/ women 100% in the driver's seat, or no legal abortion in the name of "male reproductive rights") i side with the ladies in control. However, I do think its a little bit skewed that men have no legal say in the matter. I just don't see a way to reconcile that, without all the pragmatic difficulties you and Gilda and others have outlined. I also don't think its the best argument to fall back on that pregnancy is 100% a female situation, because by claiming all the ownership of the pregnancy, it seems to me that the female must then claim 100% of the responsibility. Its either a shared phenomenon, or its exclusively female. If I impregnate my girlfriend, I don't loan her my junk for 9 months, after which I reclaim my 50% w/ interest for school books. I completely respect the difficult aspects of pregnancy for women; simultaneously I'm amazed at the process they take part in. I guess if the position is that the male is essentially superfluous to the issue after conception in terms of responsibility regarding pregnancy...then the male is superfluous for responsbility regarding pregnancy. I simply don't like the austerity of this position. To me, pregnancy should be a shared experience between the man and woman in question, with the unfortunate situation that the final straw has to come down to the woman on this issue, but not by the 100% - 0% proportion that some seem to be favoring.

I see two problems with "male reproductive rights."

1. What about pregnancy that occured as the result of involuntary sexual contact? Involuntary would mean rape, date rape, incest (abuse of authority), and statutory rape (minors can not give consent). If a man forces himself on a woman, and she conceives and gives birth, that man should be responsible for support but have no parental rights. No woman should have to put up with her rapist having rights to her child, even if he is the biological father.

2. Abortion can be a risky procedure with a long term impact on a woman's reproductive health. Should a man be able to force a woman to have an abortion she doesn't want because of a pregnancy he doesn't want? To be fair to the OP, I don't see how you can have the one and not the other, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that it could work out that way.

No answers here, just questions...

Roachboy you note that you basically feel that male reproductive rights don't/shouldn't exist (if I read that right). I am personally against AA, I think that everyone should be given a fair and equal chance for things. I don't know what kind of person this makes me but I dislike people getting an unfair advantage based on a non-relevant criteria, being female or black should not affect your engineering prospects (I do engineering at Uni, handy example) however both blacks and women have specific AA scholarships etc to help them, if they were given to poor people who could not afford to go to uni, or the best person I would have no qualms about them. A "Middle Class White Male only" scholarship would likely be seen as racist/sexist though.

Males do have an input into pregnancy (50%) and are expected to contribute after the birth a significant amount of funds/time (assuming non-custody here). Now assuming that the guy did not want a child in the first place (and neither did the GF/Wife/Partner/Long Time Lust Object) however the rules then changed on him that he suddenly becomes more responsible? Both partners can attempt to have safe sex in the first place (condoms, pills etc, bring on the male pill imo) however sex != children, I believe UsTwo noted that 20 years and only 1 child through safe sex. Accidents happen, to penalise one side without penalising the other is unfair (maybe if the guy wants to opt out we have a committee of 10 people who get to kick him in the nuts or something), giving one side total control is also unfair.

To make a corporate analogy (woot I suck at analogies so bear with me), you have a phone contract, the company suddenly decides that you are paying too little and decides to increase your bill to 20% of your salary irrespective of usage. If you want to leave the contract you have to continue paying or risk jail... is this fair?

Very well-said. I agree with this completely.

pigglet: i agree with your post up to the point where you extend it into an equal protection types argument concerning the law itself.

so far as i can tell, nothing that you outline is either included or excluded by the present law--all of what you say can--and should (to my mind, but whatever)--take place in the context of the deliberations that (i would think necessarily) precede anyone availing themselves of the procedure.

it turns out that, in the last analysis, the decision belongs to the woman: i am not bothered by it. it is, after all, her that undergoes the procedure. i am not the only person to say this. and i see no scenario that changes it. do you?

you could always devise scenarios to correlate with an issue, fictional or not.
it is easy. whether you would indulge in that or not is a function of whether you find the issue behind the scenarios compelling. i do not.

but i do not think i am wrong in a scenario of my own: what the consequences of any adjustment to the existing law would be, based on this logic.

this is linked to the position i took, whcih is that i see the issue of "male reproductive rights" as a tactic. i outlined an analogy to aa solely as a way to justify my taking it as a tactic.

such motives as i imputed i read off previous posts in the thread--i have not been tracking this non-issue as it may or may not been tracking out there in 3-d land.

roach, i guess i was looking at a difference in the people i've seen posting to this thread, and the people who are probably behind "male reproductive rights" as a national movement. My fault - I actually forgot this was a "politics" thread...I wandered in off "new posts," etc. I was thinking in terms of including many of the people discussing the underlying issue of theoretical men's reproductive rights, and not focusing on the practical politics of the situation. As I said, in the end-game analysis at present time, I agree with your position. I think.

Basically, I agree that as a national movement, given present circumstances, this is bound to be predominantly be used as an tool to prevent abortions in a de facto sense. I don't think that all the members or supporters of said movement will necesarily be of that persuassion, but I agree that that's how it would be used.

I find these issues interesting because I find the post-feminist reckoning to be interesting. As our society hopefully tries to adjust to a notion of respecting gender differences without forcing them into literal equality, I think these types of issues are bound to come up. In theory, I believe males and females should have equal say - but there's a practical barrier to that realization. I guess if we could figure out how to make erections last into our 90's, we should be able to perfect external pregnancy. Maybe if this issue, not the political side of it so much, but the masculine desire to have more reproductive choice, actually gains significant headway the $$$ will go into making that reality.

So, in temporary conclusion, if the woman ends up with the slightly shorter straw on this, I suppose one might view it as karmic turnabout-is-fair-play.

The only situation I could see where I might sway on that would be if there was some sort of written contract regarding children. Even then, I'm not sure I could give over given present circumstances.

I have a question for some of our less sexually traditional members: how does this work on the swinger scene. If you're having completely casual sex, and a girl becomes pregnant. What are the in-crowd ground rules on that sort of thing?

pigglet: if i could imagine this matter emerging outside a political framework, i would imagine a different discussion in which there would probably be little disagreement. i think these kinds of conversations important, no less--and it would be good if they happened--and they could within the present legal framework.

this is one of the few issues in which i find myself defending much of anything about the existing order in the states. it feels a bit strange to me sometimes.

funny - but i can understand your position. i was just getting ready to post back. i had some further thoughts about practical situations. I'm kind of doing the old devil's advocate, but I honestly don't know what how I'd feel about them:

1. A couple who is very public about their shared views on pro-life position. Regardless of what anyone else, or scientific consensus on the ambiguity of the beginning of life, etc - but they are very obviously pro-life in their positions. They are sexually active, and use birth control...but it fails. Civil court case: can the guy sue for some sort of damages, as a shared value was changed in the face of a real situation.

2. Inverse situation: very obvious casual sex couple, we never want babies, we'll definately get an abortion if our contraception fails, etc. Get pregnant, girl doesn't want abortion.

I guess I'm wondering what would happen in situation where it isn't a simple matter of he said, she said - but where there is pretty overwhelming evidence that a position was adopted as a couple, that was violated. Do essential verbal contracts about these types of situations become null and void, or is there a leg to stand on?

Interesting to me, but scary at the same time.

/ps. don't worry. If South Dakota goes through, you may soon be back on the side of advocating change on this issue again.