Forced Fatherhood.

[VanReal]

If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

And how do you propose this is proven to be the case versus the man that simply sleeps around and doesn't attempt to use protection?  And what about the woman that makes every attempt to not get pregnant but still does?  If she makes the choice to have the baby she is on her own because the man was careful?

If a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.

That used to be exactly what happened, so we had back alley abortions and eventually Rowe vs Wade.  I just can't wrap my head around why you guys think that because a man can't ultimately make the choice he is not responsible?  He had sex, he knew the risk, he knew there was a possibility he'd be held responsible if she were to get pregnant and decided to keep it.  Because he can't have the abortion or make the final decision she should be on her own?

I think there is a little confusion and we only seem to be talking about men who were lied to and or trapped and are now being held at gunpoint to pay child support for the next 18 years.  How is it any less his responsibility simply because biologically the baby isn't being housed and birthed from his body?  It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

This entire argument is about control.  "Dammit it's not fair because it's not our decision and it shouldn't matter what I did with my penis"!

Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

[BadPoison]

Unfortunately I just can't wrap my head around why you guys think that because a man can't ultimately make the choice he is not responsible?

Not quite. I think whats being said is that since a woman has a choice after conception, a man should too. Or at the very least, he should not have to be responsible for a child if the woman chooses to have it.

He had sex, he knew the risk, he knew there was a possibility he'd be held responsible if she were to get pregnant and decided to keep it.  Because he can't have the abortion or make the final decision she should be on her own?

Yes. Because at this point she would be choosing to keep the baby knowing that the man wouldn't be helping her out financially- that is, if this were the law - as it stands, I agree that any man that has sex with a woman knows the current risks involved if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.

It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

No. I think that every woman that gets pregnant and then has the baby intended to do so.

Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

Great advice considering current laws. Really, any man who isn't currently willing to pay child support shouldn't currently mess around with a fertile woman, just as anyone who doesn't want to risk failing a drug test shouldn't mess around with canibus. It's the law.  

[SSY]

I think the argument that "men DO have a say, just before sex" is not valid

It's like blaming a victim of a mugging, saying, "well, if you had not have gone out alone at night, you would not have been mugged". This is obviously complete rubbish, the blame lies squarley at the feet of the mugger, not at the feet of the person who went out late at night. The person who went out late at night certainly played a part in enabling the mugging to happen, but the final, ultimate say in the matter was the mugger's.

While the man may have enabled a birth to happen through taking part in half a conception, he had no responsibility in choosing the birth. The woman has the ultimate choice, she should have the ultimate responsibility.

[Tanker]

(Sorry about that messed up the quotes. I'm real tired and just don't want to go through and fix it. If its a problem I'll try to corect it tomarrow if not I'll leave it. Ill put my name bold next to my responses at least.)

If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

And how do you propose this is proven to be the case versus the man that simply sleeps around and doesn't attempt to use protection?  And what about the woman that makes every attempt to not get pregnant but still does?  If she makes the choice to have the baby she is on her own because the man was careful?

(tanker)I'm not talking about a guy who doesnt wan't to wear a condom so he gets a girl pregnant It's at least as much his fault and he should take resposability. There are many women who do intentionaly trap men though and you would prove it the same way a crime is prove by collectng evidence. A buddy of mine, a few years ago had "booty call" sex only no relationship what so ever. He saw mabey every weekend for a few months. When he met a couple of her friends they warned him she was trying to get pregnant and was only sleeping with to a) get pregnant and b) have him pay child support. She said she was on the pill, she wasen't. He checked the condoms and they had holes. Evidence collected he immediatly broke off all contact. Last we heard she had sucessfully trapped a guy 2 months later.

To the girl who makes every attempt to not get pregnant and does she has the option to end the pregnancy. So yes if she alone decided to keep it without the fathers consent the she alone should have to take car of it unless the father was willing to help anyway

If a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.

That used to be exactly what happened, so we had back alley abortions and eventually Rowe vs Wade.  I just can't wrap my head around why you guys think that because a man can't ultimately make the choice he is not responsible?  He had sex, he knew the risk, he knew there was a possibility he'd be held responsible if she were to get pregnant and decided to keep it.  Because he can't have the abortion or make the final decision she should be on her own?

(Tanker)I believe we had back ally abrtions for all the same reasons as we have legal ones today. Not specificaly because a man may have coerced a woman to have his child. More likly humans have always been sexual animals and have always had sex. The difference now is abotion is legal and there are way more varieties of contraception that are alot more effective.They were only back ally because it was illegal at the time I got that I was just being abit facicious

I think there is a little confusion and we only seem to be talking about men who were lied to and or trapped and are now being held at gunpoint to pay child support for the next 18 years.  How is it any less his responsibility simply because biologically the baby isn't being housed and birthed from his body?  It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

This entire argument is about control.  "Dammit it's not fair because it's not our decision and it shouldn't matter what I did with my penis"!

Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

(Tanker)Ok what if we switched it around only men can choose if a woman has to abort wether she wants it or not? Even though it took two to tango only 1 will decide. "what a horrible idea how dare you suggest it." (and it is horrible) Ok how about only women get to decide if the father has to take care of wether he wants it or not? even though it took two to tango only 1 will decide. "that seems fair, what a well reason argument" (even though it's not)

(Tanker)Again if he just wanted to raw dog it, just doesn't like the way a condom feels, got drunk and stupid, or thinks pulling out is effective fine his mistake he should have to take responsability for his stupidity. IMO he should not have to pay in the OP's story or my buddies if she had succeded.

(Tanker)On a side note VanReal do you think if hypotheticly it was proven beyond a dought that a woman had purposly misled a man, heck lets say she admits it under oath, and they man took all percations even though he was under the impression there was no way she could get pregnant, lets say she told him she was sterile, that he should still have to pay child support when she got pregnant? Lets say he also told her he never ever wanted to have a baby also. Does even this seem reasonable for a man to still have to pay. Thats about as extreme as I can make it off the top of my head. (FYI I am not being sarcastic I genuinly want to know how far you think is acceptable)

[Prometheus]

I would not support changing the system at this time, as there is still a heavy amount of emotional pressure on young women to not abort, and many are even denied this possibility by their religious beliefs, or from fear of repercussions from their family. Women also on average lack the autonomy men posses. There are increasingly more situations where it would appear unfair that the system is how it is, but the system is a blunt instrument, and can give no exceptions.

This really seems to dodge the issue. Despite whatever pressure exists in our culture, women still have the ABILITY to choose whereas men don't. That's what ssy seems to be getting at.

Ah, but let me guess, your gender in no way tends to bias you to one side, that kind of thing only happens to us emotional, and irrational women.

Your statement is ridiculous. No one said anything like that. It is funny how our genders seem to polarize us in opposite ends of this debate(I'm male). I'd also be willing to admit that were I female I would likely be on the opposite side here. The fact is that their are complications to this issue. There just isn't an obvious solution to the problem which would benefit both genders equally.

They don't have equal positions with regard to reproductive rights, because they don't hold equal positions with regard to reproduction.

I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it.

And anyone that makes the "well you shouldn't have had sex arguement" as an attack toward either gender is being ridiculous. We live in a very sexually unrepressed culture. I don't know about the older generation but in mine(I'm in my 20's) recreational sex happens often with both participants having no intention of a permanent relationship or child. If you don't like it blame the damn hippies. Sure both participants are aware of the risk but I think that unless it was their express intention to produce a child neither person should be forced to shoulder the responsibility of raising one(If either party has issues with abortion they definately should practice abstinance. It's the only foolproof way to prevent childbirth.).I'm for ssy's plan. It seems fair to both sides. Its the culture that needs to change. The system shouldn't have to make up for cultural flaws by being unfair to one group or another.

[Hitsumei]

This really seems to dodge the issue. Despite whatever pressure exists in our culture, women still have the ABILITY to choose whereas men don't. That's what ssy seems to be getting at.

Which is not relevant. We were discussing fairness, and the option being available doesn't render it as easily taken as not calling anymore.

Your statement is ridiculous. No one said anything like that. It is funny how our genders seem to polarize us in opposite ends of this debate(I'm male). I'd also be willing to admit that were I female I would likely be on the opposite side here. The fact is that their are complications to this issue. There just isn't an obvious solution to the problem which would benefit both genders equally.

I already addressed this, go read my reply to this. I find it simply disingenuous to claim that it was not implied that it was only true of women. If not there would be absolutely no point in stating it.

I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it.

I noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?

And anyone that makes the "well you shouldn't have had sex arguement" as an attack toward either gender is being ridiculous.

I didn't say that people shouldn't have sex, I said that they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequences of having sex.

We live in a very sexually unrepressed culture. I don't know about the older generation but in mine(I'm in my 20's) recreational sex happens often with both participants having no intention of a permanent relationship or child.

Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

If you don't like it blame the damn hippies. Sure both participants are aware of the risk but I think that unless it was their express intention to produce a child neither person should be forced to shoulder the responsibility of raising one...

Yeah, well, I think everyone should be paid six figure paychecks, and we should have bases on Mars.

(If either party has issues with abortion they definately should practice abstinance. It's the only foolproof way to prevent childbirth.)

Or they could try being gay, not that it doesn't have risks that come with it, but babies aren't one of them.

[BadPoison]

Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

Huh? What would be the problem with a world in which we could 'screw around all the time' without consequence?
I agree that it's not where we currently live - but what if it were? Or what if we could find solutions to the issues that make this world not that world?

[Hitsumei]

Huh? What would be the problem with a world in which we could 'screw around all the time' without consequence?
I agree that it's not where we currently live - but what if it were? Or what if we could find solutions to the issues that make this world not that world?

You misunderstood. You can't do anything that implies consequences without consequence, no matter how much you don't want to deal with those consequences. Clearly if there were no consequences to deal with, then there would be no problem.

[Prometheus]

Which is not relevant. We were discussing fairness, and the option being available doesn't render it as easily taken as not calling anymore.

How is this "not relevant"? Your arguement doesn't make much sense to me. Yes there is cultural/communal pressure not to abort but the fact is that is can be done and that males both have no legal input on the matter and are forced to take responsibility for the child even if they do not want one. Fairness is a very vague term. I thought we were discussing reproductive equality, its much easier to define.

I noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?

Did you even read my post or did your mind just say "Irrationally biased male nonsense" and just gloss over it? Its like trying to reason with a christian here, or infant. Here it is again. "I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it." I clearly addressed the issue that I quoted. You seem to be saying that its ok to skew judicial laws in favor of females merely becasue females make lower wages than males. And  in response to

I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?

I clearly stated that I do not think it is fair that wages aren't equal. And no I do not think we currently have equal reproductive rights as we've been argueing the law favors females at present. If your gonna argue with me in the future please at least take the take to read my posts.

I didn't say that people shouldn't have sex, I said that they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequences of having sex. Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

 So for your first sentence, "...I said they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequesnces." I take it you're pro life? Because that is exactly what you are argueing here. So you think its ok for women to have a choice in the matter(I agree) and not males who are equally legally responsible for the child?(I disagree with this) And for your second statement, thats exactly how our world works. That's why we have contraceptives and abortion. Sex has become a recreational activity. The traditional ideas that such a thing requires social bondage are outdated(This is true mostly because people have options now. It would be irresponsible if such options didn't exist.).

Yeah, well, I think everyone should be paid six figure paychecks, and we should have bases on Mars.

You sure you're not a christian? Really startin to sound like the kind of issue dodging nonsense they throw at me rofl. My statement was logically sound.
 

Or they could try being gay, not that it doesn't have risks that come with it, but babies aren't one of them.

Rofl hope you were kidding. The kind of people who typically reject abortion as an option(Religious people for the most part.) usually think being gay is a one way ticket to hell(Not that I agree with them.). I think I've figured out why you sound like a christian to me, they are trying to convert us to christianity and you seem to be trying to turn us all gay(Rofl. Didn't mean any offense by this one.).

You misunderstood. ... Clearly if there were no consequences to deal with, then there would be no problem.

A very sound arguement. This is exactly what I've been getting at. The only evident flaw in our system being social pressure not to abort. I think that's really the issue here. If we could negate this pressure to conform, we could actually have a legal system which is fair to both sides. And as for your arguement against our proposed system, would you really let this pressure stop you from making the choice to abort? I think there are more women out there(At least in my generation) who are willing to act indipendently and make decicions based on their own personal feeling. I state again that if such feelings will not allow you to abort, you should definately practice abstinance. The same is true of males, I know plenty of guys who wouldn't want even an unwanted child aborted(Funny how these guys(Religious types) don't have any problem with premarital sex.).

[Nulono]

Not to mention the complete lack of male hormonal BC.

[Tanker]

I noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?

Let me try to place this in a parallel situation and see if you think it's still fair.

Two friends get together and decide to build a car. It will cost $30,000 so they both put in $15,000. So far they are eqaul. Now only 1 friend knows how to build a car, has the tools to build a car and the garage to build it in, so the other unequiped friend stays out of the way and watches while the car is built. Finally the car is done and what a beaut she is. Now the friend who built the car decides that hes going to sell it and keep all the money for himself (kinda reversed of child support but you get the idea). He did all the work, it was built in his garage, with his tools, so he believes the decision should be his alone and so should the profit. Now what if the judge agreed with the builder and awaded all profits to him? How very wrong of the judge to make that decision, they should both have some say or or a split.  

Now if the car car were a baby and the sale and profit were child support and who should pay it, a judge decides that the enequipped partner has no say what so ever. Wow what a great decision the judge made, only partner who "built" the baby in her womb/garage should have a say.

I don't know about you but I can't find one fair and the other unfair with out thinking myself a hypocrite.

(I kow the situatons aren't the same but I do believe they parallel pretty nicely, If you understand my point in the above story then lets focus on that rather then the parts that don't match exactly)

[Hitsumei]

How is this "not relevant"? Your arguement doesn't make much sense to me. Yes there is cultural/communal pressure not to abort but the fact is that is can be done and that males both have no legal input on the matter and are forced to take responsibility for the child even if they do not want one. Fairness is a very vague term. I thought we were discussing reproductive equality, its much easier to define.

I unequivocally stated that male and female positions with regard to reproductive rights are not equal. I have been arguing that they shouldn't be, you seem to be stuck on the issue of wages, which was not was I was referring to in that post.

Did you even read my post or did your mind just say "Irrationally biased male nonsense" and just gloss over it? Its like trying to reason with a christian here, or infant. Here it is again. "I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it." I clearly addressed the issue that I quoted. You seem to be saying that its ok to skew judicial laws in favor of females merely becasue females make lower wages than males. And  in response to

I clearly stated that I do not think it is fair that wages aren't equal. And no I do not think we currently have equal reproductive rights as we've been argueing the law favors females at present. If your gonna argue with me in the future please at least take the take to read my posts.

I don't know what I did to upset you so much, but the belittling and insinuations are not called for, and they in no way support anything that you may attempt to argue. I was not referring to the difference in wages, that is why I said that your post did not address what you quoted. I was referring to the fact that women do all of the reproductive work -- you know, how they get fat, sick, and moody for a view months, and then squeeze a person out of them after half a day of labour.

So for your first sentence, "...I said they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequesnces." I take it you're pro life? Because that is exactly what you are argueing here. So you think its ok for women to have a choice in the matter(I agree) and not males who are equally legally responsible for the child?(I disagree with this) And for your second statement, thats exactly how our world works. That's why we have contraceptives and abortion. Sex has become a recreational activity. The traditional ideas that such a thing requires social bondage are outdated(This is true mostly because people have options now. It would be irresponsible if such options didn't exist.).

I'm of course pro-choice, as I am the one arguing that it is the woman's choice, while you are the one arguing that it is not. I think that a woman should have full control of her body, while you are arguing that while she is carrying someone's child, he gets equal say over what she does with her body.

You sure you're not a christian? Really startin to sound like the kind of issue dodging nonsense they throw at me rofl. My statement was logically sound.

Should read the "world view" things under people's names. I don't take being called a Christian as a catch all insult to everyone I disagree with, and I don't take "atheist" to be synonymous with "master rationalist".

Rofl hope you were kidding. The kind of people who typically reject abortion as an option(Religious people for the most part.) usually think being gay is a one way ticket to hell(Not that I agree with them.). I think I've figured out why you sound like a christian to me, they are trying to convert us to christianity and you seem to be trying to turn us all gay(Rofl. Didn't mean any offense by this one.).

I am an evangelical for the sinister gay agenda, I won't deny it. Though, I was referring to males that don't want to take the risk of having a child, as they were who my point was addressing, and if they want to be able to have the choice to coerce a woman into having an abortion, or else leaving her high and dry, then I doubt they would be the kind to have a problem with abortion, or much else for that matter.

A very sound arguement. This is exactly what I've been getting at. The only evident flaw in our system being social pressure not to abort. I think that's really the issue here. If we could negate this pressure to conform, we could actually have a legal system which is fair to both sides. And as for your arguement against our proposed system, would you really let this pressure stop you from making the choice to abort? I think there are more women out there(At least in my generation) who are willing to act indipendently and make decicions based on their own personal feeling. I state again that if such feelings will not allow you to abort, you should definately practice abstinance. The same is true of males, I know plenty of guys who wouldn't want even an unwanted child aborted(Funny how these guys(Religious types) don't have any problem with premarital sex.).

[/quote]

What I'd do is irrelevant, and I've never had to worry about it. My personal feelings cannot be generalized in such a fashion. I think the anti-abortion crowd are entirely wrong, and it disgusts me the kind of emotional coercing woman go through from those members of society, but I don't see you proposing anything vastly different. In both cases opposing parties are attempting to force a woman to do something against he own judgement with her own body.

[PipeBox]

I dunno, as a guy, I don't like the idea that I could be trapped, or used.  Using protection is a clear indication I'm not looking to have babies.  If she says she's on birth control, this is tantamount, in my mind, to an unspoken agreement not to have children.  I admit, if a child is conceived, it puts a great deal of pressure on the woman, but I'd like some say in whether or not I'm going to have a kid.  But, things being as they are, I'm just really careful about who I get naked with.

I feel a bit like the black man that can't walk on the golf course because it's bad for the white man's business.  The white man owns the course, he pays for it and its upkeep, but does that make it any less racist?  Likewise, women have the far more demanding role in all this.  That doesn't mean there isn't a heavy sexual bias.  I understand things from the female perspective, I didn't have to do anything but have sex, and she can end up with a burden, but that doesn't mean I like her having the sole call on something that can wreck my life.

The fact that some women have realized they hold the advantage of the law, and are willing to wield that advantage abusively, disturbs me greatly.  

All of this is my opinion.  I have no ethical backing for anything said above, nor any want of debate.  I'll just be careful about who I put my bit in until I don't have to worry about it anymore, so it doesn't matter what the angles are.

[VanReal]

Not to mention the complete lack of male hormonal BC.

Yes, if you never want kids there is a little thing called a vasectomy.

It's like blaming a victim of a mugging, saying, "well, if you had not have gone out alone at night, you would not have been mugged". This is obviously complete rubbish, the blame lies squarley at the feet of the mugger, not at the feet of the person who went out late at night. The person who went out late at night certainly played a part in enabling the mugging to happen, but the final, ultimate say in the matter was the mugger's.

Seriously?  I think someone hacked SSY's user name because this argument does not sound like him at all.  Comparing a person getting mugged and a man having consensual sex?  The person that got mugged was an unwilling participant from start until finish, a man having sex and "whoops she got pregnant" was a willing participant all the way up until he has to suffer the consequences because the ultimate decision is not his.

At lease work with an example where the person was involved in the act that caused the problem.  The perfect example was already given: I choose to smoke, I know that smoking cases cancer, I smoke anyway, low and behold I get cancer, I sue the cigarette company because it's not fair that I got cancer from my own well informed decision to smoke.  It's not fair, the cigarette company made me addicted, it was their decision to add nicotene...unfortunately I'm the one with cancer and I have to deal with it and am ultimately responsible for lighting that yummy white stick of goodness 30 times a day.

On a side note VanReal do you think if hypotheticly it was proven beyond a dought that a woman had purposly misled a man, heck lets say she admits it under oath, and they man took all percations even though he was under the impression there was no way she could get pregnant, lets say she told him she was sterile, that he should still have to pay child support when she got pregnant? Lets say he also told her he never ever wanted to have a baby also. Does even this seem reasonable for a man to still have to pay. Thats about as extreme as I can make it off the top of my head. (FYI I am not being sarcastic I genuinly want to know how far you think is acceptable)

I'm going to answer this but am going to cut out the part about her saying she was sterile or him saying he never wanted kids because for the first one, I want to say he's not that gullible, and for the second if that's true he should have it taken care of so he has no worries.

But, let's say the woman gets up in court and says "yes your honor, I poked holes in all of his condoms and popped my birth control pills out and threw them behind the bed so he thought I was taking them".  In that case I think he should be able to sign away his rights in court, which would also remove his financial responsibility, and the woman would have to waive any future right to obtain state services for that child.  There have been cases where the woman has requested that the man sign away his rights and the stipulation usually is that he can do so if willing to but she will be solely responsible for the expense, not the man and not the state.  So this actually happens, and I agree with it fully.

However, in cases where this is not amiable there is no rational for allowing him to not be responsible, as he is responsible because he knew the potential backlash, and even though it's not fair that he does not have the input on the outcome he is still responsible.  A lot of things aren't fair, and it is bothersome, but when the unfair things occur from out own actions we only have ourselves to blame.  It's well known that if you get a woman pregnant from having consensual sex with her and she makes the decision to have the baby that you will be held financially responsible.  It wouldn't be fair to say "well, I've decided I don't want it, sorry" and have the woman take on the entire burden.  I am willing to bet more pregnancies are genuine mistakes and/or carelessness and less often an attempt to trap a man.

Just like I didn't feel sorry for Kobe crying on tv when he slept with the girl in the hotel room and then she lied and tried going after money.  He knew he was cheating, he also knows that scandolous women lie and go after men with fame and fortune.  He knew there was at minimum one potential consequence to having sex with her, he made his decision, he had to deal with the aftermath.

I am a little less irritated tonight, so I'd like to mention that I understand that it certainly would not feel fair to me for someone else to make a decision that obligated me to years and years of financial and potentially disciplinary duties.  But, I also know that ultimately my participation in the event does make me responsible, even though I don't have any leverage or control over the outcome.  If I choose to have a couple of drinks during happy hour, feel that I'm fine because I've only had a couple, get out to drive home and realize my reaction time is impaired only after not be able to avoid being in an accident when another person runs a red light, I am responsible for whatever damage I've done and legal actions that are taken against me because someone else has decided that my blood-alcohol level is above the legal limit (which I also did not have a say in).  She ran the light and caused the accident, but she lies and I'm the one that's been drinking, she's dishonest, but I can't prove it, so I've made my bed and I will have to suffer the wrinkled sheets.  Unfortunately I am well aware of the consequences of driving after drinking, yet I chose both to drink and then drive home and although my intent was not to be involved in an accident it happened and now I am responsible.

I dunno, as a guy, I don't like the idea that I could be trapped, or used.  Using protection is a clear indication I'm not looking to have babies.  If she says she's on birth control, this is tantamount, in my mind, to an unspoken agreement not to have children.  I admit, if a child is conceived, it puts a great deal of pressure on the woman, but I'd like some say in whether or not I'm going to have a kid.  But, things being as they are, I'm just really careful about who I get naked with.

I feel a bit like the black man that can't walk on the golf course because it's bad for the white man's business.  The white man owns the course, he pays for it and its upkeep, but does that make it any less racist?  Likewise, women have the far more demanding role in all this.  That doesn't mean there isn't a heavy sexual bias.  I understand things from the female perspective, I didn't have to do anything but have sex, and she can end up with a burden, but that doesn't mean I like her having the sole call on something that can wreck my life.

The fact that some women have realized they hold the advantage of the law, and are willing to wield that advantage abusively, disturbs me greatly.  

All of this is my opinion.  I have no ethical backing for anything said above, nor any want of debate.  I'll just be careful about who I put my bit in until I don't have to worry about it anymore, so it doesn't matter what the angles are.

[/quote][/quote]

Well said!

[Prometheus]

I unequivocally stated that male and female positions with regard to reproductive rights are not equal. I have been arguing that they shouldn't be, you seem to be stuck on the issue of wages, which was not was I was referring to in that post.

I got the impression you were refering to wages when you said, " Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?" I guessing you were refering to the biological work load involved in reproduction. I disagree with your statement. Both parties make a genetic contribution here(The female obviously puts more into this process but you can't deny at least some male contribution here.).The choice to abort of course should lie solely with the female. No one seems to eb denying that. I am merely suggesting(As many before me stated) that if no child was intended to be produced by the copulation, the male should not be legaly responsible should the female choose to have the child.

[I'm of course pro-choice, as I am the one arguing that it is the woman's choice, while you are the one arguing that it is not. I think that a woman should have full control of her body, while you are arguing that while she is carrying someone's child, he gets equal say over what she does with her body.

What? When did I say this? As I said above, I am also pro choice. I do not know where you got confused. Allow me to clarify. The choice to abort or not is solely the womens. The problem I have with our current system is that should the women choose not to abort a child which was not intended to be produced, the male is forced to take responsibility as well for said child's welfare.

Should read the "world view" things under people's names. I don't take being called a Christian as a catch all insult to everyone I disagree with, and I don't take "atheist" to be synonymous with "master rationalist".

Yeah yeah. I do use the word Christian as an insult. Not all of them or idiots I admit I just think most of them are. And not all atheists/agnostics are intellectials, I just think most of them are. As for your suggestion that I read "world views" I suggest you heed your own advice. I am not an atheist I am an agnostic. Look at my world view rofl

What I'd do is irrelevant, and I've never had to worry about it. My personal feelings cannot be generalized in such a fashion. I think the anti-abortion crowd are entirely wrong, and it disgusts me the kind of emotional coercing woman go through from those members of society, but I don't see you proposing anything vastly different. In both cases opposing parties are attempting to force a woman to do something against he own judgement with her own body.

I agree with you about the anti abortionists and any coercion of females to or to not abort. The decision is theirs. What we are proposing is not anything like the coercian you are insinuating. Where did anyone give you that idea? I've reread the posts and just don't see it.

I think tanker and pipebox's analogies define the situation pretty well.