More on abortion

[pecunium]

As might be expected there's a lot of talk about abortion in the blogospere right now.

In a few places I have seen the perrenial question, "What about the man's rights to help make the decision?"

As I see it, he doesn't have any. It's a binary choice. This isn't deciding how much money goes on one credit card or the other, or which movie to see tonight.

It's an either or. Either she carries it to term, or she aborts it.

Only one person gets to make that call. There's no way to split the Solomonic Ideal.

But, goes the cry, if she decides to keep the baby, he has to pay for it!

Qu'elle horreur. Shit happens. There are risks to sex. Pregnancy is one of them. If he didn't want the risk of a pregnancy, he ought to get cut, or buy a doll. Yeah, the good one's cost five-grand, but that's cheaper than food, clothes, daycare and college.

And, goes the flipside, what if he wanted the kid and she didn't? Well, he can talk to her, try to arrange a deal where he gets sole-custody, and she owes him nothing, but if she doesn't want to do that, he's SOL.

The argument also gets made, "He ought to be allowed to opt out."

This is the one which probably irks me more than any other.

It usually goes, more or less, like this.

In exchange for offering to pay for an abortion, he gets to walk away. If she takes it, he's out the cost of the abortion and no more.

If she doesn't, he's scot free. He, you see, "did the right thing." He offered to clean up the mess. She refused his noble offer, so she gets nothing more.

Bullshit. That's extortion. Being a single parent is hard. It limits things (jobs, housing, committed relationships) and makes life harder. He gets, in that scenario, to hang that over her head, get the abortion or suffer.

Reprehensible.

I feel for those people who want to make things just; who think that as two people are affected by the decision, two people ought to be involved in making it, but this is that simple. If abortion is an option, the woman gets to choose.

Is it better for the principles to sit down and talk about it. Probably, emotionally they probably both feel better afterwards. But it can't be required.

In a properly run world, abortion wouldn't be a real issue. Single parents wouldn't be any worse off than dual parents. Birth control methods would make accidental pregnancy more rare (and education would make BC more effective because people would use it properly).

But this isn't a perfect world, which means one person has to make the call, and that one person is the woman; she's pregnant. She is going to get stuck if he walks away (in theory he'd have to pay child support, but "dead-beat dads" wouldn't be a recurring theme in Time, and on the evening news if that were the case). He will be seen as the victim when she tries to get that child-support. She will be cast as a tramp and a harlot, conniving to get pregnant so she can live the easy life of a single mom without a husband to clean up after and all his money letting her stay at home and waste her life away on booze and other men.

It's about responsibility. One engages in risky behaviour, and one accepts the results.

Comments

[ad-kay.livejournal.com]

she makes the choice all on her own, she gets to deal with the aftermath all on her own.
Excuse me? HE made the choice to have sex. Unless the man has a vasectomy, he needs to be a man about accepting the consequences. (Particularly if he refused to use a condom.) When men acquire their own uteruses, then we can discuss whether men have the "option" of becoming a father. The woman has to face all the physical risks of pregnancy, which are extensive. Men do not get pregnant. They do not have the "option" to decide whether or not the woman's pregnancy continues. Biology isn't fair. Deal.

[batosai.livejournal.com]

she made the choice to have sex all the same.

everyone seems to assume that somehow contraception wasn't used. babies still happen even WITH birth control. less often, yes, but they happen. so if he WAS responsible, does that earn him more right? they BOTH still agreed to have sex. it is the following decision that people want to only be the woman's. i am not trying to deny her that right.

again, i have not said that a man has the right to say whether a woman can or cannot become a mother.
be careful not to put words in my mouth.

all i am saying is if she makes the choice to have the baby when the man doesn't want to proceed, she has made a decision that he has no say in, so he should not be held financially responsible at that point.

It is not fair to have it so that a woman has ALL the say, but when it comes time to pay, she can force someone who had no say in the crucial decision of whether or not to abort, to pay for the raising of the child.

you choose to make decisions on your own, you take the consequences on your own. there is no other circumstance on the books where someone else can make a commitment and you are forced to pay (outside of the bonds of marriage or some other pre-existing contract) can you name any?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

she made the choice to have sex all the same. What, he was tied up and forced? So far as I can see they were both there, and letting him just walk away, because he doesn't want to have the kid is putting the onus all on her, he has no responsibility for the foreseeable outcomes (no matter how carefully avoided, just like the black ice on the road... all due diligence won't keep you from seeing higher insurance rates).

everyone seems to assume that somehow contraception wasn't used.

No, I have repeatedly said that BC can be factored in, they can go whole hog (pill, condom, diaphragm and spermicide) and she still might end up pregnant. Changes not a thing.

You keep saying the woman can't have all the say, but the say you are giving the man is the right to put all the burdens on her.

If he has some say (which you say you want, but don't define) what say does he get.

She gets pregnant. He doesn't. When Maia and I have kids, she will be pregnant. I won't. We'll be having a kid, but she'll be pregant.

The fact of the matter is that the man has the easy way out. He walks away, we call it abandoment, but rarely make him pay anything for it. If she leaves the baby on his couch and leaves, we call that abandonment too, but we put her in jail for it. Seems the relative burden placed on her by law is a bit greater than that placed on him.

As for the burdens placed on people by others, look at the drug laws. If you let me use your place for the weekend and I leave a marijuana seed in the carpet (or in your car, or on your boat) the cops can take it away from you. In that circumstance you would have less say in the situation leading to the loss of money/valuables, than you do in the case of pregnancy.

TK

[batosai.livejournal.com]

she made the choice to have sex all the same. What, he was tied up and forced?

um, read that sentence. it says "the same" meaning he was not tied up and forced, but neither was she

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I did, and I read the preceding sentence, to which that was a defense, "she makes the choice all on her own, she gets to deal with the aftermath all on her own."

When you made the issue of choice that of having sex, then the equal participation of both partners is an issue. She didn't decide to sleep with him all alone (unless it was a case of his being raped, which is a different question, and set of issues altogether. If she raped him, and then decided to force him to pay for the kid, I'd say she has no leg to stand on).

As for the balance of the argument (that he gets to suffer for her decisions, and that somehow he should get to opt out of the costs of the kid, if she won't have the abortion he demands), I still don't see any way he is entitled to a say in the matter. All the arguements still stand.

They had sex. The risk of a kid (no matter how slight, and how stringently attempts to prevent it were made) exists. One person has to make the call , and the only fair way to make that decision (if we posit that women are people of equal standing with men) is that she gets to do it.

As pointed out by others, once a kid is born, the kid has needs, and society benefits from them being met. Since the father was present in the decision to risk pregnancy, he gets to carry some of the cost.

TK

[ad-kay.livejournal.com]

I understood you perfectly. We both recognize that the man cannot force the woman to either have or not have an abortion. by the same token, the man must abide by the woman's decision should she decide to bear the child, and the man is obligated to support his offspring. If you think that's unfair, too bad. You'll never either have to give birth nor have an abortion. The man doesn't get to "opt out" of child support just by saying "I don' wanna." I repeat: if a man doesn't want to pay child support, he needs to have a vasectomy.

You speak coolly of the "aftermath," but no man will ever have to face that aftermath. When men acquire uteruses and be faced with the abortion/pregnancy dilemma, then and only then do they get to "opt out."

I understand that if you are determined to believe that a man can walk away from the obligations to his offspring, no words of mine will persuade you differently. Know this, however: your argument (such as it is) would be laughed out of court, even in front of a judge as reactionary as Roberts or Alito. Your facile belief that men can decide not to support their children is merely the latest tactic practiced by selfish men throughout the ages, who feel free to engage in sexual intercourse with no thought to the consequences.

Before you go to bed with a woman (assuming you are an adult male), I hope you are honest enough to inform her that you have no intention of supporting your child should she become pregnant.

[batosai.livejournal.com]

you assume incorrectly here.

i am actually the other side of the coin

i WANT children. i WANT to support them. this debate was dual sided in that i was discussing the rights of a father in all of this. where i come from is as a man who was informed after an abortion that i had been the father, and i whave always felt a little cheated by that. i understand i have no say, i am not fond of that.

but, while i recognize it is not how it is legally set up, i just believe that if a guy has no say in that choice, the one specifically of whether to abort or not, i think it somewhat unfair to automatically force him to deal with the financial reprocussions of that specific decision (the one of whether or not to abort) if he is opposed to the decision.

i agree that he has no say over her body at that point, the decision is hers and hers alone. If he is kept OUT of the decision (and ONLY if he is kept out of the decision), i don't feel he should be financially obligated. if he at any point tells her he wants the baby or anything remotely like that, then he has had a say in the decision and shoulders the financial obligation that comes with that decision and the law should fry him if he tries to back out. but if he suggests abort and she doesn't want to, then she is making the decision on her own and should be ready to face teh burden on her own; in the same way that if she chooses to abort and he wants the child, i would argue anyone trying to make him pay for the abortion (no this is not my situation, just stating my opinon)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The problem with your position is that it gives him both a say in the matter, and a way to have sex, and put all the risks on her.

There is no way someone can have, "some" say in the matter. That only works where there is a decision to be made bya lot of people, or where time, and persuasion, can be factored in.

When there are two people involed, one of them has the only vote.

If he gets to say, "I don't want you to have the kid, so I'm opting out," then he gets to walk away from a risk, and it's one for which the only way she can avoid the repercussions is to get an abortion.

So if he gets to opt out, he gets to fuck her, and forget her. He doesn't even have to worry about her not coming to find him (or failing to, should she try) because all he has to do is say, "I didn't want the kid."

The flip side sucks too, but there'e no other way to do it, unless his interest in the child somehow trumps her lack of interest. If they are equal persons before the law, then he can't have any say, because the only risk he is taking is financial (and that only if he puts into writing, or says in front of witnessess, that he wants to support the kid, if she has it).

I've pointed out there are situations where the law is far more punitive (in that RICO seizures don't require any active knowledge, much less participation, to take away everything one owns.

You've said you don't think he should have veto power, but haven't (apart from his being able to wash his hands of the child he, eyes open, took the chance of fathering) said what his say ought to be.

Barring something different from his being able to walk away; no harm, no foul, and no cost, from his actions, I don't see anything to convince me my position is wrong.

TK

[batosai.livejournal.com]

i have yeilded that he doesn't really get a say. i recognize it is impossible to give him part of a say. i may still voice that this doesn't make me thrilled, but i am not offering options of how much say he should get because i yeild that he shouldn't.

it, however, leads into my latter opinon, which you disagree with.
how it is: they make the choice to have sex; she gets the choice to abort or not; he has no say and his future is in her hands.

i prefer the idea: they make the choice to have sex; a discussion ensues where both get to have an opinion (abort or not); she chooses to either give his opinion weight or not; she gets the choice to abort or not; If she chose to give no weight to his opinion, she accepts all rights and responsibilities of this choice; If he chose to be a father, he is forever obligated to such, financially as well.

you don't like the second option and i am not going to convince you of it as you are set in your opinon. i see it as the first offers the woman a choice in her future after pregnancy is discovered but offers the guy none. the second offers both a choice. you do not agree. we will not convince each other of our own opinion. so it has become redundant. i know how you feel and disagree. you know how i feel and disagree. i don't know if any further points can be made here.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with your position is he gets to have sex with no responsibilty. If they both want a kid, fine... but that's fine no matter what the outside situation is.

If neither wants a kid, also fine.

If she doesn't want the kid, and he does... it's not so fine, but he has no burden (because there's nothing which allows her to force him to pay for the abortion).

If he doesn't want the kid, and she does (or doesn't want an abortion... for whatever reason) he's fine, in your scenario, and she isn't.

In mine neither of them is, "fine" becuase he has to pick up his end, just as she does. He doesn't have to stick around and be a parent. He can move wherever he likes, get whatever job he likes. He just has to pay for the kids needs (which don't go away, just because he does).

She has the kid. The diapers, the daycare, the hardships of finding an apartment that takes kids, the struggles to make her job, and her homelife, reconcile: the last means she probabaly doesn't have as good a job as he does, because when they want OT, she has to find a sitter, or refuse. She's gonna have a hard time finding the money to buy a house. He doesn't have to worry his new flame won't like kids, but she will.

The unexpected things, the arm that broken on the playground, and the braces... those aren't going to be built into any agreement, if she wants to get money for those, well the first ain't gonna happen and the latter will require a court fight. The Prom will come out of her budget.

If she wants to send him to a better school, she gets to pay for it, and so on. If he skips, she has to pay all the bills until (and if) she can get the courts to enforce payment. When I look at all of those, I don't see a slice of his paycheck as all that burdensome.

You prefer a system where the man doesn't have to accept any responsibilties he doesn't want to. I don't think that's just, and therein lies our point of disagreement.

TK

[batosai.livejournal.com]

she has a choice not to accept those responsibilities already:
abortion.
she gets to choose whether or not to be a mother.

what i am suggesting is giving him the same right to choose not to have those responsibilities that she can already choose not to deal with.
this would be his ability to choose whether or not to be a father.

*shrug*
i agree on our point of disagreement.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

He had the choice... and when he chose to have sex with her, he made the choice.

she has a choice not to accept those responsibilities already:
abortion.

So if she doesn't want an abortion, and he does, he's scot free.

Again, your version of things gives him a huge amount of say. And lets him make the choice to have sex, without any of the responsibilties she faces.

It boils down to this equation:

"I don't want an abortion."

"Well, I don't want to be a father, good luck raising our kid all alone."

He was willing to have sex with her, but he's not willing to be an adult. If he chose to drive without insurance he'd have to pay, out of pocket if he had a wreck. He can't say, "I don't want to pay for your car, after all you chose to share the road with me."

If abortion weren't an option, he'd have to pay. So the present system makes it less likely he'll have to. All in all men get the better end of the equation.

TK