I find this neither moral nor ethical nor based in reality. Again, if you want a biological world other than the one we have, get to work in the lab.

This is your personal, philosophical expansion of Roe v. Wade.

I find this neither moral nor ethical nor based in reality.

I agree. I think a man engaging in casual unprotected sex, and then abandoning any children that come from that is horrible and disgusting. I also think a woman engaging in casual unprotected sex and then having an abortion is horrible and disgusting.
In both cases, i support the right of an individual to make that choice however.

As McCoy said, if abortion is outlawed (I don't know that adoption would need to be), you'd have no problem. Each party was a willing participant in the act, and thus each party must share the responsibilty of the fallout from that act. But that's no longer what happens.

And the answer is the same. You want a different biological world with different physical laws and occurences. That is not where we exist. The event of getting pregnant is not solely the woman. The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.

The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant. It is the way of nature, sorry.

The fact that boys are upset that women get to control what happens to their own body after that point is understandable, I suppose, but I consider it wholly irrelevant.

The man gets the short end I guess, but so what? I think the child has a more compelling case than the man (for what I hope are obvious reasons) and I think the woman before birth also has a more compelling case than the man. Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.

The man however is not a victim. He should know what is up and can easily take precautions that eliminate a huge amount of the downside (looking at you Shawn Kemp, Wilt managed and so can you). If the condom (or whatever) fails, well you took a risk, but if that happens the child and mother both get priority

The man gets the short end I guess, but so what? I think the child has a more compelling case than the man (for what I hope are obvious reasons) and I think the woman before birth also has a more compelling case than the man. Conflating before and after birth and playing the rights of the various parties against each other to rationalize the man getting off after getting off is sophistry.

As long as the decision to carry rests solely on the woman, then it's simply not logical to legally bind him to the consequences of a decision he had no say in.

He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile

There is a vagina in that equation as well but apparently in our liberated society a woman doesn't have to accept the fact that a kid might result from penis-in-vagina sex.

He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile.

Again, we have the issue of sex and sin clouding the issue. If a man has sex out of wedlock he must pay for it. A woman has sex out of wedlock and, hey, baby this is America. It's cool, don't worry about it.

Pure, puritanical moralism.

He had his say when he made the decision to have penis-in-vagina sex with a woman who was possibly fertile. If he wasn't willing to accept the fact that a kid might result, he should have just asked her for a BJ instead (or a handjob, or anal, or whatever non-procreative acts the two of them are into).

To me, it's not about shirking responsibility. It's about not having a say in the decision that determines whether a child is brought to term. Which is fine, I don't know how you can handle it any other way. But once you've granted that, I don't know how you can justify reintroducing the man as a responsible party.

I was clear. There is a hierarchy of rights (deservings, to coin a word if right is too strong and distracts you). Once born the child deserves support from both its parents.

It has nothing to do with puritanism, sin or anything else like that and I have no idea why you would think that from me

To be fair, the way it is now, the man doesn't have any responsibility for the abortion decision either. What I would like to see is:

(1) Woman is obligated to inform man of pregnancy during period when abortion is legal. If she fails to do so, man has no obligation to provide child support.
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
(4) The above shall have no effect on a woman's right, in her sole discretion, to seek an abortion under existing law.

(1) Woman is obligated to inform man of pregnancy during period when abortion is legal. If she fails to do so, man has no obligation to provide child support.
(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.
(4) The above shall have no effect on a woman's right, in her sole discretion, to seek an abortion under existing law.

(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.
(3) If such an abortion request is delivered, and the woman chooses to carry the child to term, there is no obligation for the man to supply child support.

Politically, it would be DOA. I can already imagine the howls of outrage: you're brutally penalizing people for having religious convictions!

The reason this will never, ever happen is because it acts as if religious objections to abortions don't exist. Politically, it would be DOA. I can already imagine the howls of outrage: you're brutally penalizing people for having religious convictions!

There are also all sorts of major issues that would arise involving notice w/r/t (1) and (2) on that list as well. It would turn into the sort of service-of-process-ducking games you see in the legal system, with the crucial difference that while a trial can simply be delayed or a case dismissed, a child is coming on a set schedule and can't be pushed back. How do you construct a regime to handle and adjudicate the inevitable "That ##### never told me she was pregnant!"/"That scumbag never told me he wanted an abortion!" counterclaims?

It respects religious convictions. No one is requiring anyone to have an abortion. If a woman has religious objections to an abortion that the man doesn't share, then she should bear the cost of those beliefs.

Imagine the coverage from both sides: religious and anti-abortion groups shrieking about how women will be pressured to abort if a man "changes his mind" about having a kid after initially agreeing, and unless she commits what she believes to be the murder of her own child, she'll be completely on her own. (Seriously: that one scenario right there kills your idea stone dead. It's compelling, it's emotionally gripping, it will get the women of America -- and a number of the men too -- up in arms.) Imagine women's groups shrieking about how women are having control over their bodies stripped away from them by legislators in [state capital X].

And my god, Sam Hutcheson is actually the closest to being correct in this thread. Gonna check outside for a planetary alignment.

It's like we have one foot in a bucket of cold water and the other foot in a bucket of hot water.

Now, you may be saying - this is a complex legal construction for a simple matter, and discriminates against poor folks who can't hire lawyers. Fair enough, but its not like our current system of hashing it out in Family Court is any more efficient or fair.

You give the option of a man executing a document providing that he consents to a future pregnancy-to-birth. That document can either have a specific term or be indefinite; the consent can be revoked during its term only upon delivery of a legal document to the woman revoking the consent. If a man is married to a woman, consent to a birth is deemed unless a document is delivered stating otherwise.

I think you underestimate just how much the human heart rebels against having life and love reduced to legal documents like this. I dunno, I recoil from any system which attempts to reduce every private human interaction to a series of carefully executed forms and releases. It reminds me of the system (the now-defunct) Antioch College attempted to put in place to govern sexual/romantic relationships between its undergrads, where the men were required to get written permission from the women before each 'escalating' step in a physical interaction, e.g. "I [X] do give permission for [Y] to remove my shirt."

This is just naive.

Someday soon hopefully America will set up some sort of family court so that issues of custody, child support, and so forth can be resolved. Perhaps one day we'll decide that the courts are the place where settle these issues, one day.

And if the man wants the child, but the woman just wants to get off and then get off, that's OK.

To me, it's not about shirking responsibility. It's about not having a say in the decision that determines whether a child is brought to term. Which is fine, I don't know how you can handle it any other way. But once you've granted that, I don't know how you can justify reintroducing the man as a responsible party.

Apart from my objections being the same as Bitter Mouse's... I presume that this discussion is independent of concerns about the availability of termination procedures - which are pretty hard to come by in some locales (like Mississippi).

the system (the now-defunct) Antioch College attempted to put in place to govern sexual/romantic relationships between its undergrads, where the men were required to get written permission from the women before each 'escalating' step in a physical interaction, e.g. "I [X] do give permission for [Y] to remove my shirt."

However, both parties, on the decision on whether or not to risk the creation of a zygote, ought to have knowledge of the expenses that would be required in their jurisdiction to facilitate the removal. And in the event of a termination procedure, the male would still be culpable for his half, as he made a conscious decision to risk the creation of a zygote.

No one thinks it's an invasion of privacy to disclose the sexuality of a heterosexual politician. No one bats an eye when the media mentions the name of a straight politician's spouse/partner/significant other. The sexuality of a politician is generally not seen as a private matter that the media cannot disclose.

The exception to this general rule is for gay politicians. Some journalists choose not to disclose the sexuality of gay politicians because society has a stigma against gay people. This exception is granted because these journalists think the stigma is unfair, and they think it's OK for gay politicians to remain in the closet to avoid being subjected to this unfair stigma.

When you divorce sex from procreation - which we have already done as a society - you divorce sexual partners from "parenting." The idea that the guy who happened to be riding the pony on a given night is the biological donor in no way indicates that he should be required to be a "parent."

Because you keep ignoring the child and then wondering how I get where I am. The child takes precedence. Before the child enters the equation (see thousands of Roe v Wade discussions for the complexity of that issue) then it is the rights of the man and woman (see those same threads for that discussion), but once the child is there it needs to be taken care of by all parties including the male.

There was no "irresponsibility" on the man's part as we commonly understand the term in these scenarios. Should he still be equally on the hook?

Why is all the risk placed upon the shoulders of the man as opposed to the woman?

The neighbor's outside cat just had kittens, if the daddy doesn't bring several juicy dead mice to the house every day, do you think the police are going to come and put him in jail until he starts providing?

The man participated in the creation of a zygote. He should be responsible for his part in the zygote, but if he has no choice in the decision of what to do with the zygote, how can he be held responsible above and beyond that creation without choosing to by an additional overt act?

If you didn't use birth control because a woman assured you that she was on the Pill, I would consider that to be irresponsible behavior on your part.

In other words, "it's wrong to out people's private sexual history unless they totally deserve it." But at least Danny was much more honest about this being his position.

It is interesting that you and others in the pro-"let the guy have sex and walk away" camp refuse to address the issue of the Child's rights. It is those right's that are key and you keep ignoring them. The rights of the child do not disapear, are not abrogated, no matter what the woman does.

The man is the biological father. He has a responsbility.

What about when the BC is sabotaged?

Or just doesn't work despite the conscientious efforts of both parties?

(2) Man (or men, if woman is not certain of paternity) shall have the ability to deliver a legal document to woman - notarized, the whole nine yards - requesting the woman have an abortion.

If the other side says yes doesn't that mean the two parties have come to an agreement that they wish to have sex and not have a child created because of that sex?

It is interesting that you and others in the pro-"let the guy have sex and walk away" camp refuse to address the issue of the Child's rights

The man is the biological father. He has a responsbility.

So a woman is allowed to have an agreement to not have a child but then change her mind but not have to inform the man until after the fact and the man is stuck paying the consequences of that woman changing her mind?

By agreeing to engage in penis-in-vagina sex, the male is implicitly accepting the possibility that an accidental pregnancy might result if the birth control fails. If he doesn't want to run that risk, he should have a different kind of sex (BJ, HJ, anal, etc.).

If you are using something that prevents impregnation it is at the very least an implicit agreement that you do not want to have a child created from this particular sexual act.

That said, yes, I believe that women should be able to change their minds about whether or not to keep a pregnancy once it occurs,

Congratulations. You've just argued that women should not have the right to terminate pregnancies.

I'm just wondering about the kids that grow up after being indicated on these documents.

Of course she's free to change her mind. What she's not free to do is change HIS mind.

She doesn't need to change his mind. He already implicitly agreed to support any child resulting from the sex act when he engaged in the sex act in the first place.

They are undoubtedly as ###### up as the kids being raised in the ubiquitous poor, single-mom households we have now. The situation is already terrible.

We approach women's procreative rights as a set of choices, but demand that men be tied to their decision to tap casual ass for the life of any child the woman (and only the woman) chooses to have.

Not really, no. The female has the right of self-determination over her body and things that happen within it. The male does not have the same rights over her body, since it is hers, not his.

Does he not understand that pregnancy can result from intercourse, even with "casual ass"?

I'm not ignoring the child because it isn't here yet. You keep talking about what people should do after a child is born and we keep talking about what people should do when a woman is impregnated. Two different issues.

At the point of contention, THERE IS NO CHILD! The child only exists if the pregnant woman chooses, of her own volition, and with no legally required input from the biological father, to carry the pregnancy to term. This is the fundamental disconnect. We approach women's procreative rights as a set of choices, but demand that men be tied to their decision to tap casual ass for the life of any child the woman (and only the woman) chooses to have.

If children have a right to 2 parents, than millions of children in single parent households are currently having their rights violated. That's before we get into the children who don't have any parents at all.

Sorry man, but this completely ignores the fact that modern law and moral codes fail to name a fetus a "child" until midway through the second trimester.

Once the child is born then the obligation on both parents to support that child comes into being, regardless of the actions of the mother.

If you want to be hyper-technical and pedantic on the language, by engaging in the penis-in-vagina sex act, the man is implicitly granting the woman an option to determine (at her sole discretion) whether or not to allow any fetus resulting from the aforementioned sex act to develop into a child. If he doesn't like those terms of service, he can request a different sex act from which pregnancy can not result, or pursue sex from a different vendor who is biologically incapable of becoming pregnant.

Though I will say, again, that a woman is allowed to give up her parental rights at any time and give the child to the state, or to the father should he want the child, but the father has no such right. Either he pays for the child and or fights for his parental rights or oh well. At no time is a man allowed to say this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this while a woman is allowed, at times, to say this this was a stupid idea, I made a mistake, and I want to get out of this.