Abortion

[MadMike]

I appreciate a tedious debate on some days but regarding a paper abortion, a government would never allow for such a mechanism because it would put more onus on the state to provide for children who's father's have opted out of financial support.

I mean, you're obligated to pay child support even if a paternity test down the line shows you're not the father... It's obvious the government doesn't give a feck about anything other than not being on the hook.

I agree with it in principle if both parties have made their wishes known pre-coitus

That is some bullshit right there, probably one of the first laws I'd change if ever in power. I was reading a post on reddit only yesterday about a man who found out after a confession from his wife, that his 10-month old baby was not his. Verified afterwards by DNA tests. They separated and she moved in with the biological father of the child, but because he's on the birth certificate as the father, he's still liable for child support despite being the victim of adultery and not the father.

Reprehensible law...

 

[Mike Smalling]

To me, the big difference is that in the case of sperm donations the mother is fully prepared and knows what she's getting into. Presumably she's financially secure, and so on. In the case of an unexpected pregnancy there's no way of knowing if that is the case. But you obviously can't force anyone to get an abortion, so in the event that it does result in a child, the child needs to be protected. In this case the protection includes either having an involved father, or at the bare minimum having a mother who is financially supported enough to take properly care of them. At the end of the day you have to protect the child.

There are also ways for the father to renounce his rights and responsibilities, but they obviously involve consent from the mother.

I don't necessarily think the financial security argument holds. It is not a prerequisite to be financially secure to have a child in any other case, and rightfully so. Often it is people of limited means than end up having a lot of kids that they can't properly support. I don't think the rights of a potential child to be financially supported by it's father outweighs the right of a man to not become a father, if he doesn't want to. Again, if the woman knows well in advance that the father has waived his rights and responsibilities, she can make an informed decision about the pregnancy. A good society (at least in my opinion) would also support parents of limited means, whether they are a couple or single.

It seems like people are fairly entrenched in their positions here, but it certainly is an interesting discussion. I have tried to find survey results on this, but not surprisingly they are difficult to find in the haystack of survey's on actual abortion. I did find one from Denmark, 2016. Link.

Some highlights below:
- 14% have experienced men in their near social circle not being involved in the decision on whether an unintended pregnancy should result in a child or an abortion.
- 13% have experienced women in their near social circle intentionally having unprotected sex to become pregnant without informing their partner.
- 42% agree that men should have the right to a paper abortion if the woman has led him to believe she could not get pregnant from their intercourse (29% disagree).

 

[nimic]

Of course we wouldn't force abortions and of course the child needs protecting. But if the mother wanted the baby and couldn't do that alone, the state should help. I don't see why it's the responsibility of the sexual partner when he never consented to that.

He consented to having sex, sex can lead to children. That's just the way it is.

 

[Siorac]

Abortion is often hailed as a milestone in women's rights, presumably because it allows for their sexual liberation without the associated risk of a lifetime of financial burden and responsibility of an unwanted child. However, giving men that same right is labelled as dangerous

It's not the same right. Abortion isn't about some sort of right to give up parental responsibilities - it's about bodily autonomy. It's about the right to decide what you want to do with your own body.

Once the kid is born, the mother can't give up her parental rights either. And even while she's pregnant, she can't just sign a paper that she has no responsibility for the child once it's born. She can't even give the kid up for adoption if the father objects. If the kid ends up in the father's primary custody, the mother will be liable for child support, too. In this sense, men and women do have the same rights.

 

[MadMike]

The campus scenario is obviously extreme but it's still a real possibility of happening because you're advocating for paper abortions without increasing the agency put on men to take accountability for their actions. That's what I mean by it becoming a slippery slope very quickly - you're suggesting that men should have increased rights to remove accountability for their actions.

I'm consistent in advocating the same for the women (in some way anyway, they do always have some by default). I just don't see why that right should be denied to men. Their actions are not a heinous crime.

And again for men the same thing applies - there are many different steps you can take to avoid putting yourself in that scenario. A girl can tell you she's on birth control, but there's so many different types and not only are they not 100% full proof, but she could simply be lying. It doesn't mean as a man (if your intention is to avoid pregnancy) you shouldn't be doing your part too. So if a man gets a woman pregnant while not taking the steps to prevent that pregnancy he should take his share of the blame and simply being able to sign away his rights (& therefore his accountability) for his actions is reckless.

The bolded is coercion and potentially sexual abuse equivalent to rape. The man is certainly not to blame in that scenario and the woman should face legal actions, let's not go down that path. Again, I'm behind putting some of the onus for contraception on men. But that shouldn't clash with their right to not consent to parenthood, the same right enjoyed by women.

I'm not saying vasectomy is an ideal solution - but neither is an abortion, I don't see why it's so easy and simple to throw around abortions as an alternative for women but the concept of vasectomy for men is seen as taboo. Both are invasive, both carry risks, both could have potential long term impacts.
Also, if you're that worried about it not being reversed in the future, there are ways to freeze your sperm for future use too.

I don't think we're throwing around abortions as the default action here, it's only an option of last resort one we should support women a lot more on if they choose to take that path. I do think abortions are worse than vasectomies but you're comparing contraception with pregnancy termination. I am certainly behind condom use which is cheaper and less invasive than vasectomy. A male IUD would be sweet too. Freezing sperm ain't cheap, it costs a grand a year to keep frozen.

 

[Mike Smalling]

It's not the same right. Abortion isn't about some sort of right to give up parental responsibilities - it's about bodily autonomy. It's about the right to decide what you want to do with your own body.

Once the kid is born, the mother can't give up her parental rights either. And even while she's pregnant, she can't just sign a paper that she has no responsibility for the child once it's born. She can't even give the kid up for adoption if the father objects. If the kid ends up in the father's primary custody, the mother will be liable for child support, too. In this sense, men and women do have the same rights.

You are misrepresenting our argument here. No-one is advocating for men being able to give up their parental rights and responsibilities after the kid is born. We are specifically saying that the paper abortion should happen before the limit for a legal actual abortion is reached. So if that's 12 weeks the woman has that period to decide if she wants to become a parent, and the man would have the same. And regarding kids in primary custody of their fathers, those kids would of course only exist if the woman has decided to carry them to term.

 

[MadMike]

He consented to having sex, sex can lead to children. That's just the way it is.

It doesn't have to be though. Not sure what's complicated about that. You can consent to one thing and not the other.
We don't (rightfully) force women into parenthood because they had sex, saying "well, that's just the way it is gals".

EDIT: At least not outside Texas anyway.

 

[adexkola]

That is some bullshit right there, probably one of the first laws I'd change if ever in power. I was reading a post on reddit only yesterday about a man who found out after a confession from his wife, that his 10-month old baby was not his. Verified afterwards by DNA tests. They separated and she moved in with the biological father of the child, but because he's on the birth certificate as the father, he's still liable for child support despite being the victim of adultery and not the father.

Reprehensible law...

Of course it's bullshit. That it stands should tell you the viability of a "paper abortion" law: DOA, regardless of it's merits.

I honestly don't know why a vasectomy is so scary to some men. It really eliminates that possibility.

 

[villain]

I'm consistent in advocating the same for the women. I just don't see why that right should be denied to men. Their actions are not a heinous crime.



The bolded is coercion and potentially sexual abuse equivalent to rape. The man is certainly not to blame in that scenario and the woman should face legal actions, let's not go down that path. Again, I'm behind putting some of the onus for contraception on men. But that shouldn't clash with their right to not consent to parenthood, the same right enjoyed by women.



I don't think we're throwing around abortions as the default action here, it's only an option of last resort one we should support women a lot more on if they choose to take that path. I do think abortions are worse than vasectomies but you're comparing contraception with pregnancy termination. I am certainly behind condom use which is cheaper and less invasive than vasectomy. A male IUD would be sweet too. Freezing sperm ain't cheap, it costs a grand a year to keep frozen.

It's not denied to men, be clear about what the debate is; you said that a paper abortion should be allowed even if the man hasn't taken steps to prevent a woman getting pregnant. In that scenario you are saying that men don't have to be responsible for getting a woman pregnant. My argument is that this can lead to an increase in men being reckless with their sperm and not having to deal with any repercussions.

This doesn't remove the agency from man protecting himself either, does it? If you're that adamant that you don't want kids under any scenario, surely you wouldn't just take someone else's word for it? And even then, birth control isn't 100% effective either or she could've forgotten to take the pill, or the implant is expired etc there are a ton of hypotheticals we can get into here but the long and short of it is, if you don't want kids - you do whatever you can to avoid getting someone pregnant.

It's not cheap but it's cheaper than child support. And ultimately a vasectomy would be done as a means for contraception (or potentially for health reasons) primarily, so having one done would be the best option for a man to protect himself from such a scenario.
And maybe we can rally for cheaper sperm & egg preservation too, i'd be on board with that 100%.

 

[Siorac]

You are misrepresenting our argument here. No-one is advocating for men being able to give up their parental rights and responsibilities after the kid is born. We are specifically saying that the paper abortion should happen before the limit for a legal actual abortion is reached. So if that's 12 weeks the woman has that period to decide if she wants to become a parent, and the man would have the same. And regarding kids in primary custody of their fathers, those kids would of course only exist if the woman has decided to carry them to term.

But my point is that a woman can't give up her parental responsibilities before the kid is born, either. She can't just sign a paper during pregnancy - or before - that once the kid is born, she waives all rights and responsibilities. Again, men and women have the same rights in this.

It's important because an actual abortion and the so-called 'paper abortion' aren't equivalents from the perspective of rights. One is about the right to bodily autonomy, the other is about the right to sign away parental responsibilities. Both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy; neither have the right to unilaterally sign away their parental responsibilities at any point. If you want to provide that right to men, you have to provide it to women as well.

 

[MadMike]

It's not the same right. Abortion isn't about some sort of right to give up parental responsibilities - it's about bodily autonomy. It's about the right to decide what you want to do with your own body.

Once the kid is born, the mother can't give up her parental rights either. And even while she's pregnant, she can't just sign a paper that she has no responsibility for the child once it's born. She can't even give the kid up for adoption if the father objects. If the kid ends up in the father's primary custody, the mother will be liable for child support, too. In this sense, men and women do have the same rights.

Apart from the what Mike Smalling commented on your post, I would like to expand on the bolded a bit.

I wouldn't deny the woman right to be honest. If she's faced with a pregnancy she doesn't want to abort for whatever reason (ethical, medical etc.) but the father wants to keep and raise the child, I wouldn't force the mother to pay child support either. I would give her the same option to waive her rights and responsibilities.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Of course it's bullshit. That it stands should tell you the viability of a "paper abortion" law: DOA, regardless of it's merits.

I honestly don't know why a vasectomy is so scary to some men. It really eliminates that possibility.

How is this even legal? It's a joke.
It also begs to question what type of person will hold someone viable to financial responsibilities if they are fully aware that person is not the biological father.

 

[MadMike]

But my point is that a woman can't give up her parental responsibilities before the kid is born, either. She can't just sign a paper during pregnancy - or before - that once the kid is born, she waives all rights and responsibilities. Again, men and women have the same rights in this.

It's important because an actual abortion and the so-called 'paper abortion' aren't equivalents from the perspective of rights. One is about the right to bodily autonomy, the other is about the right to sign away parental responsibilities. Both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy; neither have the right to unilaterally sign away their parental responsibilities at any point. If you want to provide that right to men, you have to provide it to women as well.

The right to bodily autonomy also grants the right to avoid parental responsibility, by avoiding becoming a parent post-coitus.

 

[Siorac]

Apart from the what Mike Smalling commented on your post, I would like to expand on the bolded a bit.

I wouldn't deny the woman right to be honest. If she's faced with a pregnancy she doesn't want to abort for whatever reason (ethical, medical etc.) but the father wants to keep and raise the child, I wouldn't force the mother to pay child support either. I would give her the same option to waive her rights and responsibilities.

Yes, that's fair enough. At that point we can argue about what sort of effect such laws might have and so on.

 

[nimic]

You are misrepresenting our argument here. No-one is advocating for men being able to give up their parental rights and responsibilities after the kid is born. We are specifically saying that the paper abortion should happen before the limit for a legal actual abortion is reached. So if that's 12 weeks the woman has that period to decide if she wants to become a parent, and the man would have the same. And regarding kids in primary custody of their fathers, those kids would of course only exist if the woman has decided to carry them to term.

I am pretty sure that's not at all what MadMike is saying. He seems to be going much further than you, at least in rhetoric.

 

[Mike Smalling]

But my point is that a woman can't give up her parental responsibilities before the kid is born, either. She can't just sign a paper during pregnancy - or before - that once the kid is born, she waives all rights and responsibilities. Again, men and women have the same rights in this.

It's important because an actual abortion and the so-called 'paper abortion' aren't equivalents from the perspective of rights. One is about the right to bodily autonomy, the other is about the right to sign away parental responsibilities. Both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy; neither have the right to unilaterally sign away their parental responsibilities at any point. If you want to provide that right to men, you have to provide it to women as well.

Yes, there are biological differences that you cannot legislate your way out of. But wouldn't you agree that in 99% of cases when a woman decides whether or not to have an abortion, she is actually making a decision about whether she wants to raise that child, with all of the joys, rights and responsibilities that entails? In other words, the decision isn't about bodily autonomy - it is about parenthood.

 

[MadMike]

I am pretty sure that's not at all what MadMike is saying. He seems to be going much further than you, at least in rhetoric.

No, I'm actually pretty close. Both should be allowed a window during the pregnancy to opt-in or waive. That window must be shorter than any legal limits to abortion (25 weeks in the UK I believe). Because if neither wants the baby then abortion is probably the best route. If either of them wants to keep it and the woman is happy to bring the pregnancy to term, then they can't then use the kid to keep the other person "hostage" for 18 years. But if the woman wants an abortion, that's of course a trump card because ultimately it's her body and bodily autonomy applies.

 

[Siorac]

The right to bodily autonomy also grants the right to avoid parental responsibility, by avoiding becoming a parent post-coitus.

Sure, practically it does. But legally, it's still NOT the same as signing a piece of paper to expressly waive your rights and responsibilities. A stupid analogy but consider this: I have every right to not work at all and to not have any income. In effect, this means I have the right to avoid income tax. But I still don't have the right to sign a piece of paper saying 'I, Siorac the First, Gimp of RedCafe hereby declare myself exempt from paying any income tax ever'. And these are important distinctions when we're talking about rights and legality.

 

[MadMike]

Of course it's bullshit. That it stands should tell you the viability of a "paper abortion" law: DOA, regardless of it's merits.

I think more irrational laws have been overturned through the years to this. It's time will come.

As for the vasectomy. It's (very) often irreversible and it's expensive to keep sperm frozen. Male-equivalent IUDs, I would fully get behind.

Sure, practically it does. But legally, it's still NOT the same as signing a piece of paper to expressly waive your rights and responsibilities. A stupid analogy but consider this: I have every right to not work at all and to not have any income. In effect, this means I have the right to avoid income tax. But I still don't have the right to sign a piece of paper saying 'I, Siorac the First, Gimp of RedCafe hereby declare myself exempt from paying any income tax ever'. And these are important distinctions when we're talking about rights and legality.

But while it legally is not the same, it still affords an option to some that it doesn't afford to others. And there are ways to balance that out.

 

[OleBoiii]

I was ready to be depressed when I opened the thread, but I'm happy to see that the discussion no longer is about whether or not abortion should be legal(the answer to that is obviously 'yes').

I can get behind the idea of "paper abortions" for men before a certain date(12 weeks or something), but that will ultimately lead to a bunch of other problems. What if the woman hides her pregnancy? What if she claims ignorance? It all sounds like a legal nightmare.

But from a moral standpoint, I agree that men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood if they used protection and made their intension of not wanting kids clear. I find it insane that some women, who are not opposed to abortion mind you, decide to have the baby when they accidentally get pregnant, even though they know that the guy don't want the kid. It's seriously fecked up.

This is one of those issues that can't be solved, though. It would be chaos.

 

[Siorac]

Yes, there are biological differences that you cannot legislate your way out of. But wouldn't you agree that in 99% of cases when a woman decides whether or not to have an abortion, she is actually making a decision about whether she wants to raise that child, with all of the joys, rights and responsibilities that entails? In other words, the decision isn't about bodily autonomy - it is about parenthood.

It doesn't matter much WHY she's doing it or not doing it. The right itself, her right to keep or terminate a pregnancy, is about bodily autonomy. That's what it comes down to. That is what is being violated if she is forced to carry it to term (or indeed if she is forced to have an abortion, though that is a far less relevant issue, obviously).

And yes, there are biological differences that you cannot legislate your way out of. Hence why I think it's fair that both men and women get bodily autonomy and neither get to simply waive their parental rights via a legal document. Biology means that women have to face all the medical risk involved with pregnancy or with an abortion, in addition to having the same concerns about finances, the difficulties of raising a child, and so on, that men have. Therefore, if not being able to opt out of parenthood via a legal document means men end up having to be even more careful with contraception than women then I find that acceptable.

 

[Siorac]

But while it legally is not the same, it still affords an option to some that it doesn't afford to others. And there are ways to balance that out.

As I said earlier in the thread, the only way I could see something like that work is if the parties enter into a legally binding, written pre-coital agreement that in case of an accidental pregnancy, the man waives all rights and responsibilities. In that case the woman can make an informed choice about whether she is willing to risk having sex with this man. This would be fair, if a bit stupid.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I was ready to be depressed when I opened the thread, but I'm happy to see that the discussion no longer is about whether or not abortion should be legal(the answer to that is obviously 'yes').

I can get behind the idea of "paper abortions" for men before a certain date(12 weeks or something), but that will ultimately lead to a bunch of other problems. What if the woman hides her pregnancy? What if she claims ignorance? It all sounds like a legal nightmare.

But from a moral standpoint, I agree that men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood if they used protection and made their intension of not wanting kids clear. I find it insane that some women, who are not opposed to abortion mind you, decide to have the baby when they accidentally get pregnant, even though they know that the guy don't want the kid. It's seriously fecked up.

This is one of those issues that can't be solved, though. It would be chaos.

Yeah, that's a whole other dimension we haven't really gone into. There is a huge difference between what you think is morally right, and what can practically be applied. But not being able to enforce a law is not really a good reason for not writing it. Even if it only makes it more fair for men in a few cases, it would still be the right thing to do.

I don't think this is likely to happen in the near future, though. Something that can be seen as taking rights from women is dead on arrival, and the men's right movement in general doesn't get a lot of traction for the simple reason that men in general are not willing to fight for their rights to the same extent as women have done historically (because in general they have had it pretty good).

 

[MadMike]

@villain you write longer posts so it takes a while to respond to yours

It's not denied to men, be clear about what the debate is; you said that a paper abortion should be allowed even if the man hasn't taken steps to prevent a woman getting pregnant. In that scenario you are saying that men don't have to be responsible for getting a woman pregnant. My argument is that this can lead to an increase in men being reckless with their sperm and not having to deal with any repercussions.

Look, I understand. But my point is that the cost of irresponsibility, shouldn't be forced parenthood. I don't think anyone really wins from that. Including the kid. I'd need to think of something that puts at least some (ideally equal) responsibility on men for contraception, so that all the onus is not on women. But to make the price parenthood, isn't right.

This doesn't remove the agency from man protecting himself either, does it? If you're that adamant that you don't want kids under any scenario, surely you wouldn't just take someone else's word for it? And even then, birth control isn't 100% effective either or she could've forgotten to take the pill, or the implant is expired etc there are a ton of hypotheticals we can get into here but the long and short of it is, if you don't want kids - you do whatever you can to avoid getting someone pregnant.

I don't like that line of argument to be honest. It's a story reminiscent of Jason Lawrence who got convicted of rape, for lying about having a vasectomy to gain consent for sex. Contraception methods failing is one thing, it's statistically a small possibility, but gaining consent by coercion is tantamount to rape. Again, I don't think we disagree on men taking some responsibility for their actions. I think we merely disagree on what the repercussions for irresponsibility should be. And being coerced

It's not cheap but it's cheaper than child support. And ultimately a vasectomy would be done as a means for contraception (or potentially for health reasons) primarily, so having one done would be the best option for a man to protect himself from such a scenario.
And maybe we can rally for cheaper sperm & egg preservation too, i'd be on board with that 100%.

Still out of the reach of poor schmucks and students. Lowering the cost for contraception options, is something I hope we can all get behind. I think the same goes for increasing the breadth of options.

I think I've made clear why I'm personally finding vasectomies risky and OTT. But male pill or male IUD I would get behind. I certainly can get behind condom use (from the existing methods) as something to tie legal benefits to.

 

[villain]

Therefore, if not being able to opt out of parenthood via a legal document means men end up having to be even more careful with contraception than women then I find that acceptable.

Bingo.

Men already have the rub of the green when it comes to contraception - you don't have to take a daily pill, or a morning after pill, or stick coils & implants in you, or even deal with a monthly menstruation even if you aren't on contraception and whatever else.

If the trade-off is that you have to be more intentional about your actions when it comes to sex, as opposed to women - who's entire lifestyle can be altered simply by being on contraception - how is that not a better situation for a man to be in?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Opposition to abortion seems to largely be motivated by a religious belief that a person is created at fertilisation (or thereabouts - sometimes when a "soul" is created). IMO it impossible to have a rational discussion about abortion if someone brings a supernatural criteria to the table. Yet another good reason that government and laws should be totally secular.

So the next things are to decide a) when foetus becomes a person and b) after that point when the woman's bodily rights to control her own body become equal to that of the (now) person she is carrying. A big (often unstated) part of this seems to be that we mostly accept that the rights of the baby/foetus gradually increase over the pre-birth period. I strongly suspect that we are are usually making an emotional decision based on the appearance of the foetus. Basically it looks like a baby so it must be a person runs the logic.

Survivability also isn't a satisfactory criteria as we can now treat very premature births even if sometimes they suffer life long health issues due to a lack of foetal development prior to birth. Pain isn't a good criteria either as nerves may develop but that doesn't meant the brain is developed enough to really feel pain - not to mention most abortions are carried out under a general anaesthetic so no pain is possible.

Arguing against abortion on the grounds of it preventing a future person also strike me as flawed as wearing a condom prevents a future person, so it only works as an argument if you are religious and believe that fertilisation is where life is created and/or a soul is created (or occupies the fertilised cell/cells).

So I guess current laws are inevitably a compromise (unless you are in Texas or other places that do or plan to prohibit abortion). The UK limited of 24 weeks seems reasonable if quite restrictive to me.

As for a man's say, I'd say it is minimal to none. It isn't developing in his body so he can have an opinion but no actual say IMO.

The recent iteration from conservatives is to quote a poll of 5000 biologists where the majority believe "life" begins at conception and claim a scientific consensus in support of abortion being the murder of human life.

I'd agree with most of this, although I would say that the idea that human life begins at conception is not necessarily a religious belief - it just happens to be a belief that is held by a lot of religious conservatives. The issue of when a fetus becomes a person is obviously key, and why I think it can difficult to defend the pro-choice stance. The limit can seem extremely arbitrary and emotionally driven, which is not usually a good basis for policymaking. From a logical point of view it is much easier to defend the pro-life stance. Just to be clear, I am very much pro-choice, but I would have a hard time explaining why an abortion after 10 weeks is ok, but 30 weeks is not.

As for men's rights, they should have no say in the decision on whether to carry the baby to term, but I am firm believer that they should be able to get a paper abortion - opting out of rights and responsibilities, as long as they have made their position clear in time for the woman to make a decision with that information.

"Paper abortions" are a horrible idea. That would place the entire burden of pregnancy on the woman. Women literally can't remove the consequences of a pregnancy. Men shouldn't be able to sign away all personal responsibility.

This would remove all incentive for men to act in a responsible fashion and usher in thousands of cases of abuse. This is exactly the kind of misaligned, bad incentives that cause trouble. Completely one-sided concept and not one that anyone should seriously support.

 

[OleBoiii]

But not being able to enforce a law is not really a good reason for not writing it. Even if it only makes it more fair for men in a few cases, it would still be the right thing to do.

Why write a law that is impossible to enforce? Pretty much every situation is going to turn into a "he said, she said".

How can you prove that you never wanted the kid instead of getting cold feet? How do you prove that you used protection? What happens if the woman genuinely doesn't know that she's pregnant before it's too late?

 

[Mike Smalling]

"Paper abortions" are a horrible idea. That would place the entire burden of pregnancy on the woman. Women literally can't remove the consequences of a pregnancy. Men shouldn't be able to either.

This would remove all incentive for men to act in a responsible fashion and usher in thousands of cases of abuse. This is exactly the kind of misaligned, bad incentives that cause trouble. Completely one-sided concept and not one that anyone should seriously support.

Well, they could get an abortion? If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that I have stated numerous times, that a paper abortion would only make sense, where actual abortions are legal, safe and available.

 

[e.cantona]

CAF at its best these last few pages. Great discussion! One of those where one can't even reach agreement with oneself

 

[Mike Smalling]

Why write a law that is impossible to enforce? Pretty much every situation is going to turn into a "he said, she said".

How can you prove that you never wanted the kid instead of getting cold feet? How do you prove that you used protection? What happens if the woman genuinely doesn't know that she pregnant before it's too late?

I don't think it would be impossible in all cases. This discussion in general has assumed everyone are bad actors - men just want to get women pregnant and run away, while women want to get pregnant and fleece men out of child support. In reality, most women would probably do the right thing and inform the men about the pregnancy.

But to answer each of the scenarios. 1) I don't think you have to prove you never wanted the kid. As long as you let the woman know within the time frame. 2) Also, don't think that it is prerequisite to have used protection. Men and women share the responsibility of the pregnancy. 3) Then the man would have every responsibility he has under the current laws.

 

[MadMike]

Bingo.

Men already have the rub of the green when it comes to contraception - you don't have to take a daily pill, or a morning after pill, or stick coils & implants in you, or even deal with a monthly menstruation even if you aren't on contraception and whatever else.

If the trade-off is that you have to be more intentional about your actions when it comes to sex, as opposed to women - who's entire lifestyle can be altered simply by being on contraception - how is that not a better situation for a man to be in?

I don't see any rub of the green there tbh. I see lack of options. Women have all the options men have (condoms, tying tubes) plus a bunch more (pills, coils, morning after pills). We can only wish we had some of those options.

 

[villain]

@villain you write longer posts so it takes a while to respond to yours



Look, I understand. But my point is that the cost of irresponsibility, shouldn't be forced parenthood. I don't think anyone really wins from that. Including the kid. I'd need to think of something that puts at least some (ideally equal) responsibility on men for contraception, so that all the onus is not on women. But to make the price parenthood, isn't right.



I don't like that line of argument to be honest. It's a story reminiscent of Jason Lawrence who got convicted of rape, for lying about having a vasectomy to gain consent for sex. Contraception methods failing is one thing, it's statistically a small possibility, but gaining consent by coercion is tantamount to rape. Again, I don't think we disagree on men taking some responsibility for their actions. I think we merely disagree on what the repercussions for irresponsibility should be.



Still out of the reach of poor schmucks and students. Lowering the cost for contraception options, is something I hope we can all get behind. I think the same goes for increasing the breadth of options.

I think I've made clear why I'm personally finding vasectomies risky and OTT. But male pill or male IUD I would get behind. I certainly can get behind condom use (from the existing methods) as something to tie legal benefits to.

But actions come with consequences - it's really that simple. And this isn't forced parenthood, child support isn't parenthood it's basically the bare minimum.
Life isn't about equal responsibility, because if we're being honest the balance of equality sits heavily with men as it stands right now - women have a monthly reminder of the potential burden of child rearing, even if they aren't on contraception.

We disagree on the repercussions because there are lots of steps that a man can take to avoid getting himself in the situation in the first place.
If both parties have agreed beforehand that in the event of the woman getting pregnant she wouldn't carry it to term and they have each used contraception to avoid that scenario - and she still gets pregnant, and decides to negate on the prior agreement - yes a paper abortion seems suitable.
However it's basically unenforceable and like you said, you wouldn't want to limit paper abortions in the above scenario but any situation in which a man gets a woman pregnant - which only incentivises bad behaviour.

Child support is even more out of reach for the poor though, no?
Cheaper sperm preservation is certainly an option I think everyone would agree with - but vasectomies needs to be seen as a valid option as abortions. Yes it carries the risk of irreversibility but at some point the man has to take responsibility for their part in this and there are options available to them, that are much less invasive than the options women have available.
Ask any woman about the side effects of birth control, abortions, or even just having monthly periods - every option here carries risk - that's the point about this.

Sex is a serious issue that both parties need to think about seriously, maybe because it's become so casual that we are downplaying the outcomes of it.

 

[villain]

I don't see any rub of the green there tbh. I see lack of options. Women have all the options men have (condoms, tying tubes) plus a bunch more.

Of course you do because you don't see a vasectomy, abstinence or avoiding penetrative sex as a viable option for men.
Women are forced into birth control whether we like it or not simply by biology, so we have to be conscious about the impact sex carries with it and choose an option to stick with for the better part of 20-25 years.

Men don't have this issue.

 

[MadMike]

Of course you do because you don't see a vasectomy, abstinence or avoiding penetrative sex as a viable option for men.
Women are forced into birth control whether we like it or not simply by biology, so we have to be conscious about the impact sex carries with it and choose an option to stick with for the better part of 20-25 years.

Men don't have this issue.

That's a bad faith argument, come on now. Women have legitimately more options than men. Everything you listed, exists for me and women too, it's an option for both. Plus a bunch more for women.

The suggestion that men don't have to be conscious about the impact of sex in the current legal framework, is quite preposterous a suggestion too.

 

[villain]

That's a bad faith argument, come on now. Women have legitimately more options than men. Everything you listed, exists for women too and it's an option for both, plus a bunch more for women.

The suggestion that men don't have to be conscious about the impact of sex in a current legal framework, is quite preposterous a suggestion too.

Women have more options than men because our biology forces us to.
Every option available to a woman that isn't available to man, carries with it risks & side effects and is invasive, whereas every option available to both men & women doesn't have the same level of implications for both parties.
What you're advocating for is an option available to men only, that doesn't carry any risks or side effects and absolves them of taking accountability for their actions - surely you can see how reckless of a precedent that is?

I probably should've been more clear; in your argument about paper abortions men wouldn't have to be worried about the impact of sex, because they would be able to waive away rights in the case of getting a woman pregnant.
Overall though the comparison between which sex has to be conscious about the impact of sex - that burden lies with women in comparison by a landslide, and in no way is it close to 50/50.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

No, I'm actually pretty close. Both should be allowed a window during the pregnancy to opt-in or waive. That window must be shorter than any legal limits to abortion. If neither wants the baby then abortion is probably the best route. If either of them wants to keep it and the woman is happy to bring the pregnancy to term, they can't then use the kid to keep the other person "hostage" for 18 years. But if the woman wants an abortion, that's of course a trump card because ultimately it's her body and bodily autonomy applies.

Well, a man can always wear a condom if he doesn't want to be held hostage. If you don't want to get yourself into a pickle then cover your pickle.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Well, they could get an abortion? If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that I have stated numerous times, that a paper abortion would only make sense, where actual abortions are legal, safe and available.

Which comes with its own set of physical and mental burdens, in addition to the economic cost. It's not nearly as simple as just "opting out" of parenthood.

If you'd bothered to read my post you'd know that you talking about the second part makes zero difference to me. It doesn't matter if abortion is legal, safe, and available, paper abortions are still a horrible idea for the reasons I mentioned. From a societal standout, "paper abortions" after pregnancy create a massive incentive problem when men suddenly have zero repercussions. Abortion is still a massive decision for women that, like I mentioned, comes with very real consequences.

Paper abortions, on the other hand, give men zero consequences and zero responsibility. The incentive structure it would create would be rife for problems. From what I've seen of frat life at colleges, you'd see hundreds/thousands of frat houses across all American universities devising schemes so men can either take advantage of drunk women or simply never have to consider the consequences for a mistake and therefore try to act responsibly. Abortions still serve as a large deterrent to women acting irresponsibly. You cannot remove all deterrents for men acting irresponsibly.

So yeah, having read the thread and heard this issue raised by the Tom Leykis crowd for decades, its still a horrible, unbalanced idea that would create a misaligned incentive structure rife for problems. In short, it would create more and worse problems than any it would allegedly "solve".

 

[MadMike]

Women have more options than men because our biology forces us to.
Every option available to a woman that isn't available to man, carries with it risks & side effects and is invasive, whereas every option available to both men & women doesn't have the same level of implications for both parties.

I don't this options and forced are something that go well together in a sentence, when it comes to contraception. An option is an option, it's not forced. Men lack many them as the focus of research has been more on female contraception.
I think tying of tubes has the level of implications for both, if I'm not wrong. It's literally the same process.

What you're advocating for is an option available to men only, that doesn't carry any risks or side effects and absolves them of taking accountability for their actions - surely you can see how reckless of a precedent that is?

I assume that you're talking about the "paper abortion" here. I have gradually over the course of the argument started to accept that this would put all the onus for contraception on women and without something to mitigate this one-sidedness and bring some semblance of equal responsibility... it would indeed be toxic.

Overall though the comparison between which sex has to be conscious about the impact of sex - that burden lies with women in comparison by a landslide, and in no way is it close to 50/50.

I have to agree with that.

 

[MadMike]

Well, a man can always wear a condom if he doesn't want to be held hostage. If you don't want to get yourself into a pickle then cover your pickle.

You'll be hard pressed to find a man more in support of men wearing condoms. I always use them and admonish any male friends of mine that scorn them. It is by far the easiest, cheapest and least invasive method of contraception and it also protects from STIs to boot.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

You'll be hard pressed to find a man more in support of men wearing condoms. I always use them and admonish any male friends of mine that scorn them. It is by far the easiest, cheapest and least invasive method of contraception and it also protects from STIs to boot.

It's a no brainer really but it's easier said than done. People do get excited and lose all sense of reason in those types of situations.