Comic Genesis Forums

BriHahn wrote:...Doesn't mean the girl can't go after him later for monetary support

Yep, it does, and she can. If you can prove paternity, you can absolutely seek support.

BriHahn wrote:...and far too many women use it over and over so they don't have to worry about other avenues of birth control. I dislike that muchly.

Statistics and references, please? How many is "far too many", and as what percentage of procedures overall?

lesotheron wrote:This is a very personal and touchy subject for me, so I'll try my best not to get preachy or argumentative.

I've always considered myself to be Pro-Choice. However, after a situation that occoured a few years ago, I've been seriously bothered by the fact that the choice can only be made by women.

The law doesn't recognize the fact that there are men out there who would willingly raise a child that they created, accidentally or not, without any support or input from the woman involved if she doesn't want the child.

If men don't have the choice to raise the child if the mother doesn't want it, why should the law compel them to support a child that they didn't want. A woman can "make a mistake" or something could happen by "accident" (quotes used to imply that a lot of planning can go into these mistakes and accidents) which would force a man into a position to raise or support a child that he never intended for there to be. If the situation is reversed, the woman can use abortion as a "get out of responsibility free" card.

It strikes me as odd that it requires both a man and a woman to create a child, but only the woman has the right to determine whether or not the child will even be born, let alone what will happen to the child if it is born.

This cuts to the heart of the constitutional law and ethical issue at hand.

Women must have the sole freedom to terminate the pregnancy itself because it's their body that's being hijacked by a dangerous parasite... If a male can get her to agree to carry the fetus for him to then raise, that's one thing... But there's no ethical way for her to be compelled to do so, and I think it should remain that way.

But that leaves the male in a position of unequal protection... His only viable means to "terminate" the pregnancy is to abdicate responsibility. The woman can say "I'm not having this baby.", the male can only say "If you insist on having this baby, you're having it alone."

No child should be put in the position of having a compulsorily active parent who clearly doesn't want her... True and obvious.

But, by the same token, nobody, in this day and age, should be saddled with a child they didn't want in the first place. We have procedures and solutions. Sex is a natural and enjoyable act that we have no reason to classify as a "dangerous sin with heavy potential consequences"... The potential risks of social disease are quite enough all by themselves.

There is also the obvious risk set you allude to of the fact that a woman could find herself a particularly suitable sperm donor, assure him she's on the pill, and foam, and a diaphragm, and rythm, and magic pixie dust... intentionally get pregnant with a child she knows he doesn't want, and then nail him for upwards of a million dollars in aggregate costs.

MistressMaggie wrote:

Honor wrote:

squidflakes wrote:Keep posting Maggie, and please don't change your avatar...

...gawwwd, I know! doesn't it just rock your socks off?

...but what about the possibility that it can get better?

I stand corrected!

MistressMaggie wrote:

MistressMaggie wrote:

Honor wrote: ...gawwwd, I know! doesn't it just rock your socks off?

...but what about the possibility that it can get better?

so what do we think? better? worse?

I don't know that I'd say "better" or "worse"... But I'd definitely gaze admiringly, make inarticulate noises, and stumble off toward my bunk.

If, by some reason, I could only have one of the two pictures, though, I think I'd pick the first. Something so... honestly, inherently sexy about it. This one, somehow, by being more overtly sexual, somehow, strikes me as very slightly less sexy... Which is psychologically interesting. It's a coarse illustration, but I think it has something to do with the part of me that finds a simple naturally posed nude in Playboy more appealing than a 'spread wide' nude in, say, Penthouse... Although I'd be quick to adamantly point out that the beautifully playful booty shot in question bears no resemblance to the kinda gross gynecology shots preferred by folks like Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt.

BriHahn wrote:Guys CAN waive all parental rights and responsibilities; I know that much from watching Law and Order and glimpses of Court TV. Doesn't mean the girl can't go after him later for monetary support, a fact I personally find very unfair, but which has yet to be changed.

Getting nailed by a child-support order is not a waiver of responsibility. The guy CAN NOT waive responsibility.

In fact - there are cases where even if there is no genetic match, (ie. they're not the father) men have been ordered to pay. It's particularly common where the the child is conceived when the woman has sex outside the marriage - the husband is legally responsible for supporting the child, in many states. Less common, is when they are not married, but the father puts his name on the birth certificate, because he "wants to be involved" - then the dna test later shows he's not the father. (this isn't as ironclad, I've heard of this getting shot down in court in some states).

In fact - it is also common that a single mother is forced to name a father, when applying for welfare, and the state will go after the father, without the mother's involvement at all (other than providing the blood sample for the dna test).

Sorry, should have said, IN MY OPINION far too many women use it over and over for birth control; I have no statistics, but I have heard complaints about it.

BriHahn wrote:Sorry, should have said, IN MY OPINION far too many women use it over and over for birth control; I have no statistics, but I have heard complaints about it.

Ok... Good enough. I too have heard the complaints, but I don't think they are based in fact.

I just don't see the probability for millions and millions of women choosing to pay $500 and takes days out of their lives for abortions rather than paying $10 or $20 bucks for an on-the-spot preventative.


Unrelated to Bri's line of commentary, but related to the topic in general... An encapsulating paragraph from an email to the still-unraped new girl who posted earlier in this thread:

I wrote:It all comes down to deciding how to apply a very basic legal truth... If one party to a situation has all the rights to end the situation, -and- all the rights to compel the other party's continued participation in the situation, the second party is legally literally without rights or recourse... Which our constitution doesn't really allow.

I had a hard time deciding between #2 and #3. In the end I went with 3, just because I think #2 may be too absolute, even though 3 doesn't cover all the possible nuances either.

Basically, though, I think this is a very good idea and probably fairest system possible. Of course this alone won't solve how badly men usually get screwed over when it comes to parental rights and duties.

It would seem that during the time I've spent considering this, other people have separately expressed every point I've come up with, and expressed them more poignantly than I could have hoped to. This is why I prefer witticisms, criticisms, and ranticisms. They're much faster.

At least I can vote in the poll, and bring up a few points that may not be in the service of a larger objective:

∙ If women should be allowed to abdicate from raising a child they don't want or can't provide for, it seems fair that men should be granted the same option.

∙ There's an inequality between men and women here that is so far irreconcilable. Suppose, for the sake of clarity, that only the willing parent is responsible for the child. Now, in the event of a pregnancy, if the woman wants to keep it, but the man doesn't, he can just leave, and she can do what she wanted by carrying it, birthing it, and raising it. But if you switch the positions, and the man wants it, but the woman doesn't, he may be able to raise the child, but she still has to carry and birth it. She can't foist the pregnancy onto the one who actually wants to keep the child. This puts women in an obviously difficult position.

∙ Refusing to provide abortions for women who didn't use - or can't prove they used - birth control has the effect of making the pregnancy and the resulting child a punishment, which is seriously warped.

Honor wrote:If, by some reason, I could only have one of the two pictures, though, I think I'd pick the first. Something so... honestly, inherently sexy about it. This one, somehow, by being more overtly sexual, somehow, strikes me as very slightly less sexy... Which is psychologically interesting. It's a coarse illustration, but I think it has something to do with the part of me that finds a simple naturally posed nude in Playboy more appealing than a 'spread wide' nude in, say, Penthouse... Although I'd be quick to adamantly point out that the beautifully playful booty shot in question bears no resemblance to the kinda gross gynecology shots preferred by folks like Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt.

Isn't it obvious? The more innocent something is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.
(Seriously, though, this is a point I find interesting enough to discuss, but I'd prefer to not derail the thread).

Honor wrote: This cuts to the heart of the constitutional law and ethical issue at hand.

Women must have the sole freedom to terminate the pregnancy itself because it's their body that's being hijacked by a dangerous parasite... If a male can get her to agree to carry the fetus for him to then raise, that's one thing... But there's no ethical way for her to be compelled to do so, and I think it should remain that way.

But that leaves the male in a position of unequal protection... His only viable means to "terminate" the pregnancy is to abdicate responsibility. The woman can say "I'm not having this baby.", the male can only say "If you insist on having this baby, you're having it alone."

No child should be put in the position of having a compulsorily active parent who clearly doesn't want her... True and obvious.

But, by the same token, nobody, in this day and age, should be saddled with a child they didn't want in the first place. We have procedures and solutions. Sex is a natural and enjoyable act that we have no reason to classify as a "dangerous sin with heavy potential consequences"... The potential risks of social disease are quite enough all by themselves.

There is also the obvious risk set you allude to of the fact that a woman could find herself a particularly suitable sperm donor, assure him she's on the pill, and foam, and a diaphragm, and rythm, and magic pixie dust... intentionally get pregnant with a child she knows he doesn't want, and then nail him for upwards of a million dollars in aggregate costs.

While I'd love to agree with you about the ethical "right" in allowing women the SOLE authority to terminate or carry the pregnancy to term, after the situation I was involved in, I can't help but feel that the ethical argument is also unbalanced in favor of women.

While I agree that a woman is the only one that is physically affected by a pregnancy, I'd ask you to consider that a man can be affected just as much, if not more, mentally and emotionally if his child (accidentally concieved or not) is taken away from him permanently. This is especially true because the man, unlike the woman, has no say in whether the pregnancy is terminated. If a woman has an abortion, it is because she has made a CHOICE. She may later come to regret that choice, but at least she has the right to make it.

It seems to be a common misconception (not necessarily everywhere, but definately where I live) that men inherently DON'T want to raise children. The stories you hear are all about men who walk out of their children's lives, the deadbeats, the abusers, etc. There are no stories about the men who lovingly raise their children, not out of a sense of responsibility, but because they genuinely love their children and want the best for them. Where are the stories of the fathers who fight and struggle to give their children every opportunity to be happy, healthy and successful? What happens when a man is told that he is going to be a father and he embraces it, cherishes it and spends the next couple of months planning and remodeling his life to accomodate it, only to then be told that the mother of his child thinks that the situation could become "inconvenient" for her, so she's terminating the pregnancy? How does he deal with the loss of a child that he grew to love with all of his heart that was taken away against his will?

Enough ranting, my perspective is still that if the law is going to stay where it is regarding a woman's right to choose, then a man should also have the right to choose (if not regarding whether or not the child is brought to term, then at least in his involvement and responsibility to the child after the fact).

Ok, bear with me, because I really hope this comes out the right way -

Honor wrote:

BriHahn wrote: Sorry, should have said, IN MY OPINION far too many women use it over and over for birth control; I have no statistics, but I have heard complaints about it.

Ok... Good enough. I too have heard the complaints, but I don't think they are based in fact.

I really don't mean to harp on this "abortion as birth-control" thing, but I find it interesting that I've only ever heard this argument/reasoning from people who come from a country where abortion is such a vehemently debated issue, which has two incredibly strongly opposed camps of opinion.

I honestly can't think of any woman I've ever met (and believe me I've met and been an irresponsible woman in my time) who would willingly choose having an abortion as their preferred method of birth control.

I just don't believe that a significant group of sane woman exist who think that safe sex = an abortion .

Anways, I firmly believe that every woman should have the choice and means if necessary for abortion and that the law shouldn't need to be involved. I totally support Fnyuni's personal example of being calm, responsible adults in the situation, unfortunately I know this is not a perfect world.

lesotheron wrote:While I'd love to agree with you about the ethical "right" in allowing women the SOLE authority to terminate or carry the pregnancy to term, after the situation I was involved in, I can't help but feel that the ethical argument is also unbalanced in favor of women.

While I agree that a woman is the only one that is physically affected by a pregnancy, I'd ask you to consider that a man can be affected just as much, if not more, mentally and emotionally if his child (accidentally concieved or not) is taken away from him permanently. This is especially true because the man, unlike the woman, has no say in whether the pregnancy is terminated. If a woman has an abortion, it is because she has made a CHOICE. She may later come to regret that choice, but at least she has the right to make it.

It seems to be a common misconception (not necessarily everywhere, but definately where I live) that men inherently DON'T want to raise children. The stories you hear are all about men who walk out of their children's lives, the deadbeats, the abusers, etc. There are no stories about the men who lovingly raise their children, not out of a sense of responsibility, but because they genuinely love their children and want the best for them. Where are the stories of the fathers who fight and struggle to give their children every opportunity to be happy, healthy and successful? What happens when a man is told that he is going to be a father and he embraces it, cherishes it and spends the next couple of months planning and remodeling his life to accomodate it, only to then be told that the mother of his child thinks that the situation could become "inconvenient" for her, so she's terminating the pregnancy? How does he deal with the loss of a child that he grew to love with all of his heart that was taken away against his will?

Enough ranting, my perspective is still that if the law is going to stay where it is regarding a woman's right to choose, then a man should also have the right to choose (if not regarding whether or not the child is brought to term, then at least in his involvement and responsibility to the child after the fact).

Well... While it is true that deadbeat dads and abusers get more press, so to speak than good dads, I'd say that's only because they make a sexier 'news' story, and people very rarely get sued for being a good dad... Still, I doubt anyone thinks of them as a disappearing or mythical species.

I hope this part doesn't sound aggressive or insensitive, but I think it's both useful, and perhaps helpful in your situation, to differentiate between loving a child and loving the idea of a potential child.

She can't abort your child... If there's a child, there's a court procedure available. It's often an unfair one, and you may lose, but it's there. All she can abort is a fetus. You've got more semen... Find a willing woman - there are lots - and try again.

As emotionally attached as you can get to the idea that you're going to get to raise a child, no amount of joyous anticipation is justification for forcing another human being into nine months of what can only be described as sexual slavery - not the fun leash and leather kind, but the kind where you keep someone in a literal or figurative cage, and use them as livestock.

If someone sat down in a new restaurant and decided to try the lobster special, and they got themselves really excited about it... Really looking forward to it... Then the waitress came out and said "I'm sorry... We're out of lobster." We could certainly expect that fellow to be disappointed, perhaps bitterly so... But we wouldn't expect him to say "But I loved that lobster! That was my favorite lobster ever! God, it was so delicious!"

Honor wrote: Well... While it is true that deadbeat dads and abusers get more press, so to speak than good dads, I'd say that's only because they make a sexier 'news' story, and people very rarely get sued for being a good dad... Still, I doubt anyone thinks of them as a disappearing or mythical species.

I hope this part doesn't sound aggressive or insensitive, but I think it's both useful, and perhaps helpful in your situation, to differentiate between loving a child and loving the idea of a potential child.

She can't abort your child... If there's a child, there's a court procedure available. It's often an unfair one, and you may lose, but it's there. All she can abort is a fetus. You've got more semen... Find a willing woman - there are lots - and try again.

As emotionally attached as you can get to the idea that you're going to get to raise a child, no amount of joyous anticipation is justification for forcing another human being into nine months of what can only be described as sexual slavery - not the fun leash and leather kind, but the kind where you keep someone in a literal or figurative cage, and use them as livestock.

If someone sat down in a new restaurant and decided to try the lobster special, and they got themselves really excited about it... Really looking forward to it... Then the waitress came out and said "I'm sorry... We're out of lobster." We could certainly expect that fellow to be disappointed, perhaps bitterly so... But we wouldn't expect him to say "But I loved that lobster! That was my favorite lobster ever! God, it was so delicious!"

While I have to admit that your "lobster dinner" analogy did sound insensitive to me, I don't consider you an insensitive person. You just have a different perspective on the situation than I do. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm not going to try to "adjust" your perspective to be more similar to my own but I hope you don't mind if I point out something that I percieve as a flaw in your thinking on the subject.

A lobster dinner is not a life-changing event and it can be replicated many times without any need to become "attached" to the lobster in question. The loss of one lobster dinner is insignificant because you can go back the next day and do it again.

Instead, think of you and a partner coming up with an "idea" that you can use to start your own business. It will be incredibly challenging for the both of you, but you both have the skills and desire necessary to make it very rewarding. You both take steps to make everything fall into place so that the transition to your new life will be as painless as possible for everyone involved and you look forward to getting your new business off the ground.

Then your partner tells you that not only are they unwilling to continue in this "business endeavor", but that they are taking away the "idea" that is the foundation of the business, despite the fact that the two of you created it together. You get no say in the matter. You just sit there and watch all of your dreams and plans crumble around you.

It's not just a matter of picking up the pieces and starting over. There is real loss at not only the potential of the business, but also the loss of the "idea" behind the business itself and your partner. Sure, you could just come up with a new "idea" to define a similar business, but it would necessarily have to be a slightly different "idea". You could just find a new partner, but that's not easy because you have to find someone who is not only willing to be part of the business, but someone who would be able to help you make the business successful, not to mention needing to find someone you can enjoy working with.

I'm not saying the law should force a woman into sexual or any other kind of slavery. I'm only saying that a woman should not be the only one to have a say when it comes to a child that she didn't create on her own. It takes two people to create a new life, both should have a say in what happens to it.

That's the point, though...

Once it is a new life, both do have a say in it.


And on the "idea" illustration... She can't take away the idea. She just can't. You can always find someone else and try again.

The only thing left to differentiate the "new idea" form the "old idea" is that she's taking away her half of the genetic material... Which has to be her right.

Ah, but that's the problem. You can't legally define a fetus as "life" and still protect a woman's right to choose. From your perspective, a fetus is the potential of life. From my perspective, a fetus IS life (unlike most people, this doesn't change my support of a woman's right to choose). I'm not trying to argue for the removal of a woman's right to choose, I'm just trying to argue that the man involved should have a say in the matter since he is 50% responsible for there being a choice to make in the first place.

And as for the "idea" illustration... Each individual "idea" is unique. Even if two people have multiple children, the children are not the same. They will probably be similar, but they are by no means the same (even identical twins can be total opposites in matters that don't relate to appearance). If one person has a child with one partner and then another child with a different partner, the children are even more dissimilar than children born to the same parents. The point is, the child that was lost was just as unique as you or I (you may not agree that there was a child at all, but even the fetus was different from any other fetus in existence).

To put it a different way...You say it HAS to be a woman's right to take away her half of the genetic code that goes into a child. I don't disagree with that at all, but why does the man not have a say in what happens to HIS half of the genetic material in that child. A woman can have or destroy a child at her discretion, but the man has no say in the matter. This makes the woman's half of the genetic material more important than the man's half. While this is legal, that does not make it right or just.

As of right now, there is no solution to the problem. We can argue back and forth about possibilities and whether or not they are fair to each person involved, but that does not change what is or is not legal.

I'm merely pointing out that the way the laws are, the woman has all of the rights when it comes to children and men have no protection in the eyes of the law.

I think there should be a legal waiver of parental rights that could be signed by both adults before sexual relations begin - kinda like a pre-nup for unwanted pregnancies. Whereas the man would be liable only for half the cost of the abortion, or a third of the costs of the pregnancy (minus clothing - should putting the child up for adoption be the choice), if a pregnancy occur.

My brother was trapped by a woman who claimed her birth control pills didn't work. I would have liked to have seen some kind of legal out for him had he been able to prove it.

I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

I didn't vote per se as none of the choice cover how I feel. Personally I think that Men should have at least some say in whether or not an unplanned pregnancy is aborted. The man should at least be consulted in my opinion. Ultimately it is the woman's body, but I think it's unfair for her to terminate a pregnancy without consulting the male. I also question how much responsibility the father should have. If he has to pay child support than he has some say in the raising of the child. If he doesn't want a child, then he should renounce all rights to the child and pay for half of the medical bills for the birth of said child.

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

Or to an artificial womb.

In the meantime, Abortion is not murder.

1. A fetus is NOT a child and a fetus is NOT a human being. It is a part of the female's body until it is carried to term and can live outside the human body. Until then, it is medically, little more than a parasite and it is a possession of that woman. If a lung or kidney or even a tonsil is brought out of a human being, it is a living human organism and will die outside the human body eventually. Letting a tonsil die is not murder. Removing a fetus is not murder either.

2. A woman's body is NOT the property of the superstitious dogma of obsolete objective moralists.

3. Life is NOT sacred. Human life is NOT sacred. If it was, hand guns and the death penalty would be illegal. Wars would definitely not be started by slacker conservatives looking for a way to feel macho while shedding other people's blood.

4. Human life does not start at conception. Human life starts, individually, as sperm and eggs - gametes which ARE alive and are specifically human life (otherwise, they could be used to impregnate other animals as well), but are disposed of every month through menstrual cycles for females or either nocturnal emissions or masturbation for males. So any boy who has had a wet dream or any girl who has had more than one period is, by the pro-birth definition, a serial killer. Pro-birthers (let's face it, they don't give a shit about the child once its born) likes to pretend human life begins at conception out of convenience for their argument only.

Both *create* the fetus. Only the woman has to carry it to term. And - after the child is born, the woman has to suffer the biological imperative, via the oxytocin system, to care for and raise the kid; It's not an insignificant imposition. Whether she has the option to give the kid up or not.

I tend to give a little sway to the notion that the man ought to be "consulted" (having been there, and not given that choice) - but on the other hand, that's the situation we have today, and the woman has the veto power (in the first trimester, if she's over 18, yada yada). The "consulting" role of the male donor can be overridden - and therefore is moot.
Because in any case where the woman's "right to choose" matters, really matters, such a veto is usually involved.

So while I give credence to that notion, that it's the "right thing to do" - I don't agree that it should be compelled by law - because that is a right slippery slope. You've got the usual cases of rape and incest - the sperm donor shouldn't get any say there. Period. (This is another anti-abortionist argument; that it's "wrong to punish the child for the father's crime" - If that fetus was a human life, (for sake of argument) then that blood is on the rapist's hands. Not the mother's. Not the doctor's. Not the society's.)

But this is why I think that our birth control technology sucks.

Ideally - we would have some kind of nanotech device that can reliably, reversibly sterilize people. We'd sterilize our kids as soon as they're fertile. Then they could be as sexually active as they wanted (assuming there was also other technology for STD's) - then, when they are SOCIALLY ready to bear children, they could get the sterilization devices shut off, and go to work.

I was sterilized, and personally, I sometimes think that I would like to have another kid or two now. It is reversible, but the procedure is pretty extreme, and not very reliable. I wish I could have kids now, and not have started having them when I was 19, and not financially able to really be the best father I could. Someday, this will be a reality. And the politicians will have to find some other buttons to push to con people out of their money and their votes.