Men's Reproductive Rights

[saysmydoctor]

(Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan: http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=fb52c81011759e52c41523 c98fe55e2f)


Greg Bruell and his girlfriend of a year and a half, Sandra Hedrick, had a pact. “We agreed that if we got pregnant, we’d terminate because we were not in a stable family unit,” Hedrick says. Or as Bruell more starkly puts it, “I resumed sexual relations with her on the condition that were birth control to fail, she’d abort without waffling.”



“Resumed,” because nine months ear*lier Hedrick had conceived a child with Bruell and the couple decided to end that pregnancy. Or rather, he decided, and she went along. Their relationship was too rocky—a series of breakups followed by passionate reunions—for them to become parents together, Bruell argued. Plus, both were still in the process of finalizing di*vorces, and he was a newly single father struggling to balance his needs against those of his eight-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son. Bruell wanted to steady their destabilized worlds before jumping into fatherhood anew.



A dead ringer for Woody Harrelson, with penetrating blue eyes, an athletic body splashed with freckles, and a diminishing crop of strawberry blond hair, Bruell wasn’t one to take becoming a dad lightly. Perversely, considering his new situation, he’d waged a two-year campaign—complete with “charts and graphs”—to persuade his former wife, Pam, to have their daughter and son. “Pam wasn’t sure she could balance her career with parenting,” Bruell says of his biology-professor ex (who seconded his version of events), “so the agreement was that I’d be the stay-at-home dad.” When their first child was born in 2001, Bruell quit his job as a software executive and, buttressed by a trust fund from his grandfather’s fragrance company, dedicated himself to parenting full-time.



Hedrick, a petite 39-year-old whose lively blue eyes, long blond hair, and curvy figure recall something of the high school cheerleader she once was, also already had a child, a five-year-old girl, and was still untying the emotional knots of her seven-year marriage. Her reaction to the pregnancy, however, had been one of “love, hope, happiness, and an overwhelming feeling that the baby was meant to exist.” But Greg’s logic and unwavering certainty that the baby was not meant to be ultimately carried the day for her. Still, Hedrick admits, “If Greg wasn’t beside me on the table, I don’t think I would have gone through with it.”



It was the night after the abortion, and on a number of occasions following, that Hedrick vowed to Greg that if she conceived again, she’d immediately terminate. But when she got pregnant in early 2009 (she was on birth control, she says, though its effectiveness may have been diluted by antibiotics she was taking), she balked. “I looked at the ultrasound,” Hedrick says. “A bad move.” She also realized that this might be her last chance to have another child. She broke the news to Bruell: She was keeping the baby.
Infuriated about the “miserable betrayal,” Bruell told Hedrick it was over between them, for good. He believed she’d deliberately gotten pregnant. Then, two months later, as he was leaving a session with his personal trainer, he was served with a lawsuit demanding child support for his unborn child. That’s when Bruell called Mel Feit, a founder of the National Center for Men (NCM), and volunteered to become the next poster boy for male reproductive rights.


Read the rest here: http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Society-Career-Power/The-Parent-Trap-Paternal-Rights-and-Abortion


Post your thoughts.


Me, I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right... wouldn't it have made more sense to get his tubes tide when he decided he no longer wanted to father another child?

[Scrandon]

Yes, it would make more sense, but that would require having sense.

[open mind]

in cases like this i don't think he should have to pay support. i don't think a guy should have to pay in cases of pregnancies that are hidden from them until the option to abort is gone either.

[open mind]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right... wouldn't it have made more sense to get his tubes tide when he decided he no longer wanted to father another child?

the way i read it was that he just didn't want to father any children until things were more stable.

[Smash Adams]

Handling children as a business transaction sounds like something the bad guy on Law and Order would do. very creepy

[saysmydoctor]

the way i read it was that he just didn't want to father any children until things were more stable.
Not to mention, it was also an agreement he had with his wife as well. Sounds like an advantageous move on her part.

[Theseventhson]

Huh.

[Kozzy333]

Men should have the same reproductive rights as women.

/thread

[zachff]

Just like sex contract between Dwight and Angela on The Office.

[saysmydoctor]

Just like sex contract between Dwight and Angela on The Office.
Tee hee.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

saw the title and immediately thought of that scene from life of brian where the guy was arguing for his right to have children

[perceptrons]

Part of me agrees that the father shouldn't have to pay support, but the other part thinks that the actions of the mother are not the child's fault and paying support for it is the way to go.

[GeeBee]

Abortion...NEITHER HERE NOR THERE!

[saysmydoctor]

Part of me agrees that the father shouldn't have to pay support, but the other part thinks that the actions of the mother are not the child's fault and paying support for it is the way to go.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was leaning towards.

[bung]

the actions of the mother are not the child's fault and paying support for it is the way to go.

But the actions of the mother are not the father's fault, either. After she breaks their mutual understanding and decides to keep the baby anyway after getting pregnant, I can't believe she even has the gall to ask for child support.

[perceptrons]

But the actions of the mother are not the father's fault, either. After she breaks their mutual understanding and decides to keep the baby anyway after getting pregnant, I can't believe she even has the gall to ask for child support.
I'm completely torn. I think what the mother did is pretty terrible, but I just can't shake the feeling that it isn't right to punish the kid for how it all happened. I just don't know.

[bung]

I'm completely torn. I think what the mother did is pretty terrible, but I just can't shake the feeling that it isn't right to punish the kid for how it all happened. I just don't know.

I don't think the kid should be punished at all, either. Yet, I don't think that the father should be required to pay based on any kind of moral obligation, so to speak. But if he did choose to pay, I'd say he's acting in a morally exemplary fashion--if that makes sense.

Although I think the best option would've just been for the mother to keep her word.

[caveBEAR]

Hmmm...I really don't know how I feel about this right now. Very tricky situation.

[Love As Arson]

Women bear a disproportionate burden of the world’s poverty. Statistics indicate that women are more likely than men to be poor and at risk of hunger because of the systematic discrimination they face in education, health care, employment and control of assets. Poverty implications are widespread for women, leaving many without even basic rights such as access to clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care and decent employment. Being poor can also mean they have little protection from violence and have no role in decision making.

http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/

So, no, I do not think we should get rid of child support. Unless, of course, we rid of this first.

[saysmydoctor]

Women bear a disproportionate burden of the world’s poverty. Statistics indicate that women are more likely than men to be poor and at risk of hunger because of the systematic discrimination they face in education, health care, employment and control of assets. Poverty implications are widespread for women, leaving many without even basic rights such as access to clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care and decent employment. Being poor can also mean they have little protection from violence and have no role in decision making.

http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/

So, no, I do not think we should get rid of child support. Unless, of course, we rid of this first.
But what about this particular case?

[caveBEAR]

Damnit L.A.A., I can't post my vapid opinions if you're going to be all edu-macated on the second page! Can't you wait until the 7th page to make me feel like a dunce?

[caveBEAR]

But what about this particular case?

I just worry that if things went 'well' for the man in this case, deadbeat Dad's would see an out. Seems like a lot of the 'she said she'd abort' would be nothing more than hearsay. Although, if there was some out-of-wedlock pre-nup type scenario...

I don't know. Let's all take a moment to bask in the fact that we have problems like 'who owes Mommy money' and not 'where's the nearest drinkable water'.

[samsara]

I dont know how I feel about this since guys dont have to give birth to the damn things.

[Love As Arson]

But what about this particular case?
I support the father paying child support. I think this has to be pointed out before this thread degenerates: Women pay child support as well.

[caveBEAR]

After deep thought about the situation and it's ramifications, I have come to this conclusion;

You know what can happen when you have sex, and no 'agreements' keep you from the responsibilities you may receive as a direct result of your choices.

The end.

[open mind]

I support the father paying child support. I think this has to be pointed out before this thread degenerates: Women pay child support as well.

it's not the norm though.
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/fathers.html

[caveBEAR]

it's not the norm though.
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/fathers.html

I took that as more 'women generally support/raise the children' over the cases where father's have sole custody, but :shrug:

[open mind]

I took that as more 'women generally support/raise the children' over the cases where father's have sole custody, but :shrug:

you lost me here.

[Scrandon]

After deep thought about the situation and it's ramifications, I have come to this conclusion;

You know what can happen when you have sex, and no 'agreements' keep you from the responsibilities you may receive as a direct result of your choices.

The end.

Whoa buddy, sounds like a pro-lifer

[Scrandon]

you lost me here.

Paying child support in the form of actually raising the child as opposed to handing over money.

[caveBEAR]

you lost me here.

This;

Paying child support in the form of actually raising the child as opposed to handing over money.



Whoa buddy, sounds like a pro-lifer

Ha ha ha, well, I meant if the child comes to fruition. If the kid had been aborted, there would have been no issue, but the guy knew what could happen. It appeared to me he had nothing in writing, nothing binding, just spoken agreements. He had to know, in the back of his head, every time he had sex, a child was possible. That kid's got 1/2 his DNA, and it's not fair to the child to end up losing out on money that would be used in his life.

Sucks for the guy, but monks don't need to worry about this shit.

[Dunn.Nope]

After deep thought about the situation and it's ramifications, I have come to this conclusion;

You know what can happen when you have sex, and no 'agreements' keep you from the responsibilities you may receive as a direct result of your choices.

The end.
hold on a second... are we saying that sex may actually have a consequence? I'm kind of at a loss for words here.

[Love As Arson]

it's not the norm though.
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/fathers.html
I was referring to the inherent costs in being a pregnant woman, as well as a mother.

With little public debate, the United States has chosen a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states.

Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies.

To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm

[Max_123]

I think guys should have a say in what happens with a child, yes I understand we don't have to go through child birth but it's not just the woman's decision because we were also involved, you shouldn't be able to have the only say

[Takk...Ros]

To those saying it's a "tricky situation"; no. It's not. It is HER decision to have or not have the child. She has decided to have it and as the father he has a monetary responsibility to the kid.

The end.

[Hamlet]

If a man has no right to choose, he should not be held responsible for a child he has no rights over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Criticism_of_child_su pport_policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion#Criticism_of_child_su pport_policies)

[bung]

This; Ha ha ha, well, I meant if the child comes to fruition. If the kid had been aborted, there would have been no issue, but the guy knew what could happen. It appeared to me he had nothing in writing, nothing binding, just spoken agreements. He had to know, in the back of his head, every time he had sex, a child was possible.

This is misleading. From the man's perspective, as per the agreement with his partner, they would, regardless that she was already on birth-control, terminate a pregnancy should one occur. Either the woman lied to him from the start or simply decided to break her agreement with him. The whole point of making the agreement in the first place was probably to relinquish the burden of worrying about a possible child or having to make the decision after she got pregnant.

Legally, the man may be required to pay child support--but the woman is the one who's at fault here.

[DCfreak]

In that situation I am completely against the man paying child support. I feel sorry for the child, but if the mother made an agreement to abort the child with the father and then goes against that agreement and has the child anyways, she should expect to be raising it on her own. I do not believe any male has the right to tell their partner that she "must" abort the baby, but this did not sound very one sided.

[Takk...Ros]

If a man has no right to choose, he should not be held responsible for a child he has no rights over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Criticism_of_child_su pport_policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion#Criticism_of_child_su pport_policies)
That's an interesting thought and I'm not arguing for or against it at the moment, but in this situation under current laws he has a legal responsibility to the child.

[bung]

That's an interesting thought and I'm not arguing for or against it at the moment, but in this situation under current laws he has a legal responsibility to the child.

Yeah, we know that. But just because something's the law doesn't make it right.

[Takk...Ros]

In that situation I am completely against the man paying child support. I feel sorry for the child, but if the mother made an agreement to abort the child with the father and then goes against that agreement and has the child anyways, she should expect to be raising it on her own. I do not believe any male has the right to tell their partner that she "must" abort the baby, but this did not sound very one sided.
But it sounds like he did. Reread that article and tell me that woman was one hundred percent down with terminating any pregnancy. Coercing her to agree =/= her agreeing.

[Max_123]

To those saying it's a "tricky situation"; no. It's not. It is HER decision to have or not have the child. She has decided to have it and as the father he has a monetary responsibility to the kid.

The end.
It shouldn't only be a woman's decision to make because it affects both parties, not just the woman. So what if girls are the one carrying the child doesn't mean a man should have no say whatsoever

[Takk...Ros]

Yeah, we know that. But just because something's the law doesn't make it right.
Right, but people are saying this situation is tricky when it's pretty cut and dry. All it really does is open discussion and give him the opportunity to take it to court and get the laws changed.

[Takk...Ros]

It shouldn't only be a woman's decision to make because it affects both parties, not just the woman. So what if girls are the one carrying the child doesn't mean a man should have no say whatsoever
The only way a man has any say in whether a woman aborts or not is if she asks him. Then she can listen and choose whether or not to take his advise.

[x togepi x]

How would you guys who are complaining about him paying child support fix this problem in a way that wouldn't hurt more women than it helps men?

[caveBEAR]

Legally, the man may be required to pay child support--but the woman is the one who's at fault here.

I definitely agree. I'm emotionally biased because I've worked with so many kids who have deadbeat fathers, and it's really tough on some of them...and it's not their fault.

Not the best subject for me to stay objective. :shrug:

[bung]

The only way a man has any say in whether a woman aborts or not is if she asks him. Then she can listen and choose whether or not to take his advise.

Yeah, that's actually exactly what happened. They made an agreement and the woman said she would abort.

How would you guys who are complaining about him paying child support fix this problem in a way that wouldn't hurt more women than it helps men?

If people, in general, kept their promises more the world would be a better place.

[Max_123]

The only way a man has any say in whether a woman aborts or not is if she asks him. Then she can listen and choose whether or not to take his advise.
the guy above already stated this but they had an agreement that she would have the abortion and decided to keep the baby, yeah people break promises all the time but if they had some kind of mutual understanding she is definitely the one at fault

[Takk...Ros]

Yeah, that's actually exactly what happened. They made an agreement and the woman said she would abort.
Except no it's not. Yes she initially went with the idea of automatic termination, but then she changed her mind and did what she felt was best for her. She is more than within her rights to do that.

[Takk...Ros]

the guy above already stated this but they had an agreement that she would have the abortion and decided to keep the baby, yeah people break promises all the time but if they had some kind of mutual understanding she is definitely the one at fault
She is not at fault for changing her mind. She's allowed to do that.

[samsara]

Yeah its harder for a women because there is also an emotional attachment men wont ever understand.

[x togepi x]

If people, in general, kept their promises more the world would be a better place.

I agree. that's why I think anyone who doesn't want a child regardless of gender should protect themselves by taking the proper precautions.

[Max_123]

She is not at fault for changing her mind. She's allowed to do that.
sure she's allowed to change her mind but then she shouldn't try and get child support out of the guy, i know you're biased because you're a woman and i'm biased because i'm a man but they did have an understanding that she would have an abortion WHICH SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH, if there was a problem with that she wouldn't have agreed

[bung]

Except no it's not. Yes she initially went with the idea of automatic termination, but then she changed her mind and did what she felt was best for her. She is more than within her rights to do that.

Yes, it is. The time that a woman makes a decision in cases like these is vital to whether or not she can or should do it. If she's made a prior commitment otherwise, to break it after getting pregnant would be to manipulate the man--if he knew that she would keep the child should a pregnancy occur he might not even have had sex with her in the first place.

Do you think that it's ethical behavior to break life-altering commitments you make with people, even if nothing is done wrong legally speaking?

I agree. that's why I think anyone who doesn't want a child regardless of gender should protect themselves by taking the proper precautions.

Yeah, they did that.

[Max_123]

Yeah its harder for a women because there is also an emotional attachment men wont ever understand.
that's not the problem though, they had an agreement with each other and she goes back on it and tries to get money from him

[Takk...Ros]

Also the assertions that she got pregnant on purpose are really annoying me. While that's possible, it said she was on antibiotics which are known to reduce the effectiveness of birth control. But no it couldn't be an accident. It must be us mean, scary women tricking and trapping men with our devious ways.

If he wanted to be sure he could have wrapped it up or cut the connection surgically. Why is it all on her?

[samsara]

that's not the problem though, they had an agreement with each other and she goes back on it and tries to get money from him

Yeah I can understand that because he was trying to get on his feet. But a little money in support wouldnt be too much to ask especially if she didnt have any money.

[x togepi x]

Yeah, they did that.

I meant like, getting a vasectomy/using birth control etc.

[Takk...Ros]

sure she's allowed to change her mind but then she shouldn't try and get child support out of the guy, i know you're biased because you're a woman and i'm biased because i'm a man but they did have an understanding that she would have an abortion WHICH SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH, if there was a problem with that she wouldn't have agreed
It said in the article the main reason she went along with it was because of him. She said she "wasn't sure" she'd have done it without him. That doesn't really sound like no problems.

Regardless I do think it's odd to go after child support when you know he doesn't want the kid in the first place, but could he not just sign his rights to the kid away? Thereby eliminating the legality of child support?

Important to note the bias thing, but also important to note? On the male side: less money in wallet. Female side: less control over body.

Yes, it is. The time that a woman makes a decision in cases like these is vital to whether or not she can or should do it. If she's made a prior commitment otherwise, to break it after getting pregnant would be to manipulate the man--if he knew that she would keep the child should a pregnancy occur he might not even have had sex with her in the first place.

Do you think that it's ethical behavior to break life-altering commitments you make with people, even if nothing is done wrong legally speaking?

OR SHE CHANGED HER MIND. I promise we women are not always trying to manipulate men. Maybe she truly believed that when faced with an actual pregnancy she would abort, but when the reality came obviously her position changed. Is it possible that she did this to "manipulate" him? Yes. Probable? No. More likely she wasn't that comfortable with the promise in the first place and CHANGED HER MIND according to what she felt was best for her.

No I don't, but I also can't look at her and tell her she's wrong for exercising her right to control her own body. Also, can't he sign away his parental rights and it's all done with anyway? No child support?

[saysmydoctor]

I do have to agree that if both are going to enter into this sort of agreement it shouldn't be a one-sided agreement. He should have to take the same precautions as her.

[Takk...Ros]

I meant like, getting a vasectomy/using birth control etc.

I do have to agree that if both are going to enter into this sort of agreement it shouldn't be a one-sided agreement. He should have to take the same precautions as her.
Exactly. Why is it all automatically her fault?

[saysmydoctor]

I just realized I used the same word, essentially, three times in one sentence. I'm going to bed.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

Yeah its harder for a women because there is also an emotional attachment men wont ever understand.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Completely bias and not factual.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

It said in the article the main reason she went along with it was because of him. She said she "wasn't sure" she'd have done it without him. That doesn't really sound like no problems.

Regardless I do think it's odd to go after child support when you know he doesn't want the kid in the first place, but could he not just sign his rights to the kid away? Thereby eliminating the legality of child support?

Important to note the bias thing, but also important to note? On the male side: less money in wallet. Female side: less control over body.


OR SHE CHANGED HER MIND. I promise we women are not always trying to manipulate men. Maybe she truly believed that when faced with an actual pregnancy she would abort, but when the reality came obviously her position changed. Is it possible that she did this to "manipulate" him? Yes. Probable? No. More likely she wasn't that comfortable with the promise in the first place and CHANGED HER MIND according to what she felt was best for her.

No I don't, but I also can't look at her and tell her she's wrong for exercising her right to control her own body. Also, can't he sign away his parental rights and it's all done with anyway? No child support?

I believe he can but I'm not positive on this subject.

[samsara]

This is such a ridiculous statement. Completely bias and not factual.


Yeah its biased because men cant get pregnant and its true. Women tend to get attached to a little parasite growing inside of them.

[jessicalynn-xx]

She is not at fault for changing her mind. She's allowed to do that.

She's allowed to change her mind, yes. She can make her own choices, no one's saying she can't. But she can't expect other people to pay for her choices. I wouldn't say she's "at fault," but if they agreed she would terminate if she got pregnant, then she should take full responsibility for the cost of her choice.

Also, this article was really biased in favor of the woman. I read about the same story other places where there was no mention of her being "coerced" into getting that first abortion.

I think he should be allowed to cede his rights and responsibilities to the child... Maybe. I dunno. If a man is gonna be a deadbeat father, he's gonna be a deadbeat father regardless of the legalities. No amount of court orders will make him be there for his child.

[Takk...Ros]

She's allowed to change her mind, yes. She can make her own choices, no one's saying she can't. But she can't expect other people to pay for her choices. I wouldn't say she's "at fault," but if they agreed she would terminate if she got pregnant, then she should take full responsibility for the cost of her choice.

Also, this article was really biased in favor of the woman. I read about the same story other places where there was no mention of her being "coerced" into getting that first abortion.

I think he should be allowed to cede his rights and responsibilities to the child... Maybe. I dunno. If a man is gonna be a deadbeat father, he's gonna be a deadbeat father regardless of the legalities. No amount of court orders will make him be there for his child.
But, right or wrong, that's just not how it works under current law. And it seemed like he was arguing that she shouldn't have gone through with the pregnancy and I was just emphasizing her right to do so. I know people in here aren't screaming to overturn Roe v. Wade or anything haha.

This is the only article I've read so I can't say. I was just pointing out that maybe she wasn't as certain in her side of the bargain. I was talking more hypothetical than actualities, but thank you for pointing that out. I didn't mean to insinuate that she ABSOLUTELY WAS FORCED OMG! just that it's a possibility. There's actually studies that show this happens more often than people realize (I'll try to find links if anyone even cares).

That's what I don't understand. If he doesn't want the kid, cool. Sign away your parental rights and the monetary responsibility goes away too. At least if I'm not wholly mistaken, which is entirely possible.

[jessicalynn-xx]

But, right or wrong, that's just not how it works under current law. And it seemed like he was arguing that she shouldn't have gone through with the pregnancy and I was just emphasizing her right to do so. I know people in here aren't screaming to overturn Roe v. Wade or anything haha.

This is the only article I've read so I can't say. I was just pointing out that maybe she wasn't as certain in her side of the bargain. I was talking more hypothetical than actualities, but thank you for pointing that out. I didn't mean to insinuate that she ABSOLUTELY WAS FORCED OMG! just that it's a possibility. There's actually studies that show this happens more often than people realize (I'll try to find links if anyone even cares).

That's what I don't understand. If he doesn't want the kid, cool. Sign away your parental rights and the monetary responsibility goes away too. At least if I'm not wholly mistaken, which is entirely possible.

I'm not sure that he's able to do that. I live in Canada, maybe the law is different in America.

[Takk...Ros]

I'm not sure that he's able to do that. I live in Canada, maybe the law is different in America.
Yeah I'm honestly not sure either. I'm fairly certain there is some sort of parental rights they can sign away, but I don't what it entails, how easy/hard it is to do, etc. My knowledge of this law comes from my aunt (who often just makes shit up so...) and television. Not the greatest sources.

If he can't do that, he definitely should be able to.

[bung]

OR SHE CHANGED HER MIND. I promise we women are not always trying to manipulate men. Maybe she truly believed that when faced with an actual pregnancy she would abort, but when the reality came obviously her position changed. Is it possible that she did this to "manipulate" him? Yes. Probable? No. More likely she wasn't that comfortable with the promise in the first place and CHANGED HER MIND according to what she felt was best for her.

Obviously if she's to be allowed to change her mind at will, then she shouldn't knowingly enter an agreement that says she must keep her word. It's like saying, "Yeah honey, I agree that I'll terminate the pregnancy should I get pregnant. But actually, don't quote me on that. I might change my mind if it actually happens. But right now I agree that I'll terminate the pregnancy, so you don't have to worry."

I think you just have to admit that this guy got fucked and then he got fuuuuuucked.

No I don't, but I also can't look at her and tell her she's wrong for exercising her right to control her own body. Also, can't he sign away his parental rights and it's all done with anyway? No child support?

I don't know, it probably varies state by state with certain stipulations and whatnot.

[x togepi x]

Yeah I'm honestly not sure either. I'm fairly certain there is some sort of parental rights they can sign away, but I don't what it entails, how easy/hard it is to do, etc. My knowledge of this law comes from my aunt (who often just makes shit up so...) and television. Not the greatest sources.

If he can't do that, he definitely should be able to.

I think both parties have to consent for him to be able to sign his parental rights away. I know that it's possible because a guy i used to be friends with had a kid that he totally couldn't afford to have but his baby's momma was from a well off family, so she let him get away with it because she could more than afford the child with her mom's help, plus she didn't want to have anything to do with him anymore.

I think the problem in this situation is that she probably wouldn't agree to such a measure. You kind of need a both parties must consent rule to keep people from just throwing the burden of a child onto their ex years after the fact.

essentially, men's reproductive rights are limited by the limited toll having a child takes on their life. as a man, you have to realize that by consenting to sex, you're consenting to entering an arrangement with your partner that means you'll have limited rights should she get impregnated. While it would be awesome if men could have an equal choice, the idea in practice isn't so great, because nobody should be able to force women to have an abortion or have a baby because they are the ones that are going to have to deal with the consequences of either choice in a much bigger way than the man would. It's an imperfect system but I'm not sure how a better one could be created without screwing over women completely.

I think the problem with personal contracts like this is that it's completely unrealistic. Why should a woman be forced to agree to a position she had in the past? Relationships aren't businesses. The idea of a contract is insanely ridiculous because we don't apply those standards to relationships. I mean, if I can't pay for sex, it seems ridiculous that I can make a contract governing how it works.

I fucking hate the National Center for Men with an undying passion.

[open mind]

I was referring to the inherent costs in being a pregnant woman, as well as a mother.

With little public debate, the United States has chosen a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states.

Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies.

To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm

ok we're just talking about different things then.

i'm all for paid maternity leave and child support.....i just think that in some extreme cases that a man shouldn't be required to pay support.

[Hamlet]

She is not at fault for changing her mind. She's allowed to do that.

Oh cool. Then maybe they should give the man that option.

[x togepi x]

Oh cool. Then maybe they should give the man that option.

why?

[bung]

I think the problem in this situation is that she probably wouldn't agree to such a measure.

The article states that she did, several times.

"It was the night after the abortion, and on a number of occasions following, that Hedrick vowed to Greg that if she conceived again, she’d immediately terminate. But when she got pregnant in early 2009 (she was on birth control, she says, though its effectiveness may have been diluted by antibiotics she was taking), she balked. “I looked at the ultrasound,” Hedrick says. “A bad move.” She also realized that this might be her last chance to have another child. She broke the news to Bruell: She was keeping the baby."

I think the problem with personal contracts like this is that it's completely unrealistic. Why should a woman be forced to agree to a position she had in the past? Relationships aren't businesses. The idea of a contract is insanely ridiculous because we don't apply those standards to relationships.

Relationships themselves are nothing but big mutual contracts. And people apply standards to their relationships all the time, both romantic and non, in efforts to create a successful partnership. No sleeping with other people is probably the most common, but there are tons of other obvious ones.

Why should [anyone] be forced to agree to a position [he/]she had in the past?

Incidentally, this is the root of an obscure notion termed a "promise."

[x togepi x]

The article states that she did, several times.

"It was the night after the abortion, and on a number of occasions following, that Hedrick vowed to Greg that if she conceived again, she’d immediately terminate. But when she got pregnant in early 2009 (she was on birth control, she says, though its effectiveness may have been diluted by antibiotics she was taking), she balked. “I looked at the ultrasound,” Hedrick says. “A bad move.” She also realized that this might be her last chance to have another child. She broke the news to Bruell: She was keeping the baby."

What I meant there is that I doubt she would agree to let him waive his parental rights, which is currently (at least in my state) legally required for someone to be able to do it, not that she didn't agree to have an abortion if she got pregnant.


Relationships themselves are nothing but big mutual contracts. And people apply standards to their relationships all the time, both romantic and non, in efforts to create a successful partnership. No sleeping with other people is probably the most common, but there are tons of other obvious ones.

I disagree with this. While relationships might have all sorts of agreements and unwritten rules that regulate behavior, like no sleeping around, the evolutionary nature of them necessitates the need for people to be able to change those standards as things evolve. Let's take your example of sleeping around. When you reach a certain level of commitment, flirting with other people is considered bad, but when you first start hanging out with someone, it's usually okay. It's the development of the relationship that makes those rules subject to change.

You could make a similar case that the act of getting pregnant created a similar evolution in their relationship that makes the old agreement irrelevant. She was in a different state of mind when she agreed. There's already precedent for standards changing when states of mind change.

I just think the emotional nature of relationships makes any contract untenable, especially when a lot of these agreements might not be made on purely rational grounds (ie: who's to say she actually desired to agree to abort versus just saying what would make him feel better) or the fact that the rules agreed to are often up to interpretation (ie: people in relationships getting in arguments about what counts as cheating). Those sorts of things don't necessarily happen in contracts.


Incidentally, this is the root of an obscure notion termed a "promise."

This sort of begs the question: can you enforce a promise? what happens if you don't follow through on a promise? should you be required to follow through promises you made in the past when you've changed so much as a person that you'd probably not make the same promise you did before?

I just wonder about the implications of that sort of thing. I feel like it's the same thing as lying. You can't really ban lying. You can say, out of the interests of fairness or honest/open conversation, that you shouldn't lie but you can't really stop people from doing it without destroying our ideas of free speech and personal autonomy. Likewise, I wonder if there are other negative implications to forcing people to follow through.

like, what would happen if the situation were reversed and she originally had promised to have the baby but decided to abort it after she got pregnant? how can we say "oh we respect your choice" but then attempt to give men a way of regulating it?

[DrStrong]

in cases like this i don't think he should have to pay support. i don't think a guy should have to pay in cases of pregnancies that are hidden from them until the option to abort is gone either.

Hidden from him? Where does it say that she waiting 'X' amount of time to tell him she was pregnant? Most women that have become pregnant either dont realize it right away, OR dont plan on having a child in the first place.

Whether or not he should be responsible for child support, thats another subject. If a couple was married, then separate, i believe child support should be given. But if they are just bf/gf, there SHOULD be an agreement from one parent to the other, whoever has the kid, to pay the other person 'X' amount of money per month.

On the topic of birth control. I do not the the woman is entirely at fault. Bottom line, a woman can choose to have an abortion preferably during the first trimester. If she decides not to, well then she is at fault for having the baby.

But on the other hand, if the man was more careful, the pregnancy would have never happened in the first place.

[apresnuledeluge]

saw the title and immediately thought of that scene from life of brian where the guy was arguing for his right to have children

Glad I'm not the only one.

[TK]

It's a tough situation, especially considering the father wasn't wanting a child because of the unstable relationship him and the mother had rather than because of personal finances. It's unfair for the father to have no say in the matter. It is/will be his child that not only affects his life but also his other children's lives. While I respect the fact that the child is in the mother's body, how can only one person have a moral and legal say in a matter that affects several lives?

Also, how did the mother not know taking antibiotics could affect the effectiveness of her birth control? It's routine proceed for a doctor to inform her when prescribing antibiotics.

[x togepi x]

. While I respect the fact that the child is in the mother's body, how can only one person have a moral and legal say in a matter that affects several lives?


What's the alternative that also respects women's rights?

Not trolling, I'm honestly wondering.

[DrStrong]

in cases like this i don't think he should have to pay support. i don't think a guy should have to pay in cases of pregnancies that are hidden from them until the option to abort is gone either.

What's the alternative that also respects women's rights?

Not trolling, I'm honestly wondering.
In almost all custody, divorce, alimony and child support cases, the woman/mother is heavily favored. The justification of that is that the woman carried the baby for ~9 months. Thats the only argument that defense lawyer needs to give in order to let the woman clean house.

Very, very unfair in most cases.

[x togepi x]

In almost all custody, divorce, alimony and child support cases, the woman/mother is heavily favored. The justification of that is that the woman carried the baby for ~9 months. Thats the only argument that defense lawyer needs to give in order to let the woman clean house.

Very, very unfair in most cases.

So?

This is a completely unrelated issue. There's also a great case to be made that sexism against women is the root cause of the favoring of women in divorce proceedings.

[TK]

What's the alternative that also respects women's rights?

Not trolling, I'm honestly wondering.

I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. I was just trying to elaborate on why it's a tough situation because in the end someone is getting the raw of the end of the deal. Someone earlier in the thread posted about the idea of the father being able to legally dismiss his parental rights early in the pregnancy. While this does give men more rights to help maintain their lives and futures, this also puts the unborn child in a unfair situation. A man should not be able to decide whether a women has an abortion or not, but I do think there needs to be some rights and choices given to him that the mothers also have.

[DrStrong]

So?

This is a completely unrelated issue. There's also a great case to be made that sexism against women is the root cause of the favoring of women in divorce proceedings.
Divorce is one thing, i shouldnt have thrown that in there.

But custody and child support cases are almost entirely in favor of the mother. Why? Just because the child came from the mother, IMO, does not give her the automatic right to have custody.

[x togepi x]

I'm not sure to be perfectly honest. I was just trying to elaborate on why it's a tough situation because in the end someone is getting the raw of the end of the deal. Someone earlier in the thread posted about the idea of the father being able to legally dismiss his parental rights early in the pregnancy. While this does give men more rights to help maintain their lives and futures, this also puts the unborn child in a unfair situation. A man should not be able to decide whether a women has an abortion or not, but I do think there needs to be some rights and choices given to him that the mothers also have.

I just wonder what these rights are and what it would look like.

I just feel like allowing people to waive their rights can lead to men just saying "peace out. i don't want the kid", which essentially legalizes being a deadbeat.

it's definitely an incredibly tough situation.

[x togepi x]

Divorce is one thing, i shouldnt have thrown that in there.

But custody and child support cases are almost entirely in favor of the mother. Why? Just because the child came from the mother, IMO, does not give her the automatic right to have custody.

No not at all.

Women are favored because they generally do the majority of childcare. They're the ones who are usually expected to put more shit in their life on hold for children. They're usually the ones expected to stay at home. They bear far greater costs in career and living their daily lives for having children than men do. Because we live in a society where we basically expect women to do more work in taking care of the kids, we favor them in divorce proceedings.

But it's important to note that your analysis (and so-called men's rights groups) are looking at custody hearings in such a simplistic manner. Courts don't just go "oh, you're a woman. here's your kids." They look at the specific context and decide who should have the child from there. It's just because of gender roles, women tend to look like the better parent (since, you know, more often than not, they do the majority of the work.)

I know somebody who's a dude that won a custody hearing. It was because he was the primary caretaker instead of his ex. That's generally how it works.

[TK]

I just wonder what these rights are and what it would look like.

I just feel like allowing people to waive their rights can lead to men just saying "peace out. i don't want the kid", which essentially legalizes being a deadbeat.

it's definitely an incredibly tough situation.

I understand where you are coming from, but it is similar to giving a child up for adoption. The mother is deciding she cannot raise the child due to financial or emotional reasons or because she does not want the child and wouldn't/couldn't get a abortion. I've seen many people who I know have a child during or right after high school and it truly does hinder their futures and lives and it's sad. What I would suggest is at the least fathers between the age of 16-24 be able to dismiss their parental rights in a court hearing pending valid reasons.

[DrStrong]

No not at all.

Women are favored because they generally do the majority of childcare. They're the ones who are usually expected to put more shit in their life on hold for children. They're usually the ones expected to stay at home. They bear far greater costs in career and living their daily lives for having children than men do. Because we live in a society where we basically expect women to do more work in taking care of the kids, we favor them in divorce proceedings.

But it's important to note that your analysis (and so-called men's rights groups) are looking at custody hearings in such a simplistic manner. Courts don't just go "oh, you're a woman. here's your kids." They look at the specific context and decide who should have the child from there. It's just because of gender roles, women tend to look like the better parent (since, you know, more often than not, they do the majority of the work.)

I know somebody who's a dude that won a custody hearing. It was because he was the primary caretaker instead of his ex. That's generally how it works.

I understand with all of that, i have a couple kids myself.

I just think its unfair when a mother, who doesn't work, will get custody. Then she will be given all sorts of welfare and aiding programs. Instead of just having the father, which is normally the bread winner of the family, take care of the child.

These things dont always end in "full legal custody", that gives the parent who has custody, the sole right for health and education related decisions, most of these cases will have some sort of joint custody.

IMO, it would be better to have the financially situated parent to have custody of the child, let the mother have the child while the father is at work. Or vice versa, whoever is able to take care of the child FINANCIALLY.

That would save so much money for these programs that cater to women who cant work because they have kids.

[x togepi x]

I understand where you are coming from, but it is similar to giving a child up for adoption. The mother is deciding she cannot raise the child due to financial or emotional reasons or because she does not want the child and wouldn't/couldn't get a abortion. I've seen many people who I know have a child during or right after high school and it truly does hinder their futures and lives and it's sad. What I would suggest is at the least fathers between the age of 16-24 be able to dismiss their parental rights in a court hearing pending valid reasons.

but what's to stop men from just being like "cool. i don't want a kid now"?

I mean that's the problem I have with it Dudes could dump their ladies and stick them with a kid by hiding behind their financial status.

I understand with all of that, i have a couple kids myself.

I just think its unfair when a mother, who doesn't work, will get custody. Then she will be given all sorts of welfare and aiding programs. Instead of just having the father, which is normally the bread winner of the family, take care of the child.

The problem with what you're saying here is that you're ignoring all of the social factors that keep mothers from being "the breadwinners". You know, things like unequal pay/promotions, expectations to stay at home, etc. That's what I'm trying to get you to see. it isn't that I think men shouldn't have equal rights in that arena, I just think women need equal rights in society before we get to that point.

I have friends who are single mothers on welfare. it really doesn't do that much.

These things dont always end in "full legal custody", that gives the parent who has custody, the sole right for health and education related decisions, most of these cases will have some sort of joint custody.

IMO, it would be better to have the financially situated parent to have custody of the child, let the mother have the child while the father is at work. Or vice versa, whoever is able to take care of the child FINANCIALLY.

That would save so much money for these programs that cater to women who cant work because they have kids.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this except that, given the current socioeconomic conditions, you would merely be shifting courts favoring women to courts favoring men.

I also think boiling it down to financial matters largely misses the point. There are plenty of parents, regardless of gender, who might be able to financially take care of a child but that doesn't make them the better parent, you know?

[TK]

but what's to stop men from just being like "cool. i don't want a kid now"?

I mean that's the problem I have with it Dudes could dump their ladies and stick them with a kid by hiding behind their financial status.


Another requirement would have to be implemented to put a time frame on when a father can dismiss his rights. Perhaps between the moment of pregnancy and before the mother is no longer to have an abortion. There's flaws with this, sure, but it still allows the father to make a conscious decision and then for the mother to make a decision as well knowing the circumstances.

I think financial status would only be an accepted reason if the individual is bettering himself through higher education in order to have a financially safe future or through medical circumstances involving himself or immediate family. I do see your point though, there is no doubt people would try to abuse such a thing.

[samsara]

I think that men should only have right if they are married or they have it in some sort of written contract.

[x togepi x]

Another requirement would have to be implemented to put a time frame on when a father can dismiss his rights. Perhaps between the moment of pregnancy and before the mother is no longer to have an abortion. There's flaws with this, sure, but it still allows the father to make a conscious decision and then for the mother to make a decision as well knowing the circumstances.

I think financial status would only be an accepted reason if the individual is bettering himself through higher education in order to have a financially safe future or through medical circumstances involving himself or immediate family. I do see your point though, there is no doubt people would try to abuse such a thing.

I see this, I just don't think the time frame requirement is going to be a good way to check those abuses, you know? I mean it isn't like many people decide ten years after the fact that they don't want their kid after the break up. I feel like a lot of the problems I'm talking about would happen during this timeframe you're speaking about.

[And Hours Pass]

While I have my opinions on all of this, just wanted to say that this was a fantastic read in terms of provoking thought without trolling or attacking opposition, and I wish there were more of these on AP.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

Glad I'm not the only one.
haha me too. i thought i was gonna get flack for that

[DrStrong]

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this except that, given the current socioeconomic conditions, you would merely be shifting courts favoring women to courts favoring men.

I also think boiling it down to financial matters largely misses the point. There are plenty of parents, regardless of gender, who might be able to financially take care of a child but that doesn't make them the better parent, you know?

No, like i said, whoever makes the money to support the family, should have primary custody. But in our society, most cases equal the man.

[x togepi x]

No, like i said, whoever makes the money to support the family, should have primary custody. But in our society, most cases equal the man.

this is why i'm saying you shift the favor to men instead of women, because of the unfair social practices.

if things were different, then what you would be saying would be spot on.

[DrStrong]

this is why i'm saying you shift the favor to men instead of women, because of the unfair social practices.

if things were different, then what you would be saying would be spot on.
I dont have personal experience with this, but I used to work with an older guy that went through two divorces, and custody trials for the kids from the two different wives.

He was telling me how hard it is to get any leniency when dealing with alimony, or dividing assets. Especially if the judge happens to be a woman.

He basically said he knew he could tell what the outcome would be, because the judge would refer to him by his first name, and refer to his wife as "mrs." such and such.

EDIT: Back on topic, the dude needs to get snipped. Or his wife get her tubes tied.

[x togepi x]

I dont have personal experience with this, but I used to work with an older guy that went through two divorces, and custody trials for the kids from the two different wives.

He was telling me how hard it is to get any leniency when dealing with alimony, or dividing assets. Especially if the judge happens to be a woman.

He basically said he knew he could tell what the outcome would be, because the judge would refer to him by his first name, and refer to his wife as "mrs." such and such.

EDIT: Back on topic, the dude needs to get snipped. Or his wife get her tubes tied.

This is why you get a prenup, but yeah, that judge sounds really unprofessional. Things like that can go both ways though. There's plenty of fathers who go "i paid child support, that's all" and leave the mother hanging for all sorts of things like medical bills and what not.

I agree though, dudes who absolutely don't want kids should get a vasectomy. Don't put it all on your lady.

[DrStrong]

Yup, prenup all the way. If the woman doesnt want to go along with it, drop her.

[Srsly]

Can't expect child support.

[DrStrong]

Can't expect child support.
Willingly giving your ex, who has your child, a dollar amount per month is one thing.

When the parent with the child takes you to court, and legally obtains money per month is another.

There should be no count appointed pay outs if the parents agree to pay.

[drawndead]

I think the other way around would bother me more. If a girl I was with aborted a child that I wanted to talk about keeping is more devastating and angering than a child that is half yours in the world.

[drawndead]

I think that men should only have right if they are married or they have it in some sort of written contract.

I agree with this but I don't at the same time. I think if you are in a committed relationship it should be up to both people to just have the conversation. Nothing should be decided either way without both parties having a talking and deciding on an outcome.

[samsara]

I agree with this but I don't at the same time. I think if you are in a committed relationship it should be up to both people to just have the conversation. Nothing should be decided either way without both parties having a talking and deciding on an outcome.

Yeah I think there should be a final, mutual understanding.



And its not always the girls responsibility, there is such a thing as a vasectomy.

[drawndead]

Yeah I think there should be a final, mutual understanding.



And its not always the girls responsibility, there is such a thing as a vasectomy.

No absolutely, it takes two people to make a baby as well as two people to decide on whether or not that child comes into the world. Both people need to to take the necessary steps in preventing the conception of an unwanted child.

[samsara]

No absolutely, it takes two people to make a baby as well as two people to decide on whether or not that child comes into the world. Both people need to to take the necessary steps in preventing the conception of an unwanted child.

Absolutely.

[DrStrong]

Absolutely.
BUT, most men say its the woman's fault, I understand the "it takes two to tango" analogy.

[samsara]

BUT, most men say its the woman's fault, I understand the "it takes two to tango" analogy.

Those men are also stupid.

[drawndead]

BUT, most men say its the woman's fault, I understand the "it takes two to tango" analogy.

How is it only a woman's fault when the man ejaculates into her? It takes two to tango

[DrStrong]

How is it only a woman's fault when the man ejaculates into her? It takes two to tango
I know! Im with the majority on this one! My girl is pregnant with our third right now, we talked about abortion, but never had the heart to go through with it.

Then we got an ultrasound, and yea, brutal to do an abortion, IMO.

[drawndead]

I know! Im with the majority on this one! My girl is pregnant with our third right now, we talked about abortion, but never had the heart to go through with it.

Then we got an ultrasound, and yea, brutal to do an abortion, IMO.

Congrats, the girl I'm kind of with is dead set on terminating a pregnancy if there is an "accident" I'm pro-choice but it's something I wouldn't ever tell a girl to do but it does bother me that if that were to happen to us she wouldn't even take my feelings or view into her decision.

[DrStrong]

Congrats, the girl I'm kind of with is dead set on terminating a pregnancy if there is an "accident" I'm pro-choice but it's something I wouldn't ever tell a girl to do but it does bother me that if that were to happen to us she wouldn't even take my feelings or view into her decision.
Thanks, its another boy, that makes 3 of em, due in like 3 weeks!!!! damnit haha.

[samsara]

Thanks, its another boy, that makes 3 of em, due in like 3 weeks!!!! damnit haha.

Congrats!

[drawndead]

Thanks, its another boy, that makes 3 of em, due in like 3 weeks!!!! damnit haha.

I think I would cry if I had girls ha more than one is too many ha

[bung]

I disagree with this. While relationships might have all sorts of agreements and unwritten rules that regulate behavior, like no sleeping around, the evolutionary nature of them necessitates the need for people to be able to change those standards as things evolve.

They may alter certain standards, provide compromises of sorts, but to maintain a successful relationship people readily desire that certain, specific needs be met. They, themselves, are then also required to provide a certain amount of whatever the other partner desires. During a committed relationship, many of these unwritten rules are simply non-negotiable, such as supplying a form of affection, appearing to care and/or understand, and maintaining desirability. When these unwritten, mutual negotiations begin to be violated or not upheld by a partner the relationship will start to disintegrate, either literally or emotionally.

Let's take your example of sleeping around. When you reach a certain level of commitment, flirting with other people is considered bad, but when you first start hanging out with someone, it's usually okay. It's the development of the relationship that makes those rules subject to change.

I'm more referring to the quote/unquote "committed" couples who have already reached a certain level of understanding on these matters.

You could make a similar case that the act of getting pregnant created a similar evolution in their relationship that makes the old agreement irrelevant. She was in a different state of mind when she agreed. There's already precedent for standards changing when states of mind change.

I definitely agree that this is an interesting point of view. However, I think that the very intention of such agreements is often (maybe even mostly) to circumvent any problems related to a future state of mind by making an emotionally-laden decision in a present, less emotional state.

I just think the emotional nature of relationships makes any contract untenable, especially when a lot of these agreements might not be made on purely rational grounds (ie: who's to say she actually desired to agree to abort versus just saying what would make him feel better)

I think that this sounds especially true--relationships are warm and gooey, whereas contracts are cold and calculated. Despite that distinction, I want to stick to the idea that contracts are like relationships, or that relationships could be considered a form of a contract. When I think of the word contract in the relationship sense, I mostly think of "vow" or "promise" or "agreement" or the evolutionary intangibles one wants to receive and needs to give. Legally, such ideas carry no weight whatsoever, but it's my personal view that a person is more or less bound to these things they may make or say. I guess, in fact, I find these things (keeping a promise, for instance) to be more salient and self-mandating than many arbitrary laws.

or the fact that the rules agreed to are often up to interpretation (ie: people in relationships getting in arguments about what counts as cheating). Those sorts of things don't necessarily happen in contracts.

Definitely. In this case about the abortion the rules were pretty straightforward, though.

This sort of begs the question: can you enforce a promise?

Not in the legal sense, I don't think. I mean, it may be possible to somehow write up a legal document, but enforcing a promise is wholly up the the promise maker.

what happens if you don't follow through on a promise?

Depending on the nature of the promise, it could be guilt, relief, rejection, arrogance, or nothing.

should you be required to follow through promises you made in the past when you've changed so much as a person that you'd probably not make the same promise you did before?

Generally, I think they should. But it's highly variable.

I just wonder about the implications of that sort of thing. I feel like it's the same thing as lying. You can't really ban lying. You can say, out of the interests of fairness or honest/open conversation, that you shouldn't lie but you can't really stop people from doing it without destroying our ideas of free speech and personal autonomy. Likewise, I wonder if there are other negative implications to forcing people to follow through.

like, what would happen if the situation were reversed and she originally had promised to have the baby but decided to abort it after she got pregnant? how can we say "oh we respect your choice" but then attempt to give men a way of regulating it?

Without making some kind of preliminary binding contract, I don't think there's much possibility of actually legally requiring someone to keep a promise. The man in the article certainly has no legal case. But that's beside my main point, I should say. Regardless of legal consequences, I simply think the woman was wrong to go through having the baby and the man was justified in his outrage.

Anyway, I find the idea of relationships being contractual to be very interesting.

[zion the lion]

This is a funny topic to bring up in a male dominated web site.

[Love As Arson]

The power and privilege which many men receive and exercise are made invisible in men’s rights claims. They ignore men’s dominance of powerful institutions and positions (institutional power), men’s power in relationships (personal power), and cultural support for traditional masculine ideals and attitudes (cultural power). This is not to say all men are powerful and all women are powerless: clearly neither is true, and some men are relatively powerless (Aboriginal men being a good example) just as some women are relatively powerful.

Some of the examples men’s rights advocates give of men’s powerlessness or oppression (being sent off to war, killed in factories) are in fact examples of some men’s powerlessness at the hands of other men. Men’s rights ideologies fail to recognise differences and power relations among men themselves, eg of race, class and sexuality, and the crucial role of these in the injustices which they attribute to men in general.

Some of the examples given of injustices or discriminations experienced by men (including some at the hands of women) are legitimate examples, which must be dealt with. For example, some boys are sexually abused, by adult men and sometimes women. Some men are unfairly treated in custody and divorce matters. But men’s rights men wrongly use such examples to make much grander claims, for example that men are oppressed by women or that there is some kind of feminist conspiracy to cover up abuse of men.

• Men’s rights arguments correctly identify areas of male pain, but misdiagnose their prevalence and their source and thus misprescribe the cure. Men’s rights men generally are wrong to place the blame with women, the loss of masculine rites of passage or the success of the feminist movement. Yes, let’s acknowledge and tackle the ways in which men are hurt and disempowered. And let’s not do this, as men’s rights does, at the expense of women or gender justice.

http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-masc/12en_mas.htm

[jessicalynn-xx]

I just wonder what these rights are and what it would look like.

I just feel like allowing people to waive their rights can lead to men just saying "peace out. i don't want the kid", which essentially legalizes being a deadbeat.

it's definitely an incredibly tough situation.

...Because being a deadbeat should be and currently is illegal. :-|

but what's to stop men from just being like "cool. i don't want a kid now"? I mean that's the problem I have with it Dudes could dump their ladies and stick them with a kid by hiding behind their financial status.

Nothing. People do this all the time. No legal measures will stop it from happening. It doesn't make sense to try and force him to pay. If he doesn't want to, he won't. It doesn't make sense for him to be forced to pay for the woman's choice.

[x togepi x]

They may alter certain standards, provide compromises of sorts, but to maintain a successful relationship people readily desire that certain, specific needs be met. They, themselves, are then also required to provide a certain amount of whatever the other partner desires. During a committed relationship, many of these unwritten rules are simply non-negotiable, such as supplying a form of affection, appearing to care and/or understand, and maintaining desirability. When these unwritten, mutual negotiations begin to be violated or not upheld by a partner the relationship will start to disintegrate, either literally or emotionally.


I get that you can make a decent contract metaphor with relationships like this but the metaphor falls apart on closer view because it misinterprets what a contract really is: an explicit agreement where all of the rules/obligations/rewards/punishments/expectations are made stated and defined in a fairly objective manner.

The problem is that while I agree there are standards that must be met, I disagree with the fact that these rules are stated explicitly. In a relationship these standards are vague, abstract, emotional, subjective and open to interpretation. This is how couples can get into arguments about what exactly constitutes cheating or flirting, unwarranted jealousy etc. Because nobody starts dating with specific definitions of the rules (since they're unwritten) contract language makes little to no sense.

These rules are subjective to the situation, meaning that what is just and okay in one context might be unfair in another.

I'm more referring to the quote/unquote "committed" couples who have already reached a certain level of understanding on these matters.

I don't think we can really point out where these levels of understanding are reached. I mean, obviously she didn't understand the emotional connection she would make with her unborn child which precluded her from aborting it. That's my point. Situations in relationships are contextual and evolve.

You're missing out on the whole bargaining process that was implicit at the agreement. She thought she wanted to abort but she ended up really wanting a baby. Why is it okay for him to get what he wants and not her? It's an unfortunate situation where we have to draw a line, and I'm going to draw a line where she gets what she wants because she is going to bare most of the cost of the child.


I definitely agree that this is an interesting point of view. However, I think that the very intention of such agreements is often (maybe even mostly) to circumvent any problems related to a future state of mind by making an emotionally-laden decision in a present, less emotional state.

but how can you really expect people to make decisions about the future like this? These problems aren't circumvented because the wife couldn't accurately predict her desires. The fact that she couldn't adhere to the agreement shows this.

Besides, why should we value the decision made in the supposedly less emotional state?


like[/I] relationships, or that relationships could be considered a form of a contract. When I think of the word contract in the relationship sense, I mostly think of "vow" or "promise" or "agreement" or the evolutionary intangibles one wants to receive and needs to give. Legally, such ideas carry no weight whatsoever, but it's my personal view that a person is more or less bound to these things they may make or say. I guess, in fact, I find these things (keeping a promise, for instance) to be more salient and self-mandating than many arbitrary laws.

clearly i'm talking about the metaphor/smilie.

I'm just claiming that promises are not absolute and exist in a vacuum. Like yes, you are bound to them to a degree, but you're not bound to them in every possible case in every single possible world because of the evolutionary aspect of relationships. While I think a situation like this might be averted by more open and honest communication, I think it's unfair to her to think she's bound to something she said in a completely different emotional context/life stage. People adapt and change too much to have a strict obligation to follow all promises made. I agree there's some obligation, but it might be outweighed by other factors.

Definitely. In this case about the abortion the rules were pretty straightforward, though.

They were clear, but the situation they arose out of, as well as the implications of said decision, weren't. I don't think people should be bound to standards that were made out of mistaken perceptions. For example, say I promised to support my girlfriend financially for as long as we were together because I thought that's what good boyfriends do. Later on, pretend I realized that supporting her in this way actually stifles her personal autonomy. Would you say I am obligated to this earlier promise?

Not in the legal sense, I don't think. I mean, it may be possible to somehow write up a legal document, but enforcing a promise is wholly up the the promise maker.

But being held to one's word isn't necessarily a good thing.

Depending on the nature of the promise, it could be guilt, relief, rejection, arrogance, or nothing.

Aren't these sanctions enough?

Generally, I think they should. But it's highly variable.

If it's highly variable, why is it okay in this situation given the fact that she's going to have to deal with the social implications of having an abortion while the dude gets off scott free?

Without making some kind of preliminary binding contract, I don't think there's much possibility of actually legally requiring someone to keep a promise. The man in the article certainly has no legal case. But that's beside my main point, I should say. Regardless of legal consequences, I simply think the woman was wrong to go through having the baby and the man was justified in his outrage.

You could make a strong argument that the man is wrong for forcing his partner to give up her desires to fulfill his. This seems awfully unfair because the man basically gets everything he wants and the woman gets nothing while having to deal with the abortion process that's against her wishes.

[x togepi x]

...Because being a deadbeat should be and currently is illegal. :-|

Then you can't say "it doesn't make sense to try and force him to pay."

If it should be illegal, then let's enforce it so men don't get to screw over their partners/ex partners.


Nothing. People do this all the time. No legal measures will stop it from happening. It doesn't make sense to try and force him to pay. If he doesn't want to, he won't. It doesn't make sense for him to be forced to pay for the woman's choice.

Except the current system has ways of forcing men to pay. Dude doesn't want to? Cool, we'll garnish his wages so he has to. It's not like many men can skirt this obligation.

[bung]

I get that you can make a decent contract metaphor with relationships like this but the metaphor falls apart on closer view because it misinterprets what a contract really is: an explicit agreement where all of the rules/obligations/rewards/punishments/expectations are made stated and defined in a fairly objective manner.

This doesn't work, because you're only saying it misinterprets what a contract really is by defining the word "contract" in a certain (incorrect) manner.

In reality, a contract is nothing more than "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."

The problem is that while I agree there are standards that must be met, I disagree with the fact that these rules are stated explicitly. In a relationship these standards are vague, abstract, emotional, subjective and open to interpretation. This is how couples can get into arguments about what exactly constitutes cheating or flirting, unwarranted jealousy etc. Because nobody starts dating with specific definitions of the rules (since they're unwritten) contract language makes little to no sense.

Oh come on, you're blatantly grasping at straws here. Standards don't need to be explicitly stated for a kind of contractual obligation to be understood. Everyone enters relationships with expectations of what they both need to give and receive, and these expectations have considerable overlap among very different populations. Yes, the specifics may vary--what exactly constitutes cheating in a given relationship, for example--but the fact remains that people enter romantic relationships with an overwhelming assumption (and obligation on their part) to not cheat, however it happens to be defined specifically.

These rules are subjective to the situation, meaning that what is just and okay in one context might be unfair in another.

Except the specific contract, the abortion of the fetus in the event of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, was objective and applied to one circumstance.

I don't think we can really point out where these levels of understanding are reached. I mean, obviously she didn't understand the emotional connection she would make with her unborn child which precluded her from aborting it. That's my point. Situations in relationships are contextual and evolve.

And this is entirely her fault for not accurately foreseeing she would not be able to keep her promise. She simply should not have made the promise, as she certainly understood what the promise entailed. She even had previous experience in the department, so she must have had some idea as to what would occur emotionally.

It's the same as me promising to go clean up after an oil spill, but finding it too gross once I got there and deciding not to do any cleaning. There's no valid justification for deciding not to, just that my emotions got the best of me.

You're missing out on the whole bargaining process that was implicit at the agreement. She thought she wanted to abort but she ended up really wanting a baby. Why is it okay for him to get what he wants and not her?

Because they agreed not to have a child prior to conception. She broke the (explicitly defined) contract because internal instincts grabbed a hold of her. If she had any doubts about adequately upholding her side of the agreement, she shouldn't have agreed to it.

It's an unfortunate situation where we have to draw a line, and I'm going to draw a line where she gets what she wants because she is going to bare most of the cost of the child.

But she shouldn't even have to bare the cost of the child--only the toll of an abortion, as was previously agreed.

but how can you really expect people to make decisions about the future like this? These problems aren't circumvented because the wife couldn't accurately predict her desires. The fact that she couldn't adhere to the agreement shows this.

People make decisions about the future every day. You circumvent your problem of waking up by setting an alarm clock with a snooze function. You assess what your future state will be and plan accordingly. Ironically, the problem was circumvented because the decision was already made. It didn't circumvent the problem in practice because the wife didn't adhere to the agreement she previously endorsed.

Besides, why should we value the decision made in the supposedly less emotional state?

Because people in emotionally provocative situations make less accurate judgments than those in more usual circumstances?

They were clear, but the situation they arose out of, as well as the implications of said decision, weren't. I don't think people should be bound to standards that were made out of mistaken perceptions. For example, say I promised to support my girlfriend financially for as long as we were together because I thought that's what good boyfriends do. Later on, pretend I realized that supporting her in this way actually stifles her personal autonomy. Would you say I am obligated to this earlier promise?

Not in that situation, no. Since you acquired relevant information that was not available at the time of the promise, you came to realize said information makes your initial position ultimately detrimental rather than beneficial to all parties involved. Correcting the "promise" would best serve everyone involved, maximizing the good of the situation, and that would trump the general rule of keeping a promise.

The same, however, cannot be said for the abortion/contract case that sprouted this discussion. In that situation, the woman does not go back on her promise because she believes it will be best for all parties involved, but because she succumbs to a motherly instinct, which benefits only her--maybe the child. Her own satisfaction is certainly relevant, but the article makes it read as if her emotional desires are what reversed her previous decision on the subject. It's somewhat doubtful to me that she chose to have the child because of some utilitarian standard to do what's best for everyone.

But being held to one's word isn't necessarily a good thing.

Not necessarily, no. But if people give their word to do something within their means, I think it's generally better than worse.

Aren't these sanctions enough?

Personally, they can be devastating. It just a shame when people back out of a promise that has drastic effects on another person.

If it's highly variable, why is it okay in this situation given the fact that she's going to have to deal with the social implications of having an abortion while the dude gets off scott free?

Because they made a life-changing agreement.

You could make a strong argument that the man is wrong for forcing his partner to give up her desires to fulfill his. This seems awfully unfair because the man basically gets everything he wants and the woman gets nothing while having to deal with the abortion process that's against her wishes.

The man is forcing his partner to give up her desires? Really? The article implies that after her previous abortion, the woman "vowed" to her partner, several times, that she would get another abortion if necessary. It doesn't make it sound as if she was being forced to agree to something she didn't want.

[x togepi x]

This doesn't work, because you're only saying it misinterprets what a contract really is by defining the word "contract" in a certain (incorrect) manner.

In reality, a contract is nothing more than "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified."

Now you're just trying to argue semantics. The idea of a contract is socially constructed in the way I defined. They have specific expectations that are enunciated in ways that both parties explicitly know. Relationships end up often being guessing games.

Oh come on, you're blatantly grasping at straws here. Standards don't need to be explicitly stated for a kind of contractual obligation to be understood.

You're forgetting the fact that these obligations can be understood by the two people in different ways. That's why the contract metaphor falls apart. I'm not sure why you won't admit that there is a certain level of ambiguity in relationships that we don't find in what we refer to as contractual agreements.


Everyone enters relationships with expectations of what they both need to give and receive, and these expectations have considerable overlap among very different populations. Yes, the specifics may vary--what exactly constitutes cheating in a given relationship, for example--but the fact remains that people enter romantic relationships with an overwhelming assumption (and obligation on their part) to not cheat, however it happens to be defined specifically.

When you admit that "cheating" is defined specifically, you're conceding that it's essentially impossible for everyone to have the same expectations. Like, some people think cheating is just banging. other people will claim that emotional attachments to others outside the realm of friendship counts as cheating. Those are different views on what constitutes cheating.

Since people don't usually set to define what cheating is when they enter these arrangements, they can't really be considered contractual. Usually it's the opposite, the definitions happen after someone breaks the rules according to the other's standards.

Except the specific contract, the abortion of the fetus in the event of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, was objective and applied to one circumstance.

The desires behind the contract that make it fair (ie: both wanting to remain childless) changed, meaning that objectivity goes out the window because the woman admits that her subjective emotional attachment to the child after seeing the sonogram is what did it. You said it yourself, you can't force people to follow through with their promises, so if the promiser is the main actor, then there's going to be a huge lack of objectivity.

And this is entirely her fault for not accurately foreseeing she would not be able to keep her promise. She simply should not have made the promise, as she certainly understood what the promise entailed. She even had previous experience in the department, so she must have had some idea as to what would occur emotionally.

I don't think it's entirely *her fault* at all. He could have had a vasectomy. He could have not consented to having sex. Following your logic, you could say he's at fault for not accurately foreseeing that she would not be able to keep the promise.

That's the problem: you can't advocate something that's fair to both parties here. You have to favor one or the other. I think the burden of childbirth is why we favor the mother. We can disagree here, but you can't place all the blame on her when he had ample opportunity to take precautions.

It's the same as me promising to go clean up after an oil spill, but finding it too gross once I got there and deciding not to do any cleaning. There's no valid justification for deciding not to, just that my emotions got the best of me.

This is a huge false analogy. I think there's a difference between the emotion of being grossed out and the deep personal emotional connection a mother can have with their unborn child. I don't think this is something that's black or white. We're seeing a situation with multiple obligations that conflict. I think her obligation to herself outweighs. You don't. That's fine, but you can't really use this argument here.

The relevant difference being that people will do things that may seem completely irrational for their kids. This could mean breaking a promise, which may or maybe not have ever been sincere to begin with.

Because they agreed not to have a child prior to conception. She broke the (explicitly defined) contract because internal instincts grabbed a hold of her. If she had any doubts about adequately upholding her side of the agreement, she shouldn't have agreed to it.

Why are you assuming this is a rational type of agreement?

It's possible that there was all sorts of emotional manipulation that helped her agree not to have kids. Relationships aren't rational in the least. We can't reduce them to cold emotionless calculations. That's not how we function within them. The dude could have been pressuring her to agree to abort even though she never really wanted to do that in the first place.


But she shouldn't even have to bare the cost of the child--only the toll of an abortion, as was previously agreed.

Asking her to bear the toll of abortion while the guy doesn't have to do shit is an unfair burden. Why should she have to have stupid people tell her she's a murderer for the rest of her life if she didn't actually want to go through with it? Pro-lifers are a lot harsher on those having abortions than they are on men who help fund them.

People make decisions about the future every day. You circumvent your problem of waking up by setting an alarm clock with a snooze function. You assess what your future state will be and plan accordingly. Ironically, the problem was circumvented because the decision was already made. It didn't circumvent the problem in practice because the wife didn't adhere to the agreement she previously endorsed.

again, a weak analogy. Yes we make trivial decisions about our future all the time. like, it really doesn't matter if i decide today that tommorow i'm going to eat the left over Thai in my fridge. However, ask me to tell you what career I will have when i'm 40 and you'll see that said decision is a lot harder to make.

Since we change as we grow older, our old decisions about the future become irrelevant. I mean, when I was 10, I decided I was going to be the shortstop for the St. Louis Cardinals. I even promised my dad that I'd make the team. Does that mean I'm wrong for not adhering to that standard? Of course not, my childhood desire to play baseball for a living has no relevance in my adult life.


Because people in emotionally provocative situations make less accurate judgments than those in more usual circumstances?

This might be true, but I doubt the conversation about whether to have kids was stripped of emotion. I'm sure it was quite emotional n another way. besides, who's to say what's accurate when we're talking about emotional responses? I feel like you're trying to assign a level of rational thought that is simply unrealistic.


The same, however, cannot be said for the abortion/contract case that sprouted this discussion. In that situation, the woman does not go back on her promise because she believes it will be best for all parties involved, but because she succumbs to a motherly instinct, which benefits only her--maybe the child. Her own satisfaction is certainly relevant, but the article makes it read as if her emotional desires are what reversed her previous decision on the subject. It's somewhat doubtful to me that she chose to have the child because of some utilitarian standard to do what's best for everyone.

I feel like the idea that it was "motherly instincts" that forced her to back out is kind of offensive because it belittles the woman's decision making process. i bet it was a bit more complicated than that. More importantly, all you're doing here is shifting the burden onto the mother. Her interests get thrown out the window entirely as she's forced to undergo a procedure she doesn't really want. I don't think you're giving enough consideration to what having an abortion could really entail for the woman. She could feel guilty about it for the rest of her life and suffer mental health problems related to it because she did it against her will. That's why I think her interests get weighed more heavily.

Not necessarily, no. But if people give their word to do something within their means, I think it's generally better than worse.

I agree, but I think forcing someone to undergo a procedure against their wishes like this is an exception to the rule.


Personally, they can be devastating. It just a shame when people back out of a promise that has drastic effects on another person.

It is a shame, but one's promise to another person isn't the only obligation they have. It sucks when any huge obligations come into conflict but sometimes this happens.


Because they made a life-changing agreement.

It's unfair that she should be held to a standard in which only her life is changed. What if she couldn't live with herself after having another abortion? That's okay because dude should get off scott free?

The man is forcing his partner to give up her desires? Really? The article implies that after her previous abortion, the woman "vowed" to her partner, several times, that she would get another abortion if necessary. It doesn't make it sound as if she was being forced to agree to something she didn't want.

Forcing her to follow her word is forcing her to give up her desires because those desires changed. I think we both agree that she changed her mind at some point between making the agreement and getting pregnant. The conflict is whether or not it's fair that she did. I think it is because the alternative unfairly gives advantage to the man.

[bung]

Now you're just trying to argue semantics. The idea of a contract is socially constructed in the way I defined. They have specific expectations that are enunciated in ways that both parties explicitly know. Relationships end up often being guessing games.

That is false, and I don't disagree that contracts are socially constructed. Indeed, you're arguing semantics by constraining the idea of a contract to mere legal terms.

You're forgetting the fact that these obligations can be understood by the two people in different ways. That's why the contract metaphor falls apart. I'm not sure why you won't admit that there is a certain level of ambiguity in relationships that we don't find in what we refer to as contractual agreements.

I'm not arguing that contracts within relationships are not sometimes ambiguous. I agree that there definitely is a certain level of ambiguity. You're arguing that inherent in the idea of a contract is a.) completely objective terms b.) explicitly stated terms and c.) legal enforceability. I don't agree with any of those three points, and I have yet to see a convincing reason why the idea of a contract merits them.

When you admit that "cheating" is defined specifically, you're conceding that it's essentially impossible for everyone to have the same expectations. Like, some people think cheating is just banging. other people will claim that emotional attachments to others outside the realm of friendship counts as cheating. Those are different views on what constitutes cheating.

Of course there are different views on what constitutes cheating. Again, you're misinterpreting what I've been saying. The simple idea of cheating is frowned upon when two people enter a romantic relationship. The social contract is essentially 'I don't cheat, you don't cheat." As to what the specifics of cheating happen to be for an individual person are irrelevant. The social contract of mutual faithfulness is virtually always in place.

Since people don't usually set to define what cheating is when they enter these arrangements, they can't really be considered contractual. Usually it's the opposite, the definitions happen after someone breaks the rules according to the other's standards.

This is because you're defining contractual too rigidly.

The desires behind the contract that make it fair (ie: both wanting to remain childless) changed, meaning that objectivity goes out the window because the woman admits that her subjective emotional attachment to the child after seeing the sonogram is what did it. You said it yourself, you can't force people to follow through with their promises, so if the promiser is the main actor, then there's going to be a huge lack of objectivity.

Yes, the desires behind the contract changed through a post-hoc rationalization by the woman. But, after the fact, she did not even attempt a new contract. She just made a proclamation that she was having the child. This would have been fine, saying she would keep a child if she got pregnant--but before she actually got pregnant. By waiting until after the fact to make such a decision (the exact decision she had previously agreed not to), she directly limited the autonomy and decision-making power of the male partner. Don't you think he might have thought twice about cumming inside her, or banging her without a condom, if she said she was going to keep the possible baby?

I don't think it's entirely *her fault* at all. He could have had a vasectomy. He could have not consented to having sex. Following your logic, you could say he's at fault for not accurately foreseeing that she would not be able to keep the promise.

Yeah, he sure could have had a vasectomy. And yeah, he could have not had sex with her. But since she agreed to get an abortion (an operation she had even done before), and since she was on birth control, I imagine the male decided that a vasectomy might be overkill.

Also, usually the person who is most at fault is the promise-keeper who doesn't keep their promise, not the victim they duped.

That's the problem: you can't advocate something that's fair to both parties here. You have to favor one or the other. I think the burden of childbirth is why we favor the mother. We can disagree here, but you can't place all the blame on her when he had ample opportunity to take precautions.

They agreed that the abortion was fair and the best choice prior to a possible conception. They also agreed that the woman would continue on birth control. It was a mutual understanding--it's difficult to say she was manipulated into agreeing since she had had an abortion before. There's not much reason, if any, to suspect it wasn't a fair agreement.

This is a huge false analogy. I think there's a difference between the emotion of being grossed out and the deep personal emotional connection a mother can have with their unborn child. I don't think this is something that's black or white. We're seeing a situation with multiple obligations that conflict. I think her obligation to herself outweighs. You don't. That's fine, but you can't really use this argument here.

I specifically used a much lesser emotion to demonstrate the absurdity of it. But both people make a post-hoc rationalization to break their promise because of a surge of emotional feelings.

The relevant difference being that people will do things that may seem completely irrational for their kids. This could mean breaking a promise, which may or maybe not have ever been sincere to begin with.

And that's an excuse? That people do irrational things for their kids? It sounds like you're saying that what the woman doing is irrational.

Why are you assuming this is a rational type of agreement?

It's possible that there was all sorts of emotional manipulation that helped her agree not to have kids. Relationships aren't rational in the least. We can't reduce them to cold emotionless calculations. That's not how we function within them. The dude could have been pressuring her to agree to abort even though she never really wanted to do that in the first place.

You can't make these hypothetical assumptions about their specific case. It's possible, yeah. But it's also possible that the woman manipulated the man in some ways. We have absolutely no idea, and the article strongly implies that the woman made legitimate decisions of her own, giving me the indication that she retained some level of rationality during the agreement.

Asking her to bear the toll of abortion while the guy doesn't have to do shit is an unfair burden. Why should she have to have stupid people tell her she's a murderer for the rest of her life if she didn't actually want to go through with it? Pro-lifers are a lot harsher on those having abortions than they are on men who help fund them.

Yeah, it sucks that the American culture is shitty towards abortion. But she agreed to it, and she had already done it before.

again, a weak analogy. Yes we make trivial decisions about our future all the time. like, it really doesn't matter if i decide today that tommorow i'm going to eat the left over Thai in my fridge. However, ask me to tell you what career I will have when i'm 40 and you'll see that said decision is a lot harder to make.

Again, a purposefully simple analogy to demonstrate the simple concept for you to grasp. Also, asking you what career you'll have when you're 40 isn't a decision--it would be you making a prediction.

Since we change as we grow older, our old decisions about the future become irrelevant. I mean, when I was 10, I decided I was going to be the shortstop for the St. Louis Cardinals. I even promised my dad that I'd make the team. Does that mean I'm wrong for not adhering to that standard? Of course not, my childhood desire to play baseball for a living has no relevance in my adult life.

Wow, you're comparing time spans of decisions between childhood and adulthood and decisions made within a few months of each other. Good work.

This might be true, but I doubt the conversation about whether to have kids was stripped of emotion. I'm sure it was quite emotional n another way. besides, who's to say what's accurate when we're talking about emotional responses? I feel like you're trying to assign a level of rational thought that is simply unrealistic.

It is true. I believe there's a lot more reason to believe that the first conversation was, at the very least, far less irrational and hasty than the one after she got pregnant.

I feel like the idea that it was "motherly instincts" that forced her to back out is kind of offensive because it belittles the woman's decision making process. i bet it was a bit more complicated than that.

How about female instincts? That many mammalian females (including humans) naturally feel strongly inclined to protect their offspring. I don't disagree the process of human-decision making is complex, but I certainly think that deserves at least a little weight.

More importantly, all you're doing here is shifting the burden onto the mother. Her interests get thrown out the window entirely as she's forced to undergo a procedure she doesn't really want. I don't think you're giving enough consideration to what having an abortion could really entail for the woman. She could feel guilty about it for the rest of her life and suffer mental health problems related to it because she did it against her will. That's why I think her interests get weighed more heavily.

This all goes into the camp of irrelevance since she agreed to have an abortion prior to getting pregnant.

I agree, but I think forcing someone to undergo a procedure against their wishes like this is an exception to the rule.

I don't think she should be forced to get an abortion by some third party. But she should have gotten an abortion herself, imo, since she agreed to it.

It is a shame, but one's promise to another person isn't the only obligation they have. It sucks when any huge obligations come into conflict but sometimes this happens.

What are the two obligations here? The obligation to keep one's word and what else?

It's unfair that she should be held to a standard in which only her life is changed. What if she couldn't live with herself after having another abortion? That's okay because dude should get off scott free?

More hypotheticals. What if she could live with herself after getting another abortion, became the happiest she's ever been, and then won a million dollars?

Forcing her to follow her word is forcing her to give up her desires because those desires changed.

That's right. When you give your word you often give up your future desires. When I borrow $50 from my friend, and I say I'll pay him back in a week. . . well the week rolls around and I don't really feel like paying him.

I think we both agree that she changed her mind at some point between making the agreement and getting pregnant. The conflict is whether or not it's fair that she did. I think it is because the alternative unfairly gives advantage to the man.

I've been under the impression that she changed her mind after she got pregnant.

[Love As Arson]

Down with autonomy. Up with promise rings.

[open mind]

Hidden from him? Where does it say that she waiting 'X' amount of time to tell him she was pregnant? Most women that have become pregnant either dont realize it right away, OR dont plan on having a child in the first place.

Whether or not he should be responsible for child support, thats another subject. If a couple was married, then separate, i believe child support should be given. But if they are just bf/gf, there SHOULD be an agreement from one parent to the other, whoever has the kid, to pay the other person 'X' amount of money per month.


it doesn't say that. i was just saying i think that deliberately hiding a pregnancy and taking all choice from a guy should also disqualify someone from support.

no that's not another subject, it is the subject.

[zion the lion]

it doesn't say that. i was just saying i think that deliberately hiding a pregnancy and taking all choice from a guy should also disqualify someone from support.

no that's not another subject, it is the subject.

I completely disagree. He still had a part in making the child, the mother will have the lifetime burden of taking care of the child, so the father shouldnt get a free pass because he didnt know within the period of time that you can still have an abortion.

And honestly what does it matter? if he knew and had the time to say "well I want you to have an abortion" but the girl didnt want it...what is he going to, force her to have an abortion?

[open mind]

I completely disagree. He still had a part in making the child, the mother will have the lifetime burden of taking care of the child, so the father shouldnt get a free pass because he didnt know within the period of time that you can still have an abortion.

And honestly what does it matter? if he knew and had the time to say "well I want you to have an abortion" but the girl didnt want it...what is he going to, force her to have an abortion?

so deliberate long term deception that impacts the rest of a mans life is ok as long as you're female and a baby is involved?

like a lot of reproductive issues choice is a pretty important thing here. the women in a case like i'm talking about has taken away all choice from the man. i'm not advocating forcing anything on anyone (quite the opposite). i'm just saying that if a woman chooses to completely leave a man in the dark until late in pregnancy she should expect some consequence......like the guy being permitted to stay in the dark.

[DrStrong]

Bottom line is that without his involvement, the kid would not have been made. Him having sex with her led to all of these problems. Its a 50/50 deal with conceiving a kid, you should realize that its not all the woman...

[drawndead]

Bottom line is that without his involvement, the kid would not have been made. Him having sex with her led to all of these problems. Its a 50/50 deal with conceiving a kid, you should realize that its not all the woman...

We're on the same page

[DrStrong]

We're on the same page
Some guys on this thread have some really sketchy feelings on this topic. People swear up and down that a child is a hard thing, or a burden on them. For the most part, you have around 7-8 months to prepare for the child. Lets be honest, people dont really find out immediately after conception.

If the woman wants to hide it from her boyfriend/husband, well fine, she was probably nervouse because she has a guy that wants NOTHING to do with another child. I'de hide it to if i was a female in her situation. But once everything was out in the open, the man should have been more understanding, and not take all of these legal issues.

It takes a cold hearted man to go after the woman carrying his child.

[drawndead]

Some guys on this thread have some really sketchy feelings on this topic. People swear up and down that a child is a hard thing, or a burden on them. For the most part, you have around 7-8 months to prepare for the child. Lets be honest, people dont really find out immediately after conception.

If the woman wants to hide it from her boyfriend/husband, well fine, she was probably nervouse because she has a guy that wants NOTHING to do with another child. I'de hide it to if i was a female in her situation. But once everything was out in the open, the man should have been more understanding, and not take all of these legal issues.

It takes a cold hearted man to go after the woman carrying his child.

Absolutely, it takes 2 to make a baby and ultimately the woman has final decision of course but it should be discussed between both. Even if you don't like the women herself, how can you not love or even care about something that is half yours that she is carrying.

[TK]

I see this, I just don't think the time frame requirement is going to be a good way to check those abuses, you know? I mean it isn't like many people decide ten years after the fact that they don't want their kid after the break up. I feel like a lot of the problems I'm talking about would happen during this timeframe you're speaking about.

I wasn't trying to imply 10 years after or so, but I thought you were meaning like a father waiving his rights after birth like say between 6 months - 2 years or so when parenting becomes really stressful. It would present problems, however, I don't think this would have to be a black and white issue and like I said earlier, would acquire some common sense in situations.

I completely disagree. He still had a part in making the child, the mother will have the lifetime burden of taking care of the child, so the father shouldnt get a free pass because he didnt know within the period of time that you can still have an abortion.

And honestly what does it matter? if he knew and had the time to say "well I want you to have an abortion" but the girl didnt want it...what is he going to, force her to have an abortion?

I wouldn't equate a child with a lifetime burden. A child will drastically change several lives and add many responsibilities, but it is changing the lives of both the mother and father. He has part of making the child, but has no options. Why can the mother be allowed to avoid this "lifetime burden" as you say and get a "free pass", but not the father?

[samsara]

I just think that if a guy doesnt want a baby or want to be responsible for one then they should take part in preventing a pregnancy. Like the guy in the story should have been wearing condoms since its usually known birth control can fail.

[open mind]

I just think that if a guy doesnt want a baby or want to be responsible for one then they should take part in preventing a pregnancy. Like the guy in the story should have been wearing condoms since its usually known birth control can fail.

this sounds much like "you can't have an abortion lady, you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want a baby" to me.

[samsara]

this sounds much like "you can't have an abortion lady, you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want a baby" to me.

No more like you should have been using extra precautions while on antibiotics, or read up on those kinds of things so you wouldnt get pregnant.

[zion the lion]

I wouldn't equate a child with a lifetime burden. A child will drastically change several lives and add many responsibilities, but it is changing the lives of both the mother and father. He has part of making the child, but has no options. Why can the mother be allowed to avoid this "lifetime burden" as you say and get a "free pass", but not the father?

Because the mother is carrying the child. Ultimately she makes the decision during the early stages of a pregnancy if she wants to keep it or not. What is a man going to do? Force her to have an abortion? He cant yell "I dont want a baby" at her uterus until a not so developed fetus falls out at any given time.

I think you can discuss it till the cows come home and that doesnt mean I think its right when a woman pulls a J.D's baby's momma moment from Scrubs. It just means that physically a man cant do much about it except prevent it and thats what he (and his partner) should be doing if he doesnt want a baby.

[open mind]

No more like you should have been using extra precautions while on antibiotics, or read up on those kinds of things so you wouldnt get pregnant.

if the "you should have known better" argument doesn't fly with women why should it be acceptable for men?

[zion the lion]

No more like you should have been using extra precautions while on antibiotics, or read up on those kinds of things so you wouldnt get pregnant.

It not only says it on the antibiotics bottle, but it says it on the birth control box...hello! This might be the only time I agree with you.

[samsara]

It not only says it on the antibiotics bottle, but it says it on the birth control box...hello! This might be the only time I agree with you.

Yeah uh its their faults if they cant read the dang things. And usually the pharmacists or doctor prescribing both tells them. I think some women are just dumb.

[splitsecond]

I will fight for my right to make throat babies

[TK]

Because the mother is carrying the child. Ultimately she makes the decision during the early stages of a pregnancy if she wants to keep it or not. What is a man going to do? Force her to have an abortion? He cant yell "I dont want a baby" at her uterus until a not so developed fetus falls out at any given time.

I think you can discuss it till the cows come home and that doesnt mean I think its right when a woman pulls a J.D's baby's momma moment from Scrubs. It just means that physically a man cant do much about it except prevent it and thats what he (and his partner) should be doing if he doesnt want a baby.

Oh really? I better stop recommending guys falcon punch their girlfriends or kick them while they're sleeping then.

Because the mother is carrying the child, which is going to affect several lives, only she should have options? I'm not saying to force abortion on her, but if she has the right to not be a mother, the man should have the same right through legal options.

As for all this prevention talk, when does the article mention he knew she was on antibiotics? Most girls I've dated, I didn't know if they were on antibiotics or not. Condoms rip, birth control fails. There are several options for women, there should be some for men.

[x togepi x]

I wasn't trying to imply 10 years after or so, but I thought you were meaning like a father waiving his rights after birth like say between 6 months - 2 years or so when parenting becomes really stressful. It would present problems, however, I don't think this would have to be a black and white issue and like I said earlier, would acquire some common sense in situations.


I know you weren't implying 10 years, I was using that as an example of the problem here. I'd think most fathers who'd want to waive their rights and would be willing to use that as a mechanism to punish their partners/exes would do it right after birth, much in the same 6 months to 2 year peirod you're advocating. Obviously, the longer a kid is in your life, the more attached you become to him/her and you'd have to be a total sociopath to probably be able to waive your rights that late (unless you really needed to, but even then, it'd still be hard on you).

I think that it remains a black and white issue legally because it checks abuses like the one I'm bringing up. I think that because of the costs related to child birth, you're less likely to see a woman abuse the current system than you'd see a man abusing the scenario you're bringing up. Someone has to lose out ultimately, but going the current way means less people get screwed.

[zion the lion]

Oh really? I better stop recommending guys falcon punch their girlfriends or kick them while they're sleeping then.

Because the mother is carrying the child, which is going to affect several lives, only she should have options? I'm not saying to force abortion on her, but if she has the right to not be a mother, the man should have the same right through legal options.

As for all this prevention talk, when does the article mention he knew she was on antibiotics? Most girls I've dated, I didn't know if they were on antibiotics or not. Condoms rip, birth control fails. There are several options for women, there should be some for men.

I actually had a friend who's dad kicked her mom in the stomach while she (the mom) was pregnant with her (my friend), my friend wasnt born right, she couldnt walk right, her spine was all messed up, it was pretty sad. And the part you bolded meant legally, the man cant do much about it legally, sure he can push his girlfriend down a flight of stairs, but then he'll get arrested and go to jail. Or he can be like that one football player who arranged the drive by shooting of his pregnant girlfriend...but look at him now, he's in jail for the rest of his life.

duh, he "should" have the right to decide he doesnt want to be a father and in fact many guys do decide to pick up and leave. Guys can decide to give up their legal rights to their child, there you go. But what I've been trying to say is that the if the mother and father talk about it and decide to get an abortion but at her ultrasound or something she suddenly changes her mind, he cant do anything about it, he's not the one carrying the kid.

And thats why a man should educate himself before just idiotically sticking his dick in someone like a horny caveman. He needs to know everything thats going on and he needs to protect himself first. Its stupid to just say "oh you're on the pill, good for me I dont have to wear those pesky condoms anymore", wear a fucking condom at all times if you dont want a kid (and dont use the excuse that condoms rip because the condom/birth control combo is a little bit hard for semen to work through). Pay attention to her cycle and figure out when she's ovulating, know everything you can about contraception, dont just leave that up to your girlfriend. Be fucking responsible...thats your option, get educated.

[TK]

I actually had a friend who's dad kicked her mom in the stomach while she (the mom) was pregnant with her (my friend), my friend wasnt born right, she couldnt walk right, her spine was all messed up, it was pretty sad. And the part you bolded meant legally, the man cant do much about it legally, sure he can push his girlfriend down a flight of stairs, but then he'll get arrested and go to jail. Or he can be like that one football player who arranged the drive by shooting of his pregnant girlfriend...but look at him now, he's in jail for the rest of his life.

duh, he "should" have the right to decide he doesnt want to be a father and in fact many guys do decide to pick up and leave. Guys can decide to give up their legal rights to their child, there you go. But what I've been trying to say is that the if the mother and father talk about it and decide to get an abortion but at her ultrasound or something she suddenly changes her mind, he cant do anything about it, he's not the one carrying the kid.

And thats why a man should educate himself before just idiotically sticking his dick in someone like a horny caveman. He needs to know everything thats going on and he needs to protect himself first. Its stupid to just say "oh you're on the pill, good for me I dont have to wear those pesky condoms anymore", wear a fucking condom at all times if you dont want a kid (and dont use the excuse that condoms rip because the condom/birth control combo is a little bit hard for semen to work through). Pay attention to her cycle and figure out when she's ovulating, know everything you can about contraception, dont just leave that up to your girlfriend. Be fucking responsible...thats your option, get educated.

I'm really impressed on how you always have some kind of friend that has had freak occurrence happen to them. Just stop posting the nonsensical stories you cook up in the little troll head of yours. Fathers can not forfeit their parental rights without the consent of the mother. A decent amount of people wouldn't know what the menstrual cycle is, let alone the stages of it or how to track ovulation. I'm not even going to reply the rest of the shit you try to pass off as intelligent thought and use this one of this site's better function, the ignore list.

[open mind]

Bottom line is that without his involvement, the kid would not have been made. Him having sex with her led to all of these problems. Its a 50/50 deal with conceiving a kid, you should realize that its not all the woman...

stating the obvious here.
if it's a 50/50 deal why does a women have the right to make 100% of the decisions?

Some guys on this thread have some really sketchy feelings on this topic. People swear up and down that a child is a hard thing, or a burden on them. For the most part, you have around 7-8 months to prepare for the child. Lets be honest, people dont really find out immediately after conception.

If the woman wants to hide it from her boyfriend/husband, well fine, she was probably nervouse because she has a guy that wants NOTHING to do with another child. I'de hide it to if i was a female in her situation. But once everything was out in the open, the man should have been more understanding, and not take all of these legal issues.

It takes a cold hearted man to go after the woman carrying his child.

why can't you understand that i'm not talking about the average kind of case here?

i'm talking about a hypothetical case so don't project emotions and motivations onto a non-existant couple. blaming the man for bringing up legal issues? i wasn't aware of the droves of men who go into court demanding to provide financial support for the next 18 years.

who's going after who in child support cases? i'm just talking about a guy having the ability to properly defend himself in especially screwed up cases.

[zion the lion]

I'm really impressed on how you always have some kind of friend that has had freak occurrence happen to them. Just stop posting the nonsensical stories you cook up in the little troll head of yours. Fathers can not forfeit their parental rights without the consent of the mother. A decent amount of people wouldn't know what the menstrual cycle is, let alone the stages of it or how to track ovulation. I'm not even going to reply the rest of the shit you try to pass off as intelligent thought and use this one of this site's better function, the ignore list.

My mom works with abuse victims and was a social worker, I plan working with these types of kids this summer, and spending most of my life with a lot of friends being in foster care it's not a "freak occurrence" and dont try to act like I'm trolling, theres nothing I've said here thats even trollistic.

Its not that hard to try to figure out what a menstrual cycle is...in fact that's a damn lie I'm pretty sure that any grown adult who's sexually active doesnt know what a period is. And if that's the case can easily go to the library or to the planned parenthood office/doctor, or even a computer with an internet connection and figure out what a menstrual cycle is and how to figure out when a woman is ovulating (at least use a few months and a calendar).

You act like guys have literally nothing, its lazy people like you who want to make excuses and want to act like women have every single option in the world. And that horrible excuse of not knowing what a cycle is is just proof.

Dont worry, the feeling (and the act of ignore) is mutual.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Then you can't say "it doesn't make sense to try and force him to pay."

If it should be illegal, then let's enforce it so men don't get to screw over their partners/ex partners.

Except the current system has ways of forcing men to pay. Dude doesn't want to? Cool, we'll garnish his wages so he has to. It's not like many men can skirt this obligation.

I don't think it should be illegal I was being sarcastic.

[Love As Arson]

I think attention needs to be paid to the status of women before we go on decrying injustices done to men.

[open mind]

I think attention needs to be paid to the status of women before we go on decrying injustices done to men.

what does one have to do with the other here? why would the former excuse the latter?

[Oh dear]

what does one have to do with the other here? why would the former excuse the latter?

So after reading quite a big chunk of this thread and getting mad, then seeing people make valid points about women's shitty status in society, then see men cry about how they don't have rights. This isn't going to go anywhere, and people are going to keep arguing back and forth.

Women are put in a place in society where we are always second to men. Some people think it's ok, some don't.

Here's a fact: Men make more money than women.

Here's another fact: Abortion is not easy. It's emotionally damaging, and potentially physically dangerous. http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n3/abortionrisks.html http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Here's another fact for shits and giggles: Sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy, and no man has a right to tell a woman she has to get an abortion, regardless of any verbal, non-legally binding agreements. If you disagree, see fact #2. From reading the article, it already seems like she felt forced to have the first abortion, which is completely and utterly messed up.

Men don't always lose custody cases. My sister doesn't have custody of my niece because she isn't stable and she's a damn loon. But if she was stable and not completely psychotic, I would see no reason to give the child to the father. If society is so steadfast in pressing the "woman do the cooking, child-rearing, and cleaning" so men can go out and be breadwinners, and our disproportionate salaries continue to be so glaringly obvious (woman earn $.75 to each $1 a man earns in the US), then Mommy gets the kid so she can do what she does best (apparently) and Daddy pays the child support (breadwinning is what he does best, right society?).

[open mind]

So after reading quite a big chunk of this thread and getting mad, then seeing people make valid points about women's shitty status in society, then see men cry about how they don't have rights. This isn't going to go anywhere, and people are going to keep arguing back and forth.

Women are put in a place in society where we are always second to men. Some people think it's ok, some don't.

Here's a fact: Men make more money than women.

Here's another fact: Abortion is not easy. It's emotionally damaging, and potentially physically dangerous. http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n3/abortionrisks.html http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Here's another fact for shits and giggles: Sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy, and no man has a right to tell a woman she has to get an abortion, regardless of any verbal, non-legally binding agreements. If you disagree, see fact #2. From reading the article, it already seems like she felt forced to have the first abortion, which is completely and utterly messed up.

Men don't always lose custody cases. My sister doesn't have custody of my niece because she isn't stable and she's a damn loon. But if she was stable and not completely psychotic, I would see no reason to give the child to the father. If society is so steadfast in pressing the "woman do the cooking, child-rearing, and cleaning" so men can go out and be breadwinners, and our disproportionate salaries continue to be so glaringly obvious (woman earn $.75 to each $1 a man earns in the US), then Mommy gets the kid so she can do what she does best (apparently) and Daddy pays the child support (breadwinning is what he does best, right society?).

you didn't answer either of my questions so i have no idea why you quoted me.

i'm not ignorant of the fact that women generally have things tougher but what do wage inequalities have to do with reproductive rights again? justifying horrible behavior with horrible behavior doesn't fly.

who's advocating forced abortions? who's saying abortion is easy?

you rail against societal injustice in one paragraph and then reinforce it in the next which puzzles me.

[bung]

Here's another fact: Abortion is not easy. It's emotionally damaging, and potentially physically dangerous. http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n3/abortionrisks.html http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Here's another fact: Childbirth itself is, generally speaking, more dangerous than abortion (although I do admit that conflicting literature exists on this point, and it's really hard to find unbiased sources). And again, generally speaking, abortion is far, far easier than childbirth itself, not to mention the resources involved in having to raise the actual child.

Not only is there no evidence (http://contraception.about.com/b/2008/08/13/no-evidence-that-abortion-caused-mental-health-problems.htm) that a single abortion will cause mental health problems, but postpartum depression is a very real problem for women after childbirth. Also, one of the sites you linked to, afterabortion.com, touts something called PAS, or post abortion syndrome. It is not even a recognized mental condition. The APA (both psychological and psychiatric) did a vast review of literature on the subject and concluded that there is simply no evidence that such a condition exists. It's not even included in the DSM-IV-TR, and it's unlikely it will appear in the next, soon to be published, edition.

Here's another fact for shits and giggles: Sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy, and no man has a right to tell a woman she has to get an abortion, regardless of any verbal, non-legally binding agreements. If you disagree, see fact #2.

So you're telling me that if I have a girlfriend, and I say I will not engage in sexual intercourse with her unless she agrees to an abortion in the event of a pregnancy, and she agrees to it--that that's somehow not my right to proposition her in such a way? And that, morally speaking, she is not in the least bound to honor such an agreement in the future?

[Oh dear]

you didn't answer either of my questions so i have no idea why you quoted me.

i'm not ignorant of the fact that women generally have things tougher but what do wage inequalities have to do with reproductive rights again? justifying horrible behavior with horrible behavior doesn't fly.

who's advocating forced abortions? who's saying abortion is easy?

you rail against societal injustice in one paragraph and then reinforce it in the next which puzzles me.

Sorry, my second paragraph, in which you insist that I'm reinforcing societal injustice, was my way of pointing out where we stand as society right now (it was an attempt at sarcasm in the end, sorry if you missed it).

It's an underlying theme I am getting from reading many responses here that it's completely insane that the woman in the OP's article could even dream of keeping a baby rather than having an abortion after she'd already been forced by the boyfriend to have one before. So that feels like it's implied that abortion is easy. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I felt like I answered the question, but I don't think you liked my answer. That's ok, I'm not here to force my opinions on anyone, just share them. Like I said originally, I've seen lots of opinions and no one seems to like anyone's answers, so I'm not going to argue back and forth.

So you're telling me that if I have a girlfriend, and I say I will not engage in sexual intercourse with her unless she agrees to an abortion in the event of a pregnancy, and she agrees to it--that that's somehow not my right to proposition her in such a way? And that, morally speaking, she is not in the least bound to honor such an agreement in the future?

I'm telling you that I don't think you have a right to tell another human being what s/he can or can't do with their body. You're not going to be able to sway me to your evil, woman-hating side of the fence on this subject. I see what you're saying, I understand your argument, but I don't agree with you. Sometimes in life that happens, and you either deal with it or you don't.

[Love As Arson]

i'm not ignorant of the fact that women generally have things tougher but what do wage inequalities have to do with reproductive rights again? justifying horrible behavior with horrible behavior doesn't fly.
Wealth inequality relates to why child support may be sought out. This is especially important when we consider that the vast majority of child support cases occur after the partners were married or living together; institutional dynamics make women reliant on male income that tends to be more than their own.

[open mind]

It's an underlying theme I am getting from reading many responses here that it's completely insane that the woman in the OP's article could even dream of keeping a baby rather than having an abortion after she'd already been forced by the boyfriend to have one before. So that feels like it's implied that abortion is easy. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I felt like I answered the question, but I don't think you liked my answer. That's ok, I'm not here to force my opinions on anyone, just share them. Like I said originally, I've seen lots of opinions and no one seems to like anyone's answers, so I'm not going to argue back and forth.

aside from conception nothing about reproduction is easy. i just think the lady in the article has every right to keep the baby, but since she broke her word she shouldn't be allowed to force the man to pay support.

can you explain how you answered the questions?

[bung]

I'm telling you that I don't think you have a right to tell another human being what s/he can or can't do with their body. You're not going to be able to sway me to your evil, woman-hating side of the fence on this subject. I see what you're saying, I understand your argument, but I don't agree with you. Sometimes in life that happens, and you either deal with it or you don't.

Evil, woman-hating side of the fence? WTF are you talking about? For your information, I'm a feminist.

You provide absolutely no justification for your position. All you keep saying is that someone doesn't have a right to tell another human being what they can/cannot do with their own body. I agree with that. You say you understand my argument, yet don't agree with it. But you provide not a grain of reason as to why two free-thinking individuals cannot reach a mutual understanding and then honor that agreement in the future. When you understand that inherent in the idea of an agreement is to give up some sort of right and/or freedom in the future, you'll see that your position is simply untenable and wholly irrational.

[open mind]

Wealth inequality relates to why child support may be sought out. This is especially important when we consider that the vast majority of child support cases occur after the partners were married or living together; institutional dynamics make women reliant on male income that tends to be more than their own.

i'm not against child support as a concept, but i don't think it should be viewed as a automatic thing in certain cases.