I think there are two very different ideas here that need to be separated.
An abortion is a medical procedure. It is performed only on pregant women, who, for very private reasons of their own, believe that they must terminate a pregnancy.
There is not, nor can there be such a thing as an "abortion for men". Men don't get pregnant, so they can't terminate pregnancies. Period.
This is a completely different thing from not wishing to be responsible for born alive children. If men wish to not be responsible for children born alive, they must use contraception, or be sterilized. They must also understand that if they choose to use contraception, rather than be sterilized, that there is still a chance that a child will result from sex.
They cannot have an abortion after they have sex because they don't get pregnant. They cannot have any power over someone else's abortion, because no one can force another person to have a medical procedure or to not have a medical procedure. We cannot even force a parent to give blood to their sick child if the child needs it to survive. One's body is one's own.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an "on paper only medical procedure", which seems to be what Mr. Dubay is asking for. The idea is rediculous. "I wish to be declared legally sterile, because I have said I don't _want_ children, I have not and will not actually *do* anything to make myself sterile or unable to fertilize an egg, but, just because I said I don't _want_ to fertilize an egg, that should be enough. If any children result from my sperm being ejaculated by me, it is not my responsibility. It is someone else's."
Rediculous.
Now, the other issue is whether it's ok for one parent to abdicate any and all responsibility for raising a child that they made. In our present society, it is not. It is not ok, because our society is not supportive of a one parent system. Yes, we have tried to help a little bit with social services, foodstamps, welfare, etc, but those do not work together to create a support system that encourages a child to thrive. Those measures are really just a support system so the child doesn't starve.
May I point out that the mother is allowed to give coustody of her child to the state, by dropping off the child at a firestation, with no questions asked? That is functionally the same as an "on paper only medical procedure", it says "the child I gave birth to is not my responsability, and I give it to the state." You're fousing too much on this instance, where they used no protection. All contraceptives have failure rates. There's millions of peple in this country, most of 'em have sex, and inevitably, there will be unwanted pregnancies no matter how careful someone is. This is a fact. This is not a problem born of carelessness anymore than we can say that all traffic accidents are someone's fault.
If, as a society, we decide it is important for us to allow one parent to have sex but not be responsible for the child produced, then we, as a society need to be willing to support that child ourselves. We need to provide either an automatic "family supporting" wage to anyone with children, or we need to provide the support system that such a wage would be able to pay for. Free 24/7 daycare. Free medical care. Free education (including higher education). Inexpensive or free safe, clean, suitable housing. Free food. Free clothing. The state has to pick up and pay for whatever that deadbeat parent should have provided.
If you really think it's so unfair that one parent can't abdicate his responsibility for raising a child, then I think you have to be supportive of a system that allows that child to thrive. Basically, we have to give equal rights to the child. They have to be given the same amount of goods and services that a child lovingly raised by two parents would have.
When a man declares he should have "equal rights" to the woman, by being able to declare himself not responsible for his child, I think he is missing an important point. At this point in time, there are 3 people in the mix, not 2. And the child being defenseless and unable to support itself NEEDS the support of that parent in order to live. The child is the one that needs to be protected and given equal rights. The child is *harmed* by the parent's non-support. If you want to give that man "equal rights" then you MUST also give the child equal rights. You must enable that child to live and grow and thrive without being harmed by that man's non-support.
Meg
Meg, you dislike the implications of the concept that men should have some say in the case of unwanted pregancies. I have problems with that as well, but you cannot dismiss a problem merely because you dislike the implications it presents.
Maybe someday science will advance to the point where if a woman doesn't want to carry a child, the father will have the option to carry it himself. In other words, instead of an abortion, it will be a transfer. At that point we can start making laws where if one or the other parent wants the child and the other doesn't, the other parent will have the right to release all rights an responspilitiy (unless there's an understanding beforehand, such as marriage, or maybe we'll have baby contracts....I don't know) But until that's possable, the law cannot not pretend equality exists where it doesn't.
The law is designed to grant justice. "The law cannot pretend equality exists when it doesn't" specious. The law's purpose is to create equality and justice.
I just don't feel that sorry for the man. For most of history if a woman has gotten pregnant it's been just "too bad for the woman" and now that women have more personal choices about their bodies, some men are starting to resent it.
So, you'd like to blame this one man for all the iniquities visited upon women in the past? You'd like to treat him like dirt, because men have treated women like dirt in the past?
Don't forget men, it's the very fact that women have control over conception that has allowed the sexual revolution that allows so many of you to have sex without the "benefit of marriage" Would you really want to go back to the old days of not daring to have sex without marriage because of the fear of conception?
You, like Meadmaker and Meg, are arguing from consequences. For just a moment, stop considering the consequnces, and look at the situation at present. Consider them after you look at the situation. At present, a women has total controol of the choices before her when she has an unwanted pregancy. The father has none. Is this true, or not?
Yes. There's no way to fix this problem. There's no way to make if "fair" or "equitable" or any other decent outcome. The only way that could possibly happen would be if the two people who created this child were to wake up, become decent people, marry each other, and fulfill the obligations to each other and their child.
How dare you pass moral judgement on two people because they had unmarried sex. For one thing, I've seen loveless marriages forged by this prevelant Christian attiude. They're disasters. It's better to have one parent who cares, than two parents who are trapped in a situation they didn't want, and resent eachother for it. Father ought to support their children, as should mothers. However, creating a situation where they are compelled to marry one another because *your* set of ethics dictates that is wrong.
It's a safe bet that won't happen, so something else has to be done. Well, we have already dismissed a forced abortion. At least, I hope everyone has dismissed that. We have already dismissed a forced adoption. At least, I hope everyone has dismissed that. We could force a government mandated shotgun wedding. You could convince me of that, but my guess is that few people would go for that, and almost none at JREF. What's left? it seems to me that the best we can hope for is at least force dad to pay some of the bills.
And if mom choces to have an abortion, dad pays no bills, neither does mom. Mom delivers, and gives coustody of the child to the state, again, neither of them pay for anything. If mom keeps the child, dad pays bills. Dad gets no say in this at all, is that true?
One addendum. I said she should have complete control. I can think of one exception. If she wants to give the baby up for adoption, and he wants it, she should be forced to pay child support. She still gets the choice, but she can't just wash her hands of the affair.
Ah, I see that you do admit that's the case.
