A Voice for Men: Some Words on Abortion and the MRM

Oh Boy this subject again.

I see no equivalency between a female terminating 'pregnancy' and a male terminating 'parenting'. Men do not get pregnant, so biology does not give them an equivalent to pregnancy termination. This is more about wanting "equal outcome" with disregard to biology (reminds me of how feminist think). I see too many loopholes and "what if's", but most of all it does not respect fatherhood, if anything it promotes the false idea that fathers are unimportant and uncaring towards their children.

I would be careful about determining parenthood based on abortion decisions rather than on sexual relations and biology. Parenthood comes with rights and responsibilities. If parental rights are determined by biology then so should parental responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities are one in the same. Whatever logic is used must be consistent. You can't say that parental *rights* are determined by biology but parental *responsibilities* are determined by decisions not to abort.

Once the man signs a "paper abortion" he no longer has any rights and he is not legally involved in any decisions, so he has no say in adoption that occurs after birth. The mother being the sole legal parent can give the baby up to whomever she chooses, and it may not be him. Same thing if the mother were to die in a tragic accident while the baby is young. Her will or her next of kin would determine who becomes the legal guardian of the orphaned baby. There should not even be a legal responsibility to inform the bio-father (er, I mean sperm donor) of adoption or death of the mother.

Matt, I realize you WANT the father to have first choice to adopt the child or be included in adoption decisions, and I applaud and respect a man that feels that way, but the logic is not consistent with your stand on paper abortion. Let's say a man signed away his legal rights and responsibilities at 3 months into the pregnancy then how can you claim that the father gets a second chance to have rights when it comes to decisions such as adoption?

Real surgical abortion is final and decided before birth. There are no second chances and no possibilities for a relationship with a child that would have developed from the pregnancy. If the man wants a "paper abortion" he better mean it when he says it. I am willing to bet you that if "paper abortion" becomes law, you will see men changing their minds after children are born and it will be legal chaos for those that take the matter to court.

I know men don't want mandatory unfair child support, but I don't know of any man that doesn't want a relationship with his child. It is my belief that child support is the crux of this issue and I would much rather discuss and fix that problem instead of using paper abortion to reduce men to sperm donors and disregard the natural connection fathers have towards their biological children.

As far as "what if's....

What if the baby was conceived where abortion is illegal, but then the pregnant mother moves to where it is legal or vise versa? What if the father offers to pay the mother's expenses to fly her to another country to obtain a legal abortion, but she refuses? Does that count as refusing an opportunity to abort, and therefore she is solely responsible for the child?

Does the father's name get put on the birth certificate? Does the child have any legal right to know who his father is if he signs a paper abortion? What if a 12 year old looks up his bio-father on facebook. Does the bio-father have a legal responsibility to ignore the child? And would there be any "nullification" of the paper abortion if the man starts caring for the child or establishes a relationship with the child?

What if a mother wants to be the sole legal parent of the child she is expecting against the wishes of the father? Can she cut the father out of any legal claim based on her sole decision NOT to abort? Why would biology determine his parental rights, but not his parental responsibilities?

I have visited other mens rights and fathers rights groups and this issue seems to divide them, but I am glad to know that some MRS/FRAs share my opinion, even though I do not see much (any?) agreement here.

The number one reason women give for having abortions is that they don't want to be parents. Men should have the same rights as women to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood. No more of this, "a woman's body, a woman's choice, a man's responsibility" hypocrisy.

The responsibilities of parenthood are far more disruptive on a man's life (or a woman's life) than pregnancy is on a woman's life. The financial impact alone has significantly higher health consequences. A man is far more likely to die in the workplace as he financially provides for a child (either voluntarily or forced through our biased legal system) than a woman is to die during pregnancy or childbirth.

I'm 51 and plan to early retire in a year. If I had a child to support, I could not as easily do this. If I was a woman (ignoring the age factor), I could simply have an abortion. As a man, depending on the woman's choice, I could be forced into at least 18 more years of work. These 18 years would be far more harmful on my life and my body than would a typical pregnancy on the woman's life and the woman's body.

Keep your hands off my body.

Shawn, if you are sleeping with women of child-bearing age, you do have choices besides abandoning unwanted children. A vasectomy will pretty much guarantee that you will never have to worry about such things. It is a logical choice since you do not wish future children.

I can't help but notice that you mention the bias child support and demands on the father, which as I stated before, I believe is the crux of the issue and is what needs fixing.

If you elect not to get a vasectomy and you accidentally conceive a child I would assume the woman would be younger . As a retiree, wouldn't you be the perfect full-time caregiver to the child? Shouldn't you be a stay at home father and the mother should work and pay child support to you?

I know that is not a reality now, but that is the kind of equality I would like to see.

"I see no equivalency between a female terminating 'pregnancy' and a male terminating 'parenting'. Men do not get pregnant, so biology does not give them an equivalent to pregnancy termination. This is more about wanting "equal outcome" with disregard to biology (reminds me of how feminist think). I see too many loopholes and "what if's", but most of all it does not respect fatherhood, if anything it promotes the false idea that fathers are unimportant and uncaring towards their children."

The equivalent applies to ones responsibilities under the law, and each parties choice to parent. It is a conceptual idea. There is no reason for the father to be bound by a responsibility for his part in conception when the mother by choice may not be. That is the basis or the argument as I see it.

However if the mother and the father choose to keep the kid then they both should have rights to that kid since they both made the necessary contribution to create the kid.

An aside: how mothers can put the kid up for adoption but the father's hand is forced when the mother chides to keep the kid is beyond me.

"Would if" we had adoptions and gamete donors who gave up their parenting rights? Wait a second...

Kris I really don't like your threats of chaos, no father rights, lying about how split Mra's are on this issue (most are for equavalent rights), etc. Your just coming here and trying to tell us what to do when you yourself enjoy the rights of abortion and adoption which nullify even many YOUR arguments.

FG: "how mothers can put the kid up for adoption....is beyond me"

The laws are meant to have both parents consent for adoption. If loopholes need fixing, that is a separate issue.

FG: "Your just coming here and trying to tell us what to do when you yourself enjoy the rights of abortion and adoption which nullify even many YOUR arguments."

First, how do they nullify my arguments?

Second, I don't enjoy the right of abortion. I have never had an abortion and I am pro-life.

I am pro-adoption but I have never given a child up for adoption. BTW, for a split second I did consider giving my first child up for adoption but the father blocked my plan (yes, a father has the legal right to do so). If adoption is decided I believe it needs to be agreed by both parents. Men benefit from adoption choices just as mothers do. I just spoke to a father last week that gave a child up for adoption when he was 16.

Third, I am not telling you what to do, I am offering my opinion. Sorry if you don't like it, but I have just as much right to post my opinion as you do.

If you look at my post above, you will see that I point out the inconsistency I notice when parental responsibilities and rights are determined by men who favor paper abortion, but then want to retain parental rights. You shift back and forth as to what is determined by abortion rights and what is determined by biology. Here is an example....

FG: "The equivalent applies to ones responsibilities under the law, and each parties choice to parent. It is a conceptual idea. There is no reason for the father to be bound by a responsibility for his part in conception when the mother by choice may not be. That is the basis or the argument as I see it."

I admit that you loose me a bit with this paragraph, perhaps you could clarify. But it is clear that you are referring to abortion rights which you believe determines parental RESPONSIBILITIES (if abortion is NOT chosen, then that person has parental responsibilities. If abortion IS chosen then that person does not have parental responsibilities)

But then when it comes to parental rights, you say this:

FG: "However if the mother and the father choose to keep the kid then they both should have rights to that kid since they both made the necessary contribution to create the kid."

You see, now you are referring to the act of sex and biology that gives parents their RIGHTS.

I was always taught that with rights comes responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. Parenthood is a combination of rights and responsibilities.

So, do you believe acts of sex and biology determine parenthood or does decisions not to abort determine parenthood? You can't have it both ways.

(sorry)

"I admit that you loose me a bit with this paragraph, perhaps you could clarify. But it is clear that you are referring to abortion rights which you believe determines parental RESPONSIBILITIES (if abortion is NOT chosen, then that person has parental responsibilities. If abortion IS chosen then that person does not have parental responsibilities)

But then when it comes to parental rights, you say this:

FG: "However if the mother and the father choose to keep the kid then they both should have rights to that kid since they both made the necessary contribution to create the kid."

You see, now you are referring to the act of sex and biology that gives parents their RIGHTS."

You are examining two separate issues and combining them. One is about the rights of a man who does not wish to become a father, and his options to do so (such as women have). the other issues is for men who wish to become a father, but are denied that option by a women (such as her giving the child up for adoption. A man can block it... if he's aware of it, but the default should not be at the mothers sole discretion (as you yourself agree)). There have been a number of statements in your posts that have equated the two separate issues as being the same one. The reason some overlap may exist is because there currently is no true solution other then to examine the choices currently available to women, and deduce equivalences for men, but that also requires examining the actual issue of abortion and it's validity.

"I was always taught that with rights comes responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. Parenthood is a combination of rights and responsibilities."

See, again, you appear to be combining the two issues into a single one. Men want the ability to terminate both rights and responsibilities for a child he does not want (just as a woman can). As a separate issue, Men also want to be entitled to the rights and responsibilities of children they do want and the mother doesn't (and puts up for adoption), just as a woman currently has.

I'm curious, the child you were planning to put up for adoption, the one the father blocked the process... Who has custody of that child?

Both parents should be given rights to the child if they don't choose otherwise early on.

The mother can choose to not parent after conception. So why should the father automatically be responsible to parent himself? Even if the father wishes to have the child after conception he cannot block abortion, or the mothers wishes. When conception does not bind the woman or even give the father a right to protect the child against the mother's wishes there is no reason the father should be bound as the responsible father when it is against his will.

If the biological parents do not choose an abortion or paper abortion then they are to remain the responsible parents.

"So, do you believe acts of sex and biology determine parenthood..."

They don't necessarily determine parenthood because of abortion. The only problem is that choice is right now entirely with the woman.

It should be that if BOTH parents don't choose against parenthood at some point they would have the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

Even with papaer abortion mothers would have the additional right that father's don't, which is that the mother could have the child against the father's will but not the reverse.

The reason I brought up adoption is that mothers have two ways of giving up their rights/responsibilities but also demand unwilling fathers cs.

And Kris, you do enjoy the right of abortion ass woman because you have it. You just CHOSE not to use it. Choice is the operative word.

If paper abortion actualized the cultural impact would be that a father's willingness becomes more valued, which should improve the overall quality of the patents.

It would be more difficult for mothers to sleep with a man and expect his child support without his presence as an actual father.

@Katch

You ask who has custody of the child I thought about putting up for adoption....

I do. He is not interested in having kids live with him, shared parenting or anything like that. He is content sending a child support check every month. Some men are like that. (I didn't know that's how things were going to turn out).

We discussed everything before we had a sexual relationship including the risk of pregnancy and our pro-life beliefs (I cannot use chemical birth control and I would never have sex with a man who isn't pro-life). Neither of us considerred actual abortion or paper abortion.

The kids are well cared for (we have two children together)without any government handouts.

It's sickening that I have to read more crap from the anti choice for men crowd even, on mens activism. Choice for men has nothing to do with physical differences in between the sexes, it's all about legal equality.

An unmarried mother can unilaterally abdicate her legal responsibilities after a baby has been born by returning it to the hospital; an unmarried father cannot. I know, I checked with my lawyer. Her legal right to do this has nothing to do with her body. Not to mention that when she returns that baby to the hospital she can do it with less hassle then she would have to go though when returning a DVD to best buy.

That's about as clear of a case of anti-male discrimination as can be found.

But while we're on the subject of abortion let us examine the motives behind the decision to get one. Abortion, in almost all circumstances, is not a decision to avoid pregnancy, but to avoid motherhood.

In fact, the term reproductive rights is a misnomer; a postmodern guise to cover the real issue. It isn’t “My body, my choice,” it’s “My lifestyle, my choice,” even if it means killing a baby because it gets in the way. In many, many cases, it is about choosing personal freedom and a social life, over life itself. But what the heck, women have to have choices. But with that in mind, you will have to excuse me if I yawn at any outrage over the idea of a man being given the same options, especially given that men have already been cut of out the decision making process.

"I was always taught that with rights comes responsibilities. You can't have one without the other."

Exactly! HER body, HER choice, HER responsibility. Men have NO reproductive RIGHTS therefore they should have no reproductive RESPONSIBILITIES. When me have the same reproductive rights as women do, which; is the legal right to unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has occurred. Then we can start talking about mens parental responsibilities. Legal choice for men has absolutely nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with legal equality.

Before you ask yes this is coming from a man who's partner conceived a child via fraud, and is collecting child support via state sponsored extortion. Her choice, which she made unilaterally, without any consideration regarding my wishes, has had far reaching and detrimental effects on my life. If you disagree with my analysis I suggest you look up the terms fraud and extortion in the dictionary.

Great post man. Wish it were near the top.

Before I even push post I know I am going to be unpopular and get slammed. I don't care.

I'm not as opposed to men opting out of fatherhood as you may think. I have problems with it being based on abortion laws. And I have problems with men reserving a wee bit of rights just in case they want the child.

If choice for men becomes law, I think a lot of sub-issues and counter-movements will form and we will be back to a similar predicament. There will be men that change their minds and their will be men that form relationships with their "aborted" children.

There are examples of women that choose parenthood but not pregnancy by adopting babies, even though they are capable of going through pregnancy with a willing partner or spouse (Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, my aunts, etc.) and there are examples of women that choose pregnancy but not parenthood (women who give babies up for adoption).

I know of several men that wanted their partner/wife to have an abortion. The women didn't. But now the fathers love and care for their children. You see in the beginning it was about pregnancy and the man did not consider it to be a child (and by definition it is not), once it was born it became his child and parenthood began.

So I stand by my belief that terminating pregnancy and terminating parenthood are two different things. I realize that terminating pregnancy gives women an extra option that men don't have.

I'm not in favor of any laws that give the disadvantaged gender "equal opportunity".

I don't like maternity laws or physical requirements for employment that give women "equal opportunity" as men. If the employment requirement is for men to do 50 push ups and a woman in the same physical condition can only do 30, then she should not be able to hand in 20 "paper pushups" because biology did not give her the same upper body strength.

I realize we have laws like that, but I wish we didn't and I am not supportive of them.

Voicing your opinions doesn't signify strength.

You use staw men arguments, shaming tactics, and strange/ridiculous threats.

You've taken a anti-male stance on some of the most important father's rights areas. This includes equal paternity leave after birth (where you said something as dumb as "the NBA would shut down"). Also on both the issues of adoption without fathers permission and abortion you argued against men's rights citing women's privilege to "biology".

Worst of all is that you flood the thread with your anti-men's rights arguments leaving many and extremely long posts ruining the discussion.

I said awhile back I was going to ignore you. I should have stuck with it. The only reason I am commenting now is because all your criticisms and accusations are based on your poor reading comprehension skills.

The article or post you are criticizing me for from way back mentioned why American women need mandatory paid maternity leave. My response to this was two-fold. First, I agreed that near term pregnant women and new nursing moms do not belong in the workplace; but the second part was that I do not believe in mandatory paid maternity leave to be provided by the employer or the government.

You responded by saying something like it was unfair because men need time off too after a baby is born. Then I pointed out that laws don't have to be created or changed for that because in the USA "family leave" is the same for mothers and fathers (it is unpaid). I then made a joke about what it would be like if the NBA had to offer PAID paternity leave.

You jumped all over me based on my support for new mothers staying at home and my refusal to support mandatory PAID paternity leave for men and accused me of being all anti-father and crap. You totally ignored the fact that I am against any type of mandatory paid leave for either gender. Can you comprehend that it is not the time off I am opposed to, it is the "MANDATORY" and "PAID" that I am opposed to?.

And you think I use shaming tactics and threats in my writings?? I'm puzzled at how you can come to this conclusion about me.

And you say I am against father's rights when it comes to adoption and abortion without their permission??? Are you sure you are reading my posts? I post on almost all adoption stories like this and have showed sympathy for men who have been victims of this, I curse (figuratively speaking) the mothers who do this, and I advocate for stronger laws and measures that would prevent this!

And abortion against a fathers permission? I am anti abortion. I wish men could protect their unborn; but I understand why legally/biologically they can't. Laws and definitions would have to change, fetus would have to be viable outside the womb,etc. Don't mistake my understanding of why men can't protect their unborn as support for men being disrespected or left out of abortion decisions. As nothing is further from the truth. I am extremely sensitive to men that have been hurt by their partner aborting their unborn child.

I post many comments advocating for fathers getting full custody. equal treatment. fair support and custody etc. I have no idea how you can accuse me of being anti-father. I am offended by the accusation.

My position on "paper abortion for men" is like your position, in the way that it can either be viewed as anti-father or pro-father. My intent is that it is pro-father. I am sure your position seems pro-father to you even though it seems very anti-father to me.

As far as my many posts on this thread... People ask me questions, I answer. I probably don't need to. From now on I will limit my posts when it comes to this subject.

But please do me a favor, if you are going to accuse me of stuff and critique my position on issues please be sure you read correctly and understand my position first. .

Current paternity law is based on obsolete assumptions.

In 1973 the rules changed. Feminists cheered because women now had the right to control their bodies. But that ruling contains unstated assumptions about life that go well beyond just abortion rights, and the law just hasn’t caught up. In order to believe that Roe v Wade affects only abortion rights, you have to believe that nothing in our legal system is premised on the assumption of conception being the creation of life.

When the Supreme Court ruled that states could not prevent a woman from having an abortion, it ruled by default that a fetus has no rights and does not qualify as a human life. Or stated another way, the decision to create life is made by a single person; it is not a team decision. The courts have supported this by repeatedly ruling that nobody but the woman carrying the fetus has anything to say about the decision.

Single individuals can adopt children and single women can use an anonymous sperm donor to become pregnant and become a parent. No provision for a second parent is required. We clearly allow the decision to bring children into the world without 2 parents. But our laws will hold a man responsible, against his will, for a decision which he is legally excluded from participating in. The law seems to say that a woman can’t be trusted to make a responsible decision of whether to create a life, but that she has the exclusive right to do so. So they assign responsibility to someone else, whether he likes it or not.

Makes sense doesn’t it? Yeah, like maybe in some parallel universe!

Roe v Wade did not produce equality between men and women; it gave women a right it simulataneously denied to men. Thus, men, by Court decree, have no independent reproductive rights. As a result, having a child is no longer a joint decision, but one made exclusively by the woman. As she makes the unilateral decision, she should have unilateral responsibility. Men should take on that responsibility only if they freely choose to do so. If the Constitution prevents men from participating in the decision to have a child, men should have no automatic or de facto responsibility for that child.

A side effect: under Roe v Wade, the child does not exist at conception. Legally, the child comes into existence at birth. Thus, by legal decree the child has only one parent--mom. Conception has no legal status, so legally every conception is, in effect, an "immaculate conception." As you say, this makes sense only in a parallel universe.

"When the Supreme Court ruled that states could not prevent a woman from having an abortion, it ruled by default that a fetus has no rights and does not qualify as a human life. Or stated another way, the decision to create life is made by a single person; it is not a team decision. The courts have supported this by repeatedly ruling that nobody but the woman carrying the fetus has anything to say about the decision." -Arty

Arty, are you sure this is right? I have just started studying RvW and have not dug that deep, but so far my understanding is that RvW makes no stand on wether the fetus is human life or not, and it really doesn't effect the ruling one way or the other. The premise is that pregnancy and child birth carries risk and alteration to the mother's body and that only she is able to decide how much risk/alteration she is willing to accept.

I often hear people exclaim that you never hear of people dying from pregnancy or childbirth anymore. That is somewhat true. But let's say a relatively healthy female has a .0001 chance of dying on an average given day when she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant her chances of dying on that same day are probably double in early pregnancy and quadruple in late pregnancy or during child birth.

For example I am a relatively healthy mid-twenties female. I do have asthma and have had two serious asthma attacks in my life. When I do aerobic activity I always use my inhaler as a preventative measure and I always carry it with me. But because I am pregnant and my inhaler contains a steroid which can harm the fetus or cause me to miscarry, I am not to use it unless the attack has already started. I don't think I am going to have an asthma attack and die anytime soon, but my risk of dying from asthma has certainly more than doubled due to the pregnancy.

Also, in the past, I had 2 C-sections within a single year so my uterus is weak from scar tissue. This increases my current fetus's chance of expelling into my abdominal cavity (sorry if I am providing too much detail) which is life threatening to both me and the baby. The chances of this is very rare, but still my life is more at risk while I am pregnant than when I am not.

Women's blood pressure also increases during pregnancy as our blood system cleanses and supplies the baby's blood system. High blood pressure can be life threatening, it may not immediately cause death but it puts wear and tear on the heart which may shave a few years off our life.

So you can see how pregnancy and childbirth does increase a woman's chance of death.

Another aspect of RvW is it gives mother and doctor confidentiality, so the government cannot ask how much or how little of risk the mother is rejecting or how much risk should be considered to terminate any pregnancy.

Life of the fetus is sometimes discussed, but according to the US constitution, rights only apply to people and "personhood" does not begin until birth. A nine month term fetus is legally a fetus and not a person so it is not protected under the US constitution or have any rights. The law has always been this way, so I do not believe that RvW has influenced this at all. So I question how you came up with this statement:

"it [Roe vs. Wade] ruled by default that a fetus has no rights and does not qualify as a human life." -Arty

I am anti abortion, and I do not like to defend it in anyway, but if RvW is going to be used to influence other laws, then we need to have the correct understanding.

I am more inclined to listen to arguments that suggest babies fully belong to mothers along the logic of "her body, her choice". That of course means a mother would have to "offer" paternity rights to the father and erase much strides that father rights groups have made.

I have so many thoughts and questions as to the impact of paper abortion or choice for men would have, such as would a father's name still be put on the birth certificate. And would this effect the "rights of the child" that was put together by the United Nations that indicate that a child has the right to a correct birth certificate and to be cared for by both parents? Or what if a pregnant women moved from one area to another that had different abortion laws (abortion is still outlawed in many countries such as the Philippines and countries in South America) ?

Note: Nowhere in our US constitution does it use the words a woman has a "right to abortion". The judge in RvW made his ruling based on the 14th amendment where it says "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

Which is very vague, but basically says the state cannot force a woman to put her life at risk or alter her body due to pregnancy as she has a right to life and liberty. Liberty being one's control of their body.

Kris said:

“I have just started studying RvW and have not dug that deep, but so far my understanding is that RvW makes no stand on wether the fetus is human life or not, and it really doesn't effect the ruling one way or the other.”

Let me get this straight. You're saying that it is a constitutional right to terminate a fetus at will but that the fetus may still be considered a human life? What are you smoking?

“Life of the fetus is sometimes discussed, but according to the US constitution, rights only apply to people and "personhood" does not begin until birth.”

Can you refer me to the section of the constitution states this? I can’t find it in my copy.

My basic point is this; if a fetus is simply a part of a woman’s body and is no one else’s business, then why is someone else held accountable for what she chooses to do with it? I see nothing in your post that addresses that issue.

Here is what the judge had to say as he authored the court's opinion of Roe vs. Wade, and what I was trying to convey in my last post:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense and thus the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment."

-Justice Blackmun, Roe vs Wade

Kris said:

"Here is what the judge had to say as he authored the court's opinion of Roe vs. Wade, and what I was trying to convey in my last post"

One could go on for pages discussing what might be wrong or right about this statement. But I don't see how it refutes anything I posted. What exactly are you trying to say about my post? My impression was that you disagreed with something but I still don't know what it is.