Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Ebildays]

I see what you mean, but I don't know how well that would work in a relationship. "oh yeah, if you accidentally get pregnant, I will not support you"

I do feel it should be a long period of time BEFORE the abortion cut off, to give the female appropriate time to think about what she wants to do, instead of the male waiting until the DAY OF or something lame like that.

I was thinking the conversation would happen before sex and would go more like " I do not want children right now or never and in the case of an unwanted pregnancy I would like for the option to opt out of any and all legal responsibility for the child. " Yes that may put a hamper on your relationship but it would be for the best because if one person wants children and the one person does not there will always be one person unhappy about that part in the relationship and the relationship would like last either way. The biggest up side to that would be that there would be a lot less "I forgot to take my pill" if a woman knows up front she will be going solo and there is no way the law can get the man for child support.

Ideally the decision should be made before any sexual activity and impregnation takes place. I'm just wondering how you prove that you've decided it before hand?

Not everyone has access to a lawyer who can write a legal document for you. Have the government keep some database about if you want to have a child or not? Not so sure about that either, it's pretty private information. And what would the default selection be?

Anyway, I think any of these choices would be an improvement over the current situation. Might as well start with what is easiest to sell.

I am not thinking about a database or anything like that. There are tons of clinics around and I don't see why they would not be able to have forms on hand that will allow couples to make legally binding contract just like sperm donors do. It would be safe and there would be a neutral person there to co-sign that someone was not forced into signing the paperwork. Clinics could charge a fee for it which would bring in an almost no cost source of revenue and who does not like money.

I would be a little less strict. I would say the standard should be set to allow a reasonable amount of time for the woman to decide if she is still going to keep the baby knowing she would be supporting it herself. I don't think this has to be before the pregnancy.

I also believe the man should be allowed to choose at a later time if it can be proven that the woman concealed the pregnancy until after the normal cut off time.

I like it strict because that increases the chances of something like this passing. It may not seem like it but I am a very fair minded person that tries to look at both sides of the problem and the options available. If it is too lax people will start giving examples of deadbeat dads who have 25 children and don't care about birth control. They will make it seem like most men if given the option will take the " I was just here for the sex and it is a woman's job to worry about birth control because they have more options. So you can take this kid and either abort or whatever because it is not my problem anymore." But if you make it too strict it becomes almost like not having it because it will not be "available" to everyone.

You want it to seem like a win-win for everyone not just men and that would be the key to getting it passed.

[starlord]

I agree, but if you make laws that apply to women wanting choices, men should have the same choice. Pro-choices always say it should be the womans choice to choose to keep the baby since it will change her life, again, men should have a choice since this will indeed change his life as well.

It should be one or the other. Both can "opt out" or neither, lest we take one set of freedoms from one gender and give it to another.

its not because it "changes her life" its because its her body.

a woman "opting out" is not comparable to a man "opting out" because in the end theres no kid to worry about.

its not sexism, and there is no way to provide an equal option.

[Xanjori]

its not hers thats the problem, its the kids. who did nothing wrong. lets look at another scenario: hospital sent home the wrong baby. should the child be tossed out on the street because its "not theirs"?

So either make the actual father pay, or she gets an abortion. Why is it the innocent guys problem at all? Should he pay for every random child out there?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

its not hers thats the problem, its the kids. who did nothing wrong. lets look at another scenario: hospital sent home the wrong baby. should the child be tossed out on the street because its "not theirs"?

Take away a mans freedoms because a woman sins. Totally legit and sound argument.

[Deleted]

but you can "just make women get abortions" if the father gets cold feet.

For fucks sake your inability to read text starts to piss me off. The dad can't just decide "hey I don't want this kid after all". He makes the decision before any impregnation takes place. He can't go "let's have kids" and then "I don't want the kid" afterwards.

Second, no one can "make women get abortions". The guy can't force the woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want his genes to be passed on. The woman has the ultimate say about her own body.

[Laize]

i guess we should get rid of all those pesky laws like "cant abuse your child, must provide it adequate care, etc".

its not sexism that women carry children and that children have rights that supersede their parents to matter how much you try to make it so.

I never claimed that particular area was sexist.

I'm just saying it should be changed.

I'm saying that if a woman is given notice that the father doesn't intend to be part of the child's life (Or support it financially) she will be capable of making an informed decision. Nothing wrong with that.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

its not because it "changes her life" its because its her body.

a woman "opting out" is not comparable to a man "opting out" because in the end theres no kid to worry about.

its not sexism, and there is no way to provide an equal option.

It is 100% in fact sexism. You are in fact affecting my body if you impose a tax on me. That is, I must work more to make up for the lost funds, or in many cases, just provide for myself.

This is unfair, and laws that favor one gender are indeed sexism.

[starlord]

So either make the actual father pay, or she gets an abortion. Why is it the innocent guys problem at all? Should he pay for every random child out there?

of course, and we're speaking of a born child. no one pays a dime to fetuses. but if the "innocent guy" had raised it for many years and was acting as its parent, yes he should since he accepted the responsibility of it. same goes for mothers who were given the wrong baby.

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 03:24 PM ----------

For fucks sake your inability to read text starts to piss me off. The dad can't just decide "hey I don't want this kid after all". He makes the decision before any impregnation takes place. He can't go "let's have kids" and then "I don't want the kid" afterwards.

Second, no one can "make women get abortions". The guy can't force the woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want his genes to be passed on. The woman has the ultimate say about her own body.

"i wont help you so you better get an abortion or you and your child will suffer" is totally the same as "i choose to not have any responsibility, see ya!".

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

"i wont help you so you better get an abortion or you and your child will suffer" is totally the same as "i choose to not have any responsibility, see ya!".

Not really, no.

[starlord]

It is 100% in fact sexism. You are in fact affecting my body if you impose a tax on me. That is, I must work more to make up for the lost funds, or in many cases, just provide for myself.

This is unfair, and laws that favor one gender are indeed sexism.

what you dont understand is that women pay it too. even if the guy lied or walked out on her soon after. abortions are irrelevant to child suppirt being "sexist".

[Deleted]

"i wont help you so you better get an abortion or you and your child will suffer" is totally the same as "i choose to not have any responsibility, see ya!".

"I have decided that I don't want a kid, so if you poke holes in my condom, lie about your contraceptives or try to tell me some other guy's kid is mine, then you're responsible for the fate of the kid, not me."

"And if for some reason contraceptives fail (pretty damn rare) and you don't want the kid, I will help you finance whatever solution you choose"

Either way, no financial slavery.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

what you dont understand is that women pay it too. even if the guy lied or walked out on her soon after. abortions are irrelevant to child suppirt being "sexist".

Yes, if they pay it, it is after choosing to keep the child. She gets a choice in the matter, while males do not. This is sexism. Whats irrelevant is why she chose what she did. If she keeps the baby for moral reasons, that is irrelevant. If it was a "tough choice for her to make" THAT is irrelevant. You are taking one liberty away from ONLY ONE GENDER, and giving it to THE OTHER GENDER, AND THAT GENDER ONLY.

So this means if there is an accidental pregnancy, the woman can choose what is best for her, and the man cannot at all choose his fate.

[Deleted]

what you dont understand is that women pay it too. even if the guy lied or walked out on her soon after. abortions are irrelevant to child suppirt being "sexist".

Yeah, but the woman gets to choose if she wants to pay it or not.

And still, we're not talking about letting off the hook guys who leave in the middle of raising a child.

[starlord]

Yes, if they pay it, it is after choosing to keep the child. She gets a choice in the matter, while males do not. This is sexism.

no thats biology.

Whats irrelevant is why she chose what she did. If she keeps the baby for moral reasons, that is irrelevant. If it was a "tough choice for her to make" THAT is irrelevant. You are taking one liberty away from ONLY ONE GENDER, and giving it to THE OTHER GENDER, AND THAT GENDER ONLY.

So this means if there is an accidental pregnancy, the woman can choose what is best for her, and the man cannot at all choose his fate.

but its not the same choice. it doesnt have the same results or subsequent choices. so how can you call that "equality"?
if a guy lies and she had a baby, theyre both on the hook. if the girl lies and she has a baby, theyre both on the hook.

thats as equal as it gets.

[zeekphreak]

I think everyone missed the most important fact of this article!

"One bizarre finding was that a third of women (33%) said they would stay with their husband if they found out he was a "secret transvestite", but only half that number (17%) would put up with him if he refused to wash"

Oh the humanity!

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

no thats biology.
but its not the same choice. it doesnt have the same results or subsequent choices. so how can you call that "equality"?
if a guy lies and she had a baby, theyre both on the hook. if the girl lies and she has a baby, theyre both on the hook.

thats as equal as it gets.

No, they are never both on the hook and thats the point.

[starlord]

No, they are never both on the hook and thats the point.

yes they are. they both must, by law, contribute to raising the kid or find someone who will.

[Xanjori]

yes they are. they both must, by law, contribute to raising the kid or find someone who will.

Or, they could not have kids, because they're not in a position where raising a child is a good option for them. If a man understands that he is in that position, and a woman doesn't and goes ahead and forces a kid either through lying about the contraception or by cheating, the man should be under no responsibility to then pay for her problem. She can either get support from her family, or from the man who is the actual father, not ruin someone else's life.

My father was more than capable of raising a child on his own, are you seriously telling me a woman cannot? Just FYI, my father received no benefits at all when raising a single child, even better, he was then forced to pay benefits while still raising a single child and still not receiving any.

[Jackmoves]

I agree, but if you make laws that apply to women wanting choices, men should have the same choice. Pro-choices always say it should be the womans choice to choose to keep the baby since it will change her life, again, men should have a choice since this will indeed change his life as well.

It should be one or the other. Both can "opt out" or neither, lest we take one set of freedoms from one gender and give it to another.

I think our opt-out is when we decide to bang her. This is how I look at it.

If I knock a chick up by accident, lets say the contraception fails, or the condom was kaput, no lies on her part, she didn't want to get with child etc... then I'm at the mercy of her decision.

She might feel the option of abortion is off the table for emotional/ethical/whatever reason, in this case I made a conscious decision to risk(a small risk I know) getting her with child, I therefor have a personal responsibility to pay child support, this shouldn't be some redicules sum that provides the woman in question with more money then she can spend though. It should help cover essential costs of raising the kid, food, clothes, things for school(if thats needed), day-care etc. The woman should have to provide for herself, I got no responsibility to provide for her.

If I could opt-out after knocking her up I put her in a tough situation while getting off the hook myself, I force her to either fully support the kid herself or have her go through a procedure that will be against her beliefs or emotions.

The best analogy I can think of is russian roulette, I'm aware of the risk, I choose to roll the dice and play the game, the odds are on my side but sometimes you will get unlucky and end up shooting yourself in the head.

[Xanjori]

The best analogy I can think of is russian roulette, I'm aware of the risk, I choose to roll the dice and play the game, the odds are on my side but sometimes you will get unlucky end up shooting yourself in the head.

I think most guys would be fair about if they got a women pregnant due to bad luck, that its only fair you pay. Its in the situations that the women has lied that is the problem, because right now you still don't get let off when technically all you played was a friendly game of monopoly!