Roe v. Wade for men

The only solution I can see to this is signing a contract prior to any sexual contact. If a guy wants the right to opt out of the responsibility he can bring a contract to bed. May decrease his chances of getting laid though but fair is fair.

I guess we're going in that direction anyway, sounds like fun but inevitable.

That is the problem. There is extreme inequality there. Is that your rationale for all disagreements. Sorry Mr. Jones, but I believe slavery is right. I understand you feel differently, and I recognize that, but get back into the field so you can finish in time.

I would have no problem raising a child by myself if my partner decided she did not want the baby, but carried it to term. That's life. The more children you have, the more time you need to give them, the more money you need. It is not difficult, but it is not impossible.But you are trying to bring more global issues of raising a child as a single parent into a discussion about the rights of choice of the father and mother. The more global issues of employment laws needs to be addressed, but these are a distinct issues. Unless you want to opt out for another impasse.

It is becoming so obvious to me that to a lot of the participants of this thread, the issue is just about power.

Who has the power to decide whether a child should be brought into existence or not? If I don't get that power, can I at least hold power of the purse and deny financial support? Can I get the power to see the child, whether or not I support him/her financially?

Please, PLEASE don't leave men powerless!

Back to DDBug's argument that it is a CHILD we are talking about here. Not a car.

Heh had a verbal contract with my first girlfriend here in germany, about what would happen if she got pregnant, she said she would keep it and I said I would run back to NZ and change my name. Worked well. She was a bit pissed off for a while but I still got the puss. So honesty does pay. I dont think she would have believed it if I said I would stick around and pay maintanence!

Maybe you feel it is about power, but don't put word into my mouth or fingers. I believe it is about choice. Power implies using something for your advantage. All I have been advocating is that if the woman can decide not to have the child, the man can decide that he doesn't either in the same time frame.

brokenm, I feel it is unfair of you to accuse me of backing out of this argument. I have posted many times here and on other threads. I've just run out of points, and nobody agrees, and probably we'll never get anybody to agree.

I was trying to refocus the argument and get the thread back to the original topic, the lawsuit, because I feel that all this philosophical arguing (not on TT, in the larger society) is taking impetus away from the real threat here: the impending loss of Roe v. Wade protections in the first place, as well as the possible loss of Griswold v. Connecticut protections (birth control.)

I hope that the men who have organized this group are also donating shitloads to Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations, so that their issue can exist at all.

Otherwise, imagine a scenario where this group wins their lawsuit. We have a precedent that says men don't have to pay for a baby they didn't want. Then, Roe v. Wade is reversed, and many states revoke any right to abortion. So, we have a precedent that men don't have to pay for a baby they didn't want, and a lot of women stuck with a pregnancy that nobody wants, and that nobody can do anything legally about, and that leaves the mother legally completely fiscally responsible.

I'm sorry, but this is just a whole lot scarier to me than the prospect that a few men might have to ante up a little cash for an unintended pregnancy they helped make.

The lawsuit does not have a snowball's chance in hell. Regardless of the equality of decision, if the child is born, then it is generally the better standard for both parents to support the child; for the kid's and society's interest. As a rule of measure, that is the best option available.

I still think Ms. Quan's exposition on the power of sex, and particularly, the official vs. non-official standards for contraception to be pretty interesting. No woman here has given an opinion on whether condom usage for many years with monogamous partners agreed on birth control is considered acceptable in practice, though. Guess it only interests me.

Randy - I would find condom use in that instance totally ok. For lots of reasons.

Who is Ms. Quan? Link?

What do you mean by "acceptable in practice"? I love condoms. Less mess, no chemicals to ingest. Certain other parties I know are less enthusiastic, though.

I think most women have less of a problem with condoms than men do.

Here's the link...

One example is along the lines of - you're married, neither partner wants children, the male continues to use condoms after 6 years, 7, years, etc.

Each partner should use birth control to the extent they do not want to have a child.

Women who really really don't want to get pregnant should use something very effective and not slip up (pill, ring, etc.) Even more so if she's opposed to abortion.

Men who really really don't want their partners to get pregnant should ALSO use something no matter what she says she's using. Especially if HE's opposed to abortion or opposed to financial support for an unwanted child.

Is it more complicated than that?

Yes, as the last few pages have describe, it is more complicated than that. Birth control is really not all that reliable. People become pregnant with taking appropriate measures. People also have sex without thinking all all possibilites it may imply (children, diseases). Therefore there are other considerations and choices.

Well yeah, that's a good position, and certainly supported by health agencies, and by anyone reasonably interested in birth control. Now take it personally. Is it fine for you if your husband uses condoms for 10 years, and you both are decided for birth control? Is it questionable?

I think that was Quan's point.

Yes, I think you do. How many periods do you have to skip before you begin to suspect, and buy a testing kit? 1? 2? 8?

Some women still get their periods throughout their pregnancy. Sometimes they're lighter, sometimes not and it isn't that rare. I've known two such cases and I haven't known that many women who've been pregnant (maybe 10).

I had my period well into my first pregnancy. When I suspected I was pregnant my gyno said I wasn't and only did the pregnancy test because I insisted on it.

To be honest, I am uncomfortable with this lawsuit also partly because of the elephant in the room: the issue of who's to blame for the pregnancy, which comes down to birth control.

Apparently this group chose this particular plaintiff because his partner apparently told him she had some kind of condition that prevented her becoming pregnant. They can imply, at least, that he was tricked into fatherhood by a possibly well-meaning woman who was at least mistaken, and at worst, lying to him, about her ability to conceive.

This group chose the plaintiff very carefully, and have held off on bringing a suit until they could find a "blameless" father.

So we're basing the case at least in part on whose responsibility it is to see that a pregnancy doesn't occur.

I say, both. It should be no part of the verdict that the woman didn't have proper birth control, the pregnancy is her fault, and thus she has to bear the entire financial burden.

Randy - again I think many women would not have a problem with their husbands using condoms for 10 + years. I wouldn't. I suspect it would be the husbands who wouldn't want to bother with a condom for 10 + years.
Can we spell v-a-s-e-c-t-o-m-y in that case ???

Sorry, dropped the ball way back on that one.

Besides the preceding examples, a lot of women don't have regular periods to begin with, and thus don't notice if they haven't had one for awhile.

A relative of mine was not menstruating because she was still breastfeeding. It took her awhile to notice she was pregnant again, too.

The point is no always whether the man ever wants children, but that he doesn't want children at that point in time. Your rationale is just as valid as telling a twenty two year old girl to get her tubes tied rather than risk the pill no tworking.

If he doesn't want children at that point in time then he should wear a condom. period.

Or just pull out and blow your load on her titties.

That is disgusting, Kza, but it sure lightened the tone!

If you, the man, don't want to use condoms for 10+ years, and yet you really don't want a child and don't want to support one if your partner conceives, then I think your other option is vasectomy. Until another male-controlled form of birth control comes along.

Condom's are not that effective. Since we seem to be regressing. Why not just advocate abstinence. And meses during pregnancy is common 25%, actually it is not menses, but what is considered implantation bleeding. There is a noticeable difference between the two and if a woman paid close attention to her body she would realise.

Same to the women. If you don't want a child, and need to depend on a reluctant man for financial support, then your option is sterilization.

Condoms are one of the most effective methods of contraception (and STD prevention) available today. When used correctly.
Abstinence, mutual satisfaction without penetration, oral sex, condoms and barrier methods, vasectomies and tied tubes - there are lots of solutions. Generally blaming the other gender for an accidental pregnancy isn't one of them.

BrokenM - that last statement of yours made no sense.

DDBug: Well, I certainly can't disagree with your own feelings. In the article, Ms. Quan's opinion is that many women would discourage condom use with a monagamous partner. The issue being of "condoms are for flings and whores". Many women would feel a bit insulted and wondering what's up if their lifelong partner kept up condom usage, when the woman is already using her own control methods.

But I don't know about that statement. I was just throwing it out there, to see if more women would chime in on the issue.

I do agree that 10+ years of condom usage is a hassle. I'd much rather take a daily pill, if it were an option.

Wrong. They are not that effective and they rarely are used correctly. People are afraid to ask about contraception both the pill and condoms and make wrong assumptions. A condom is only about six times more effective than not using one for prevention. Is it better than not using one? Yes. Is it 100%? No. I know my facts. I have had to teach sex education and HIV prevention for years to high school students as an outreach for my medical school.

Seems there are a lot of partners out there that shouldn't be partners then, if they can't even be honest about birth control over the course of 10 + years what on earth are they doing together?? I can't believe that many relationships are that bad and based on mutual distrust. Flings and one-night stands are something else.

Makes no sense. There are a myriad of female-controlled methods of birth control other than sterilization. For men, there's just the one.

True, sterilization is the only 100% method, but even that's been known to fail.

Again to the point: what does "who's to blame" have to do with it, anyway?

I don't follow where you get distrust from, DDBug?

If they are not used correctly then that is an educational issue. Used properly they are effective and even 6 times more effective is better than nothing.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of education about "the facts of life" sex, reproduction, STDs and safety as well as emotional issues involved with sex and pregnancy (even amongst "grownups") This lack of understanding about basic issues leads to the ignorance and blaming of "the other sex" for accidental pregnancies and unwanted, and poorly treated, children.

Randy, From your quote of Ms. Quans. You quoted her, not me.

The point is that women have a choice for three months at least after being pregnant. The man should as well. What you have started to write is blaming the man. If he doesn't want children, he should have an irreversible sterilization. This makes a lot of sense. The pill is pretty effective, definitely not fool proof and many many women screw it up due to non-compliance, forgetting to bring it with them, taking two the next day, start taking it and thinking it works immediately or think that when they take antibiotics that the pill is still effective. It is simple. If the woman is given a choice during the three month period the man should be given that same choice. Any excuse for the imbalance that has been discussed is equall valid for the man and woman.

But the point was an affront perceived by the female partner, not a lack of confidence. I'm not sure how you extrapolated 'distrust' from what I posted? Who is distrusting whom? Why?

DDBug,
That is true, but that will not change. You can try and educate the public more, but in reality people don't listen or ask the correct questions. I was surprised about two questions which I asked thousands of "educated" students, which the majority always answered incorrectly. The first, if you can become infected with HIV while taking the pill? The answer, no-it is impossible. Second question isn't as relevant today so I won't post it.

1 - women don't have a choice for 3 months
a - they may not believe, or have access to abortion
b - most pregnancies are not confirmed before the 8th week

2 - I said vasectomy is an option, I did not say sterilization
a - vasectomies are, supposedly, reversavle
b - I said use condoms

3 - Why do you say "many many" women screw up the pill? Doctors give pretty clear instructions when the prescribe the pill, if "many many" women make all the mistakes you say then the pill would have to be discontinued for lack of effectiveness.

4 - it is not simple - it is not something that 99% of women take lightly. Yes, there are very few women that are irresponsible, I would wager that there are many more men that are more so.

I stand behind what I said - If you do not want to be a father, then take precautions. If you do not want to be a mother, then take precautions. If an accidental pregnancy happens, then face up to your responsibilities to the person you have created. The innocent one, the baby.

I have girlfriends that have had children, and the docs will not do a Tubal due to their young age, but men can get vasecomties at any age.
If a women has not had a child, even if she wants none, docs will also not preform a Tubal. I have asked, and so have some of my friends who don't want children.
So Female Sterilization is not an option unless the women is over 35 and had kids.

Most doctors AFAIK would refuse to give vasectomies to young men aswell. Vasectomies can only be reversed within a certain period of time.

The best solution clearly, is not letting her find out your name or where you live. I always say my name is "brokenm" just in case...

People seem to be overlooking the blindingly obvious. Whack it up her pooper instead, as far as I know chicks can't get pregnant by this method except on the first sunday of each month.

nah you can still get pregnant that way.

Timmeh, what can I say?

All yer romance-talkin' is driving me wild!

At least that way my "kids" will have a chance of looking better than if they were the real deal.

Beware the drip factor. Many Greeks were born this way. Even old swollen foot had no idea who his real dad was!

Better yet, use a condom.