Shotgun

So how do we (legally) make this particular situation fair? Do we require the father's signature before an abortion can be performed? Do we allow the father to sign something during the pregnancy saying that he wanted the woman to have an abortion, but since she wouldn't, he denies any parental responsibility? (I suppose that could apply to him wanting her to put the baby up for adoption too.)

If it was me personally in the situation, I think I would allow the man to make a choice. If I wanted to keep the child and he didn't, then I likely wouldn't expect anything else from him (other than to stay out of our lives). And I suspect that there are lots of people who have made such an agreement (or something similar) with no problem. But I'm not sure how it would work to give him some sort of legal protection to do this.

That's cute. I probably need one with training wheels too.

you don't normally stoop to that tactic What tactic??? I promise I wasn't trying to be obnoxious or anything, but I guess sometimes I am anyway. No, the website was arguing pretty much what you are arguing - that the best analogy to women choosing abortion is to let the man "opt out" of his parenting duties if the woman doesn't choose abortion. Here's a link: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/22/deseno_roe_wade/ I understand that, but I still think that the most relevant analogy is letting the man decide that he wants the woman to have an abortion and she has to have one. Your proposal is more analogous to her giving birth to the child but then putting it up for adoption. A child actually exists out of the situation, but she has given up her rights and responsibilities regarding that child. Yes, it was an interesting topic, and I'm glad you brought it up because I honestly hadn't thought of it before. Or maybe I'm not glad you brought it up, because I can't come up with a perfect answer for it. (But I suppose that's how I've always felt about the abortion issue in general. I think abortion is bad, but I think making it illegal is bad too. )

Yeah, but that's a complete non-starter. . . . Hey, just because some people find it unpalatable does not mean that it isn't the best analogy. But of course it's still not equal. And letting the father "opt out" of his responsibilities after birth (against the mother's wishes) is not equal. And banning abortion altogether is not equal either. There is just no way to make the pregnancy situation equal between men and women. Which is probably something that people should keep in mind before engaging in activities that might cause pregnancy. Oh, and I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at... but I did see this same argument on some right-wing website where the author seemed to be trying to make an argument against "Roe" while disguising it as an outrage over men not having equal rights in the abortion decision. It was written in a pretty clever way, but it was lacking in logic.

I've been looking for a bike lately too (I'm 5'3"). I don't know much about bikes, but I tried out a Specialized mountain bike at a local shop and liked it. They only had the men's model in the store though, so I'm thinking of having them order a women's model for me. I don't know how much you want to spend, but these start around $400: http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=09D4WMTB&eid=215 I can't remember what size I tried, but it seemed to fit just right. A dealer could probably help you with that. I'm not wanting to spend much myself, but I don't want to buy something so crappy that I'll never want to ride it.

I think the closest equivalent would be that he could choose for her to have an abortion and she would have to have one. He may have reasons beyond simply not wanting to pay to raise a child - like not wanting her to be the mother of his offspring, or not wanting to have any offspring at all. So the most "equal" situation you can get here is that either one can choose abortion.

Yeah, I agree with that. So, in this case (where the man later demands child support), it would be an agreement that only the woman was legally bound by.

What if they agree that he has custody while she has no part in it? Wouldn't it be the same if he later changed his mind and requests (and gets) child support from her?

? I think in many (perhaps most?) cases, this is exactly what happens - the man and woman make a decision together.

Because there is a biologically unequal status between men and women when it comes to pregnancy. I don't think it's a "fixable" situation. the fix is posted - because some people find it distasteful just proves it as a good analogy I have seen no "fix" posted - distasteful or otherwise. And since men can't get pregnant or anything like it, there really is no analogy to be made regarding abortion. You seem to be trying to make one, but I disagree that it is "good." I think "silly" would be a better word for it.

If the abortion is because she simply didn't want a child, then yes, it is walking away from the responsibilities of parenthood (along with not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term).

Because there is a biologically unequal status between men and women when it comes to pregnancy. I don't think it's a "fixable" situation.

Oh, I think that the Al-Qaida guys are just upset that Obama didn't invite them over for a slumber party at the White House.

I'm not either. Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were arguing. I'm still not really sure what the point of this thread drift was. Unless it was to come up with a hypothetical situation in which this naturally unequal situation could be equal, which I don't think is possible. (And when I say that it is unequal, I mean unequal for all parties involved, but in different ways.)

His "opting out" means he simply does nothing - practically no consequences for his (their) mistake. Her "opting out" would mean either carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption (if she is against abortion, which many women are) or having an abortion, which is quite a bit different than doing nothing. An abortion is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure. Definitely not an "equal" situation, by nature.

He can deny the woman the right to be a mother (of his child) by not having sex with her, or by having a vasectomy and using a condom (and/or whatever else) to ensure that he does not get her pregnant. But yeah, if there is an unexpected pregnancy then there is often an inequality in the decision of the fate of the pregnancy, and there is also an inequality in whose body is affected by it (whether she chooses an abortion or not). I don't think anything can really be changed about that. Obviously God did not intend for life to always be fair.

It's still not really equal though, because her body is affected while his is not. I didn't say it was a perfect solution. It's good manners when criticising someone's solution, you have one of your own as well. There is no solution. It is naturally an unequal situation, and I don't think there is any way to change that. I guess I'm not really understanding what rehmwa's point is. It is equal _before_ she gets pregnant (assuming we're talking about consenting adult partners). They both choose whether to have sex and how much protection to use. And they both go into it knowing what the consequences may be. She knows that she could get pregnant and have to either carry a child or have an abortion, and then be responsible for the child after it is born. And he goes into it knowing that he may get her pregnant and have to deal with her either deciding to have an abortion or to carry a child which he will be responsible for (and that she may or may not include him in that decision - though hopefully most women would). If either party is not OK with those consequences, then they should either abstain from sex or take every possible precaution to make sure that no pregnancy occurs.

It's still not really equal though, because her body is affected while his is not.

I remember hearing of Watchtower, but I don't think you guys were still together when I moved to Austin. I guess y'all have been back together for a while now though? Oh, and I do remember your other other band. Retarded Elf was always a fun show to go to.

Nice!

I think a lot of people use both the pill and condoms. Though I guess they're not necessarily used for the purpose of having two means of pregnancy prevention. In this case, the condom is probably used mostly for STD prevention.

Interesting point. There are already churches - like the Unitarian Universalists - that perform same-sex marriages whether they are "legal" or not. It does seem like an infringement on freedom of religion when the government will not recognize these marriages (since it does recognize other church marriages). But then I suppose that when the government recognizes any marriages, they are recognized as legal marriages, not as religious marriages. The government is not preventing anyone from having religious marriage ceremonies. Yeah, I think that the religious freedom argument from this angle would be just as poor as the religious freedom argument from the same-sex marriage opponents.

I don't think that verifying that she's on the pill and then using a condom qualifies as "extraordinary lengths" to ensure no pregnancy. Maybe if you included having a vasectomy with those other two actions then it would qualify. I also don't agree that men get "no choice." They (as did the women) made a choice to have sex, which can lead to pregnancy, which is intrinsically an unfair situation. Trying to make it "fair" at that point just doesn't work. Although the two people involved can try to make it as fair as possible.

Did you mean Rhode Island or New Hampshire? And I'm sure you don't think that polygamy should be grouped with bestiality or pedophilia. Yeah, I know that some anti-gay folks like to group them together, but obviously polygamy can be between consenting human adults, while the other two cannot.