@303 @298: "The choice is available to everyone. Some women choose to take it. Are you going to claim that it wasn't a meaningful choice for THEM?"

Legally, the choice is available to everyone. Morally, it is not because people have different moral views on abortion, which is why it's such a hot button topic. So, it's a meaningful choice to some (those that don't morally oppose it) but not for all (those that do morally oppose it).

And, yes, I know that kills your "its her CHOICE" argument, but that doesn't make it any less true, let alone illogical.

This particular responsibility (to parent a child unwillingly) is one that women exempt themselves from

I think all of human history just fell on your head.

@306: Today isn't all of human history, Eirene. In case you haven't noticed, these days women don't have to become parents when they don't want to.

"@306: Today isn't all of human history, Eirene. In case you haven't noticed, these days women don't have to become parents when they don't want to."

And neither do men, Avast. They just have to take different precautions...

@avast

Are you white?

@migrationist: you seem to regard abortion as just another form of birth control and an inconvenience.

To be honest, I don't see abortion that way. It's definitely not fair that women can opt out of parenthood but men can not. Replacing that with a system that requires women to have an abortion to opt out whereas men can simply wave "bye bye" isn't exactly fair either (although one might argue it's less unjust, and would produce fewer neglected children, than the current system).

But given the limited options available, I can live with current paternity laws, unfair though they may be. What bothers me are my fellow liberals who simply won't consider men's interests, and refuse to see their own hypocrisy, on issues like this - e.g., staunchly pro-choice women who, without any hint of irony, tell men if they don't want to be parents, they should keep their legs, oops I mean zippers shut. Even if, as a woman, you are unwilling to give up your legal advantage on this, at the very least you could acknowledge that you have an advantage rather than parroting pro-life arguments when they suddenly serve your interests.

Obviously, you and lot of others on this thread aren't in that category, so thanks!

@309: Why? Are we discussing reproductive rights in Afghanistan?

Seandr -- do you think it's hypocritical for staunchly pro-choice women to insist that men guard their productive choices and take just as much responsibility for birth control as women do/should? Is that hypocritical?

@308: The precautions that men have to take currently (the effective ones, anyway, because any failure in outcome renders the whole question moot, for men) are the same precautions that used to be in effect for women, are the same ones that no longer apply to women, are the same ones that women erupt in anger when they are even mentioned as possibly applying to women.

These very precautions that women roundly reject for themselves are deemed, by the same women who reject them, perfectly acceptable for men. Yeah, I'd call that hypocritical.

Avast2006 -- wow, you're a piece of work. Condoms are equal for both and I'm sure tons of women would love for men to make an annual visit to the male equivalent of a gyno, go on hormonal birth control so his own testosterone and hormonal levels are altered so as to make him temporarily infertile or have mental and other devices inserted into to render the same thing. So he can deal with all the side effects of having his natural hormonal balance tampered with, gain weight, change your skin/hair texture, bleed irregularly, terrible cramps, risk infertility and increase your risk for things like heart attacks and embolisms. Yeah, I guess that is hypocritical.

Another thing that women bear for the sake of birth control and men just enjoy the sex. Yeah, hypocritical indeed.

I think it is hugely misleading to equate pregnancy with financial responsibility for a child.

Honestly, I find it a little unsettling to compare the two and to act like abortion is some sort of extra special "opt out" right women have, when in reality they just have the right to their own bodies. Which men don't have to worry about in this situation because they can't get pregnant.

@KL: Are we talking about women politicizing birth control by making demands of men in general? For example, Inga Muscio, who says "Men who refuse to use condoms do not deserve to be fucked by anyone..."? If so, I think that point of view is every bit as dickish and douchebaggy as the idea that women who aren't on the pill do not deserve to be fucked. And yes, Inga is a shameless hypocrite.

Personally, I don't see birth control as a political issue, I think it's something each couple should negotiate on their own. Some couples may decide to put the burden on the man, others on the woman, others may require multiple forms of birth control that put the burden on both, and still others say "fuck birth control, let's live for today!" In my 20 year relationship, the burden has switched over time.

I have no problem with women who insist on condoms with their partners, or men who insist on bareback with their partners. If the other party doesn't like it, they can always just walk away. As far as I'm concerned, it's no one else's business besides the man and woman in question.

@ avast

No, but this whole conversation is starting to remind me of how angry white dudes talk about how now minorities have advantages over them and it's no far and doesn't anyone know that racism is over and it's unfair to punish them for blah blah blah.

The fact that you evaded my question kind of says enough though.

@ seandr

Do you... not understand the EXTREMELY LARGE difference between condoms and birth control? Seriously? I weep for public health.

Seandr -- I agree with you on the vast majority of that last statement. I think it always comes down to a personal choice -- as to birth control, disease prevention, etc. I think Inga Muscio's statement is ludicrous.

I take umbrage with the fact that Avast seems to equate the fact that women have abortion as an option as the same thing as men being able to just "opt out" of an unplanned pregnancy. I think that's completely unbalanced and very myopic.

I think every person, man and woman, has the responsibility for his or her choices -- including knowing what your partner wants or would do in an unplanned pregnancy. That both have to realize that due to the biological reality of the difference between the sexes that's going to result in different choices in protecting oneself.

From Avast's position, with his "opt out" idea it seems like men literally could take no responsibility for birth control whatsoever because if an unplanned pregnancy occurs he can just "opt out" -- and then has the audacity to call that fair, especially when the child rearing, birthing and birth control have historically and continues to be largely a burden carried by women. There seems to be very little empathy from him for women that have been shouldering the bulk of this burden for a long time or the sacrifices and hardships we endure for the sake of birth control and/or pregnancy.

@mydriasis:
Do you really not understand the GIGANTICALLY ENORMOUS difference between couples and random hookups?

Anyway, go ahead and weep, but not for me - I'm disease free.

Seandr -- I don't really see the difference between random hook-ups and a couple. In either case, you're taking a risk and can be deceived -- one by someone you know and hopefully love and one by a virtually random stranger. But it's not like you didn't know that going in. If you're stupid enough to indulge in random hook-ups without protection, own that risk.

I personally am not a fan of most version of protected sex, so I choose celibacy in between relationships. Yeah, it sucks, but the hook-ups just aren't worth the risk to me, either in disease, birth control or the increased likelihood of having a much less satisfying sexual experience. Another thing we men and women differ on, at least as far as sweeping generalizations go. And, goddamn it, it's not fair that we women don't orgasm as easily as you guys do! Not fair!

@seandr

First of all, go on tempting fate.
Second of all, unless you're suggesting that everyone be abstinent until far into their monogamous relationships, then your distinction is irrelevent.

@322: First of all, go on tempting fate.

Thanks, I will. I've taken much bigger risks in the name of fun (e.g., heli-boarding in Alaska, cliff diving, parachuting) than fucking without a rubber. And you are welcome to slog through your life according to the actuarial tables, if actually living it isn't your thing.

then your distinction is irrelevent

Practically speaking, you tend to know the risk, if any, with a long term partner, but not so much with a random, so the distinction is definitely relevant to my personal decisions. Still, I'd say the decision to risk disease, like pregnancy, is ultimately up to the two who are pairing off.

@ 302

seandr,

I actually laughed out loud at your assessment of female condoms. And you're right, I did skip FAM. I also skipped depo provera.

My husband and I actually use FAM (the new version of the rhythm method) so I skipped it intentionally. The reason I skipped it is that it requires a secondary form of birth control and of course I covered the alternative methods people who practice FAM have to rely on already.

I skipped depo provera because I forgot it existed. Go me. =D

@324

You clearly missed the point of what I'm saying.

1. I don't slog through life with tables but I don't go around pretending that being in a monogamous relationship makes it impossible to get an STI, although I worry more at work than anywhere else.

2. You THINK you know the risk. But they can cheat on you. That's what I and others were alluding to. Hence tempting fate.

Few people go through their whole lives only in monogamous relationships, and it's actually serially monogamous people who never use condoms (because hey, we're a COUPLE and that's SOOO different than a random hookup) that are at especially high risk for STIs. Higher than promiscious people.

Out of men who "refuse" to use condoms it's only a small minority who happily forgo sex until well into the relationship, so all in all, guys who refuse to use barrier protection to protect their partners (by and large) don't deserve to be fucked in my opinion.

@321: "I personally am not a fan of most version of protected sex, so I choose celibacy in between relationships. Yeah, it sucks, but the hook-ups just aren't worth the risk to me, either in disease, birth control or the increased likelihood of having a much less satisfying sexual experience"

Wait...did you just say that you personally don't like condoms? All ten thousand words you just wrote hollering that men could just use condoms and everything would be hunky-dory -- except you don't like them and don't use them yourself when you are in relationship with a guy?

@mydriasis:
Look, if you need the risk of catching an STD to be absolutely positively zero in order to have natural sex, that's your call. Frankly, I'd take that as a sign that you have an anxiety disorder, not to mention serious trust issues.

My approach (based in part on the fact that I've had graduate level training in probability theory) is that I estimate the probabilities of contracting various diseases from a given woman, multiply those probabilities by the severity of consequences of each disease, add those values up, and then compare the sum with upside of unprotected sex. If the number is negative, I put a condom on, but if it's positive? Party time!

@325: Fertility Awareness Method! Thanks, I can never remember that. Ironically, we didn't learn this method until trying to have a kid.

We now practice a lazy version of FAM, which means the window of opportunity is brief. But, hey, at least there's a window. I will say, the one drawback with this method is that you can't "strike while the iron is hot" so to speak, or more literally, you can't have unprotected sex when your woman is at the horniest point in her cycle.

@seandr @329:
Depends on the woman. Some are horniest just before their period.

@mydriasis @326:
You have a very bleak look at your partners, it seems.
Yes, lots of people in LTRs cheat. But if I am in a LTR, I am there because I trust that person. If I don't trust him, there's no point for me to stay in that relationship. And yes, trust is sometimes unfounded but that is part of life. And that small risk is a risk worth taking.

@ seandr/migrationist

You're clearly not getting my point.

I'm just saying that a lifelong policy of never using condoms is extremely limiting if you also want to be reasonably safe. Most people want to be able to have sex in the context of maybe casual sex sometimes when they're single or have sex with new boyfriends or girlfriends before the relationship has entered a really LTR/monogamous/trust level.

"I estimate the probabilities of contracting various diseases from a given woman, multiply those probabilities by the severity of consequences of each disease, add those values up, and then compare the sum with upside of unprotected sex. If the number is negative, I put a condom on, but if it's positive? Party time!"

Exactly, you put a condom on. And if you were in such a situation where you calculated the number as negative and that person vehemently refused to wear a condom (or let you wear one, as the case may be) would you fuck them?

Exactly.

Finally, as to the personal digs, I don't have trust issues, the fact that I said I'm more worried about getting an STI at work should have made that clear to anyone who has any sense of logic, let alone someone who studied probability.

@mydriasis:
I apologize for not getting your point, but believe me, it isn't for lack of trying. I've reread your post, and it seems like you're saying couples in LTRs should always wear condoms because people cheat, which I assume you agree is a bit crazy? Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Not sure why you are arguing with me - doesn't seem like we disagree.

As for getting an STI at work, the only way I can make sense of that comment is by assuming you are a sex worker. Is that what you are saying? Apologies in advance if I'm missing something.

Avast2006 -- I don't like condoms. They're better than nothing and I tend to use the in the beginning of a relationship for disease protection, but I'm very happy when they're no longer needed. But I also take my pregnancy prevention uber seriously. In my 15+ years of having a lot of sex, I've never had a scare. Perhaps I'm infertile and the joke will be on me, but that's been my situation.

I understand that men don't have the same birth control options as we women do, but I still employ the ones at my disposal. It's not fun to have your natural hormones screwed up or deal with side effects -- I'm just thankful that I didn't have as bad of side effects as I know other women have had -- but it's still way better than having to worry about getting pregnant.

So, I can understand you being bummed that there isn't as much options for men for birth control. And if that's your deal, then lobby for better birth control for men --- I'd love for my partner to deal with it instead of me, but practically it hasn't been much of an option and even then I'm not sure I'd trust him not to miss a pill. I'd probably still take it myself because it is that big of a deal to me. But the solution isn't to have an "opt out" -- the man gets to do nothing to prevent pregnancy and just walks away. That's ludicrous.

So, yes, condoms aren't ideal. If there were no other birth control methods, I'd use them religiously. But, there are other options for women so I use other options. But I'd never not use any and then just get an abortion or "opt out" if that were possible for women.

I'm just glad that there are men out there like Hunter78 that is embarrassed as a man at what some of you guys have said. I know the men in my life -- from partners, to brothers to father -- would feel the same way and would think you're just a douchebag, not a man.

Thanks for clarifying that. Let's review:

You think that if men would just use condoms, everything would be fine for them, that condoms are more than sufficient option for the man to take his share of preventing pregnancy, and guys that don't use them aren't entitled to any consideration when a pregnancy occurs. (For that matter, guys that DO use them aren't entitled to any consideration when a pregnancy occurs, either; because, hey, biology!) But then you yourself don't like them, and you don't use them with your guy. Apparently it's fine for _you_ to tell him, "Honey, I hate condoms, let's just rely on the Pill," but when any other couple does that, that can only be an example of the man taking no responsibility for contraception.

Congratulations, your hypocrisy is complete.

Between that and your inability/refusal to see the difference between a choice that you refuse to take even though it's available and legal, and a felony that will get you thrown in jail if you do, it's quite clear that you're a complete nutter.

As for your argumentum ad populem, there are people in my family -- my wife, for example, whose reproductive freedom and health I take very seriously, which you would know if you had been reading what I wrote instead of thumping your straw man -- who think your position is that of a complete nutter, too.

Clearly, we are done here.

I'm about to have a whole bunch of people come down on me, but that's fine. I'm a woman who's going to agree with the few men who were brave enough to state their opinion on this topic.

From all the posts I've read, I don't think any of them are stating that they don't believe abortion should be safe and legal. Quite the opposite. They're not condemning abortion, or trying to take away a woman's right to have it.

All that they are saying is, a woman has a choice after pregnancy occurs. A man does not. If a man would like to keep the child, but the woman doesn't want to, he doesn't get to. If a man does not want to be a parent, but the woman has decided to keep the pregnancy, he is required to be a parent, even if that is just financial.

I think, from what I've read of their posts that they would also agree that it will NEVER be 100% fair. It can't be, as women can be pregnant and men can't. However, it's not unreasonable to request that things be as fair as possible.

Truthfully, I don't have a problem with giving a man a window of opportunity to opt out, while still within a time frame for the woman to make her decision based on the complete information.
I do see a flaw in that in some cases. Mainly that some people really DON'T know they're pregnant within that time frame. It makes it tougher, but typically takes her choices away as well as his.

I apologize if my post is somewhat disjointed as I am at work and distracted a bit.

KateRose--I think you can feel that way personally. Given your post, it seems like abortion is a legit option for you -- a way to end an unplanned pregnancy -- so you have no problem extending the same choice to men.

But what if that's not the case for another individual woman? For whatever reason, she wouldn't feel right aborting -- what's the result then?

That a child grow up without a father? And if he's not doing the bear minimum of paying support, that society help make up the difference (to some extent) or the child go with less? I mean, if the woman is independently wealthy and the support wouldn't make any difference in the child's life, okay. But for the vast majority of women (and men), that's not the case. So the child would suffer more. Or society would be impacted more.

I just think we have to take those things into account too -- the woman, the resulting child, society -- and not just look at what's "fairest" to the man. Because what's "fairest" to him is going to be grossly unfair to others.

Like most things in life, rarely is something 100% fair. But you find the "fairest" solution. If you're a man that wants to avoid being a parent, then do the utmost in your power to accomplish that, but also realize that you may get bad luck despite the best precautions (she said she'd abort but then changed her mind and we were using very effective birth control and it still failed -- this has to be like in 0.1% of the population as the pill is 99.9% effective if taken correctly).

I just find it particularly distasteful that men like Avast want a 100% solution for them when there isn't that for everyone else necessarily. And the lack of empathy for the others in the equation -- women, children and society -- is repugnant.

Avast/335 -- you're utterly ridiculous. I can just see greater perspective than either you're willing to admit or see yourself. I can see where your "opt out" rule would be an okay solution, but I can also see where it could be grossly unfair to everyone else than the man -- the woman, the resulting child and society at large. So, yeah, I have no problem saying that's a totally horrible idea. Especially when there are other options to avoid the very situation you want to "opt out" of.

Newsflash for Avast: the universe doesn't revolve around you (or men in general). There are others to considers, others have go to great lengths to avoid unplanned pregnancies (i.e. the great lengths that many women do to avoid just that situation with no effort on their partners' part), others that are greatly impacted by unplanned pregnancies (i.e. women and children). Join us. Take some responsibility for your own choices, for men's options (as imperfect as they may be). Welcome to the world of grown-ups and what we women have been dealing with from the dawn of time --- an imperfect world with imperfect options where we do the best we can given that reality and our individual consciences.

As Dan said -- consequences, not just for women anymore!

KateRose -- Yeah, I agree that's unequal. Just like it's "unfair" to some extent that women have to bear the children and men don't -- it's just the biological reality. But, I'd say the same thing to a woman bitching about how "unfair" it is that if she wants to be a parent, she has to bear a child (other than surrocacy). Yeah, it is unfair. Welcome to life. There are plenty of inequalities, but that doesn't mean we should be dumping resources into figuring out for medical science to make men pregnant so it can all be "fair". That would be equally ludicrous in the name of "fairness".

I can see your perspective on having to go it alone, especially if the man is unwilling. You can't force a man to be a father anymore than you can force a woman to be a mother, but you can enforce them to be fiscally responsible -- at least to the extent possible. And if they're broke or it becomes to cost prohibitive to do so, it may be better to just not bother (like suing someone that can't pay a judgment -- it may not be worth it pragmatically to pursue your claim, but it doesn't make it okay for them to get off scott fee either).

I feel very much the same way as you do personally and if it were just about me, I'd do the same -- but, I also realize that when a child is born, it's not just about me and the father anymore. It's also about that child. And child support is the right of the child, not the custodial parent. I'd also try to facilitate a good relationship with the father, for the sake of our child together, regardless of my personal feelings for him.

I realize a lot of people don't do this -- they let their feelings of hurt, pride, whatever get in the way. But unless the other parent is unfit or dangerous for other reasons, I'd do my best to facilitate a relationship because the child does have a mother AND a father, even if the mother or father is a shitty human being.

@ seandr

I work in health.

@340 KL (re: your response to KateRose): What about adoption?
Who said all parented kids had to be bio? I'm just saying.

@341 mydriasis: So---what's your job in healthcare?
I'm just curious. By the way, I truly envy your affordable
healthcare situation in Canada! American doctors, their
pharmacist pals, and insurance companies are greedy,
bloodsucking pigs.

Btw... there's one possible future development that would render about 90% of this conversation completely moot.

If and when we develop artificial uterine replicators, then it will be possible to terminate a pregnancy at any point without actually killing the fetus...

that will allow men who want the unplanned child to *take* it, without having to conscript the mother's resources for 9 months...

that will let people who object to abortion put their money where their mouths are and adopt unwanted fetuses as soon as the mothers decide they don't want them...

@KL

I often hear these naturalistic arguments about what choices men and women should get, as though it's of our hands because biology. This is the Naturalistic Fallacy--the same fallacy a lot of people use to oppose abortion and birth control in general.

As to children being affected, I don't think anyone here is saying men should get the opt-out choice longer than women get the abortion choice. My personal thought is that men should get somewhat less time to opt out than women, so that the woman has enough time to make the decision knowing she won't be getting that support if she keeps the child.

Dan Savage,

I was wondering what your thoughts are about this article:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-…

Thanks!

Dan Savage,

I was wondering what your thoughts are about this article:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-…

Thanks!

Oops. Sorry for posting that twice. I thought I had to click 'post' again after registering for your site.

"Don't have the money to raise a child? Don't think your boyfriend would be a good father? Don't feel ready to be a mother? Women were never encouraged to consider these factors before they had sex; only before they had a baby."

Wow! What do you guys think?

And here's another cool article. What do you think, Dan?

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/li…

@ricky2718

Your wide-eyed 1950's writing voice is only believable in that your views are better suited to the 1950's. This is the most passively aggressive trolling comment I have seen in some time. Wow, golly gee!

@344: Full term artificial incubators are a potentially interesting development. I'm not so sure it will render as much of the discussion moot as you think, however.

In that scenario, say the woman just wants the pregnancy over, and the man says, "That's fine, I'll take care of incubating it." At the end of the artificial incubation period, should the woman be held liable for child support for the next 18 years?

Also, should incubators cause the state to assert full humanity/personhood rights at conception? The zygote is now technically fully viable from the moment of conception, without being physically dependent on another person's body and biological systems.

Same worms, different can.