Western Courier

This is really interesting. I believe that when a child is conceived (in a normal situation), that the "choice" has already been made. I think that the male should do all that should be done to prevent conceiving a child and stop leaving the birth-control method up to the female. I think that if this is done that we don't have to have laws like this.

Yes it would be wonderful if birth control were a hundred percent effective but it isnt.
And though the ability to have limited window of opportunity to opt out of fiscal and legal responsibility of a potential child is an option for women. It is not for men.
Men who choose to lead a heterosexual life style should be fully aware of the fiscal,
and legal risks associated with it. If they dont like it they can always learn to
enjoy celibacy or homosexuality. Baring that they could at least have the foresight to get a vasectomy. which can be cheaply done with common household implemnts and a strong
stomach. But all in all even if a case like this did go forward all one would have to do to get to circumvent it, is to not inform the father until after the child is born.

If the Father does not want a baby. The only child support he should pay is the cost of an abortion. The father would loose all custody rights to the child and then be done with it and not be held liable for the birth of a human.

Im sorry, but B. Simmons, that is a rediculous argument. By your own logic, if the woman doesnt want to get pregnant, then she should just be a lesbian. Thats rediculous. I would fully support a bill like this especially if every provision laid out in this article were included in the bill.

I understand why they feel it is the right thing to do, but the entire subject disgusts me.

This human life is not just some money muncher... it is your son or daughter. Its disgusting how people can just dismiss the life they created. Maybe Man Ho number 1 doesn't want to cramp his social life with a baby, but too bad, it was his choice to have sex with a woman, and this is the outcome.

If this were a law we'd have the majority of children who would never have a right to meet their parents. This is not just a money issue, this is an emotional and moral issue.

Some people are disgusting. Truly truly disgusting.

Christine: It IS "disgusting how people can just dismiss the life they have created". If people don't want children then then they should just not have sex!!
Wait a minute... I've heard these arguments before. They were coming from the mouths of people who wanted to make abortion illegal.

B. Simmonds essentialy has a good arguement (apart from the throwaway comment about homosexuality which everyone seems to have leaped upon... oh and the bit about household implements: Please don't go there): Women have the option of opting out of their responsibility, so men should too, but fails to see the social outcomes of such a policy. The social results of such a system would be, I believe slightly detrimental to society: It would make men less concerned about protection because they can 'always have an abortion, more single mothers on the verge of poverty because of a moral choice they make not to abort even after a male abortion, increase in the number of women economicaly forced to abort or put up for adoption, increased fartherless children... etc

Mike: Yes, your logic is flawless. If women don't want an abortion, and don't want kids, the only sure-fire way is to not have sex with men. This includes celibacy and, yes, lesbianism. You don't need to throw up your arms and ridicule this conclusion.

I think the best argument, as Christine states, against male abortion is that it removes the child's (if it is born) right to a father.

Rant Fini

Ashley

The same way feminism was this radical new idea that women are people; father's rights is this radical new idea that parenthood is the choice of more than one person.

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

The most common criticism of the theory of "male abortion" is to make an issue of the fact that a man has to inseminate a woman in order to make her pregnant. In cases where it is the male's idea to participate in sexual intercourse with the woman, it could be said that if the man had never done so, the woman wouldn't hold the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first place. However, in the same such case, it would also be the woman's idea to participate in intercourse with the man. It could then be said that the woman had the same choice. Therefore, the imbalance that exists between a woman's rights in choosing to be a parent and assuming financial and legal responsibility for a child, and that of a man, are largely unjustified. For as long as two consenting adults engage in intercourse, it would appear that there is no reason to give only one the luxury of choice.

The clearest illustration of such an imbalance can be seen in cases where one potential parent would like to have the child while the other does not; since cases where both parents are in agreement do not pose any issue:

Female does not want parenthood, male wants parenthood: The female partner has the choice to undergo an abortion, irrespective of what the male partner would like. Although the male partner may want a child, the female partner may not want children in her life yet. She can choose if she would like to be a parent at this time in her life, while the male partner has no such choice.

Female wants parenthood, male does not want parenthood: The female partner chooses to hold onto the child and become a parent, irrespective of if the male partner consents to parenthood. Although the male partner may not want a child nor be ready to assume the financial and legal responsibilities of parenthood yet, the female partner may simply bind him to such responsibilities anyway. She can choose not only if she wants to be a parent, but if the male partner is to also be a parent; the male simply has no choice in the matter.

With male abortion, the male has the right to sever all financial and legal liability from the child. This allows both potential parents to have the same choice and opportunity to reject parenthood. From a societal standpoint, this would seem to encourage higher family cohesion, as fewer children with a father not consenting to parenthood would be born. This again reduces to a "pro-choice" and "pro-life" debate; if it is better for a child to be brought into the world regardless the circumstances, or for it to be raised in a stable and financially secure setting.

Just as women have the right to start a family or end a pregnancy, men should also be given the equivalent--male abortion. The whole point of the feminist movement was to give everyone equal rights and equal responsibilities.

I, as a young lady, truly believe that if in a relationship, both partners have stated that children are not wanted and the woman dose, in fact, become pregnant then the man should be notified in a timely manner, meaning before its to late to have an abortion. If the woman decides that she wants to keep her baby then she may have the right to do so but must now carry the financial responsibility that comes with it on her own. I personally knew my father wanted an abortion when my mother was pregnant with me. Watching my mother as a teen parent struggle through school and cry many nights over how our bills were going to get paid, even with the little child support he could afford to give, caused me great frustration. If I could have had a say so in how my mother dealt with the situation I absolutely believe that her, my father and my latten life would have been much better off.