That is why they say, "Sex should be between two people who mutually want and care for each other and are thrilled by the possibility of being bound together for life." Thank you Original_Sim for this thread, which further reinforced my "already-strongly-reinforced" beliefs about romantic companionship and commitment. I know I've said it many times, but standards are there for a reason. *shrug*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for men not being tricked by "piranha women" into marriage/child support. BUT! The right for men not to pay child support has to come with at least a few conditions that should really be considered basic human rights:

• Affordable and accessible abortions for women of ALL classes, races, locations, etc. Same goes for voluntary sterilization: A 25 year old (or 30 year old) woman can go into a clinic and reason/plead/scream to get permanent forms of birth control, but so long as she is a "potential mama", they will say no. Even if the woman in question had a 150% chance of being mentally unfit and most definitely unwilling to be a mother, they will say no. They will only say yes in cases of the mother's life being at risk and severe medical conditions that would adversely affect the "baby".
• Comprehensive sexual education in places like Texas, where the teen pregnancy rate is quite high, thanks to the will and might of dirty old men who have too much free time on their hands with the power to pass laws.
• Affordable and accessible "embryo-prevention" birth control for women of ALL classes, races, locations, etc.
  
  Woman: "Oh Mr. Pharmacist, you say you're 'pro-life' and that selling me my prescribed BC that is crucial for unready-for-motherhood me to not raise an unwanted child in poverty goes against your morals? Oh Supervisor!"
  Supervisor: "Yes?"
  Woman: "This man is not doing his job and is also bringing his beliefs into my body and life, plus your business and franchise!"
  Supervisor: "What?!?" *to Mr. Pharmacist* "You're fired for not doing the job that you were hired to do! You should be lucky that you are not barred from practicing medicine for life, for if this woman had been using the BC to treat her ovarian cysts/abnormal bleeding, you would have been putting her at risk for cancer! And thus ruining the reputation of this franchise!"
  
  You could also apply the above "I wish I lived in a world like that" scenario towards health insurance, which will oddly pay for viagra and penis pumps.

Edit: *sigh* I see a mod viewing this thread. In before ban or deletion of post!

If a man doesn't want a baby with a particular woman, then he:

a) shouldn't have sex with her; or

b) he should use birth control.

If a man doesn't want to support any babies, then he should get a vasectomy.

Otherwise, I have absolutely no sympathy. He can keep it in his pants or masturbate. Whatever it takes to keep another baby from being born into poverty...

He gave up that right when he chose to have sex, fully aware that it could result in pregnancy. :P

Unless he is prepared to father a child, he should use birth control, period. If he doesn't like rubbers, he can get a vasectomy.

There's a wee difference between not having a child, and having a child but choosing not to support it.

At any rate - - - That man does have a choice: he can choose to not have sex if he doesn't want to support his children.

OR he can choose to get a vasectomy.

I'm sorry Gaudet, but your tone is pretty much the most offensive one presented yet - do women not have any responsibility? Are women so passive in their control over their own sexuality that they're not choosing to have sex as much as the man? Why should the man have all that control you're describing? "Oh, if he doesn't want children, don't have sex!" Why shouldn't the woman be the one to say, "I don't want children. I won't have sex?" "I don't want children, so I should perform one of a myriad of birth control options available to me, without worrying if the man is interested in them whatsoever."

Women relying on men having vasectomies or being universally responsible is bullshit, because it only empowers men more - and if you're really interested in making a compelling argument why men should or shouldn't do something regarding childbirth or its ultimate expression as a child the last thing you want to do is present the debate in terms of how powerless females are... because except in cases of rape or an argument that you live in some backward country where women are still regarded as chattel, women having children are just as responsible for childbirth as any man participating in the act. It takes two people, not one mean, hairy male and a woman just lying back and thinking of England.

That's the problem with the initial posts representation in most cases: It presumes that there is an imbalance of power in the relationship "because the woman can choose to initiate childbirth" which can have serious, decades long "repercussions" for the male. It is an imbalance of power, but as other people have pointed out succinctly, it's an imbalance of power that really can't be avoided, sexuality and gender realities being what they are. There's no option for sharing a pregnancy or removing a pregnancy to an impartial third party, and there's no way of compelling a pregnancy to end or for it to not to happen in the first place without inserting an awful lot of outsiders into a woman's personal control over her genitals. One the other hand though, Gaudet, you've swung things completely the other way and in the process made women powerless - mere receptacles for a man's sperm. In your arguments the woman doesn't have any input at all, she's apparently got to just depend on a man to do the right thing? Nonsense.

Nowhere did I claim that women have no responsibility. And if you'll take a moment to think on that. Her responsibility is implied...assumed...a given. She's the one who's going to raise the child or face an abortion or adoption.

I responded to the poster's ludicrous premise...his claim that he is forced to pay child support when he had no choice in the matter. That is his claim. And what you are responding to is my response to that claim.

You'll notice that even as he attempts to move the goal posts, depending on other posters' responses, he continues to insist that he has no choice.

I am absolute in my response to this. He always has a choice. He can choose to get a vasectomy, or he can choose to abstain. Hell, he can choose to screw only women with a note from their doctors certifying that their tubes are tied or that they've had a hysterectomy or a BSO. If there's any chance at all that the woman he's hoping to screw is fertile, then he should join her in accepting the consequences should she get pregnant. Gee. Maybe he should have a form made. The party of the first part wishes to make clear to the party of the second part that he has no intention of starting any sort of adult relationship. To wit - he has no intention of supporting any children who might result from their sexual union. Does the party of the second part agree to assume sole financial responsibility of any products of conception?

In all this conversation, only one member brought up the fact that the woman is already facing consequences: she's either facing an abortion, adoption, or raising the child.

When a woman chooses to keep the child, she is already committed to invest much, much more that the absent father. Child support? Big whoop. A few dollars every month for 18 years? The mom is there every fucking day for 18 years. Every dime, every dollar, every free moment she earns is reinvested in her child. The parent with the penis is only required to hand over some percentage of his income. Sorry. Again, I gotta say: no sympathy.

Really? The entire thread and you didn't see the dozens of replies discussing the consequences for a prospective mother? Not a single one, stating everything you have, better, more precisely, and by presenting their opinion as an entire thought instead of a series of poorly framed disagreements with other people's arguments a month and a half after the last series of serious posts were made in the thread?

Follow up question, If the father chooses for the mother to have an abortion, and then does not pay child support is he allowed into the child's life, because some fathers sue for that after the child becomes a teen, and win. What about the father's family, is it access for pay with them?

Well, going by the School of Gender Generalities, women are more likely than men to get pressured into sex. And that's leaving aside rape. See, there's this narrative where women are in relationships for love, men are in it for sex. Ergo, women need to provide sex in order to keep a man in a relationship. And being out of a relationship is Bad, because it leads to loneliness in your elder years and a house full of cats. Though I have no idea why women would get a house full of cats if they don't want them.

For that matter, I've heard stories where men pulled off the condom in the middle of sex, or turned a fingering session into an intercourse session with no warning.

But let's say that there are two people, both equally choosing to have sex. For starters, doubling up - or even tripling up - on birth control is one of the best options. Taking the pill and using a condom are a lot less likely to result in pregnancy. Women are responsible for the birth control, but it's not as reliable as condoms. I've also heard of a woman with two uteruses, who actually got pregnant in both at the same time, though one was weeks after the other. Even though her body was flooded with pregnancy hormones, she still managed to get pregnant.
Plus, using condoms is only common sense, unless you have an up-to-date STD check on both yourself and your partner.
And men are the ones responsible for the condoms.

I'd also like to say that the pills are really expensive. In many places, it's not covered under insurance unless you have a condition that requires it, like ovarian cysts. And if you have those, it's difficult to get insurance. And, of course, there are those people who refuse to sell the pills because their religion forbids them from minding their own business.
The pills also take at least a month to kick in. If this is a one-night-stand, you don't exactly have a month of preparation before hopping in bed. The methods of birth control that work immediately are condoms and diaphragms (which have an even worse rate at preventing pregnancy and aren't commonly known about). There's also Plan B, but like the name suggests, it's not a Plan A. It's also as much of a pain to get as the pills. IUDs, on the other hand, require surgery, and usually elective surgery at that. So does tubal ligation or Ensure.

Also, very few people know about control methods beyond the pills and condoms, because sex ed sucks. Blue state graduate, here, and all I got was "these are your parts and here's a long list of reasons not to have sex". I got most of the rest from places like Scarleteen.

So, outside of a relationship, condoms are likely to be the first and only form of birth control. Who controls the condoms? Usually, the one whose parts you're sticking it on. Inside a relationship, it's much more likely that both partners will be taking care of their own oocytes, assuming they can afford it. However, you're also more likely to get men who say "she's on birth control, we don't need condoms!" and since the pills have a higher rate of failure, an unwanted pregnancy is more likely. You'll also see people who want to pressure their partner into staying and decide that if their relationship isn't working, add babies! Because babies make everything more complicated, more covered in vomit, and more insomniac, which are the perfect conditions for continuing a romance that isn't working. This goes both ways, by the way; condoms can have holes cut in them and pills can be replaced with sugar or just hidden.

There are also the non-PIV forms of sex. However, oral sex still requires a condom or a dental dam to prevent disease. Anal sex can also cause pregnancy if the semen drips into the vagina, and has the highest rate of passing on disease. Also, if anything that touched semen goes into the vagina, you have the same issue. They're all less likely to cause pregnancy than PIV, but still require precautions by both parties. And for women, consenting to one of those is more likely to lead to getting pressured into PIV, so deciding not to have that beforehand is no guarantee that she won't end up having it anyway.

Condoms are the safest and most effective form of birth control, besides abstinence, but abstinence has the major flaw of not getting you laid. Men are the ones who have to choose the condoms (and choose to keep them on the entire time), so men do have slightly more control in terms of prevention. Still, they're the only form besides sterilization that men can choose (while still having sex), while women have more options, but their options are more likely to fail, more time-consuming, more expensive, and more likely to have major health complications. So yes, I would say that even in an equal choice situation, men do have more control over whether or not to have a baby.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, but as far as I'm aware, condoms (be they male or female condoms) are less effective than the hormonal forms of birth control that are (sometimes? generally?) available to women. This picture from Wikipedia explains it better than I can.
I am unable to comment on the difficulty of affording birth control as I live in the UK. When I decided I wanted to be on birth control, as I was in a long-term relationship and wanted to start having sex with my then-boyfriend, I went to see my GP and she sorted me out with a contraceptive implant within a few days, at no cost to myself. I have kept it (or its replacement, as they last for three years) in my arm ever since despite the fact that I am no longer in a relationship and am not sexually active. Why? Just in case, that's why. So that if I ever do decide to have a one night stand, or I end up in a fast-moving relationship (or I get raped...) I know that it's there and that it's highly likely to be effective at preventing pregnancy.

The statistics on male condoms are based on typical use, where couples only use them some of the time (gee, I wonder why), and including incorrect use (like people putting the condoms on their fingers instead of the penis. Yes, that has actually happened before due to terrible sex ed). When used every time, and used properly, the success rate is 99.9% effectiveness.

It seems its rather difficult to use them right in the heat of the moment. I cant help but wonder if the fingers were used for the whole procedure or if the persons involved were just being reactionary. As backwards and stupid as Utahs sex ed has always been, most teens if not all know what part to put a condom on and where to insert a tampon for that matter.

And yet, quite a few people still think that women pee through their vagina.

In the case I was talking about, the people involved were very uncomfortable about using the actual part names, so they told them just to put the condoms on their fingers and then to use them every time. Which they interpreted as "use them in the way we were shown", and so that happened.

Also, I heard of a case where a woman heard that lesbians don't get pregnant, so she declared herself one. While having unprotected sex with her boyfriend. So yes, she was pregnant. And she was very offended when the doctor asked how her girlfriend was. This is why I think we need to pour contraceptives in the water and make people get licenses to breed.

to add: basically, if youre old enough to be making babies, youre old enough to stop acting like one and take responsibility. it takes two to tango, a woman cant knock herself up. a man has many, freely available options as far as contraceptive goes (and last i checked, condoms are a dime a dozen whereas birth control pills can cost upward of $40+ a month).

OP seems to be whining about their lack of choice, but they have so many choices in this situation that its utterly laughable to suggest otherwise. here's a few in case he zoned out in sex ed. class:
*wear a condom
*use spermicide
*make sure she's actually on the pill (ask to see her pill packet if you really want to be sure about this...and if you dont care about it that much, YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO COMPLAIN ABOUT AN ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY.)
*pick an older and/or infertile partner
*take aim before you fire, if you know what i mean. be a little more selective about who you put your wang into.
*MASTURBATE. why do men always seem to think they NEED a vagina to achieve sexual gratification? last i checked, mrs palmer never gets pregnant, and she's available whenever you are.
*avoid penetration. oral is an actual thing, you know.

thats just off the top of my head, but im sure i could think more up if i had some coffee in me.
the point is, women both have more to risk, more to lose, and more to sacrifice as far as childbearing goes. men really have no room to complain about a periodic paycheck, in the grander scheme of things. i mean, wouldnt it be nice, ladies, if every irresponsible man-child who wanted to walk away from a baby was bound by law to stay with the mother and actually help take care of it? wouldnt it be great if that kid had two people to tend to it, since two people made it? gosh, fellas, i cant imagine anything worse than having to pay an arbirary sum of money toward a tiny human being who has more needs than you can imagine.

and lets not even get into the fact that women are paid less than men to do the same jobs that men do. honestly if its anyone who has money to spare, its single, carefree men.


two can play that game.
what if the woman was tricked into believing the man would be there for her to help raise this child that she wasnt absolutely certain that she wanted? what if he wooed her into keeping it after finding out she was pregnant, only to up and say he never said anything of the sort when the baby is actually delivered, and he steps out? should he be able to do that to her and get away with it scott free, leaving her saddled with at least 18 years of hard work just because he couldnt be bothered to take responsibility?
oh, wait. it already does happen.
see, when a man's biggest mistake in trusting can lead to *GASP* the horrible fate of paying child support, a womans biggest mistake in trusting can lead to her being tied to a tiny human and all that that entails until it can take care of itself. and that tiny human is going to cost WAY more than what that man pays as child support. it does damages to her body, shes exhausted all the time, she has things to plan for and follow up on to take care of this new baby like doctor's appointments and schooling, on top of being shamed for being a single parent, for trusting in the wrong person who now wants nothing to do with her or THEIR child, having to hold down a good enough job to pay for everything that the child support doesnt cover (which is typically at least 75% of the total child's care cost), on top of trying to be a good parent and teaching this new kid about the do's and don'ts of personhood.

additionally, the social connotations between the two situations are staggeringly different. dont like being called a deadbeat, dad? try being called a heartless whore, which is what women who voluntarily give up their children for "no good reason" other than wanting to live that same life of childless-ness that men, are referred to as. by everyone. and dont get me started on the societal judgements of a woman who wants an abortion...



so in closing, excuse me if im a little bit offended over the notion that on top of the woman already getting short end of the stick, the man should be allowed to "stick it" to her a little bit more by denying a piddly sum of monetary support for an accident that could not have happened without him.

EDIT: and for the love of crap, stop referring to child support like its paying the woman to have the kid. its not. its paying for the child, not the woman. it goes to the child's food/shelter/clothing/supplies/medical costs/schooling, not mommy's brand new diamond earrings. that is the whole intent of child support. regardless of what you think about the mother's choices, child support is meant to support the child. the only reason it doesnt actually go to the child's name is because the baby itself cant spend the money, much less choose how to spend the money on what it needs to get by. but yknow, if youre so concerned about that, you could always make sure that your money ISNT spent on silly shit like diamond earrings by stepping up and taking part in raising the kid. just sayin'. and dont even get me started on how utterly scrooge-ish it is to be so adamently against helping to supply a baby that is yours by all means that you dont even care to look at, much less help raise.



additionally, have you ever been a 20 year old, sexually active young woman trying to get a doctor to "tie your tubes"? it doesnt happen. the risk of a lawsuit is too great for the doctor. theres not a single doctor out there who would agree to tie the tubes of a perfectly viable young woman so that she could maintain a sexually active lifestyle with absolutely no chance of having children. getting your tubes tied is such a ridiculously unobtainable solution that it isnt even a solution. you know who is ALLOWED to have her tubes tied? 40+ year old women who are entering menopause already. that's who. doctors are FAR more willing to tie the tubes of women who have already had children, too. but if you dont have any, you can rant 'till youre blue in the face and it wont make any difference.
and why should women be expected to have permanent surgery to keep from having a baby with SOME MEN? how many men are willing to have their testicles removed for the sake of contraception, since you seem to think that its reasonable to expect a woman to have her tubes tied (which is also more $$$ on her part)?
where i live, The Pill costs $40+ per container. last i checked, it was $60 for me specifically. condoms are MUCH cheaper and MUCH less difficult to obtain. are you saying its less ridiculous to expect me to fork out $60 upfront to have sex with men safely than it is to expect you to pay less than half of that to have sex? plus, those $60 pills dont prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS/other STDs. wearing a condom is just common sense...or at least, it should be.
and refraining from having sex is pretty easy for us ladies. men are usually the ones who want to have sex at the drop of a hat, and have sex frequently.

here you are complaining about the cost of a child, when overall the woman's cost both of contraception and child rearing completely outweigh a man's overall cost. i honestly cant believe this is even a debate...

Not at all. It can easily be added as part of foreplay, especially if the woman is willing to participate (a good idea anyway, so that the woman can ensure that it's being used correctly).

I've heard disturbing stories where women manipulate their way into conceiving (the urge to be a mother can be an extremely strong instinct for some women), some even poke holes in condoms/ claim to be on BC etc... I'm unsure of the statistics of this happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was relatively more common than most people think.
But then I believe anyone who decides to have a baby should be forced to go through a mental evaluation to determine whether they would be fit to be parents.

I think it's less common than most people think. I mean, it's a perfect morality tale: man has sex, then suddenly he's a dad despite all the methods they used. That kind of story is pretty common, so it's going to be told a lot more than it actually happens.

For that matter, certain political views discourage premarital sex and like to blame women for everything sexual. Of course they're going to spread and exaggerate the stories.



You know what I want to do? I'd dump birth control in the water. Anyone who wants to have a baby has to go through the government, get a full evaluation, take parenting classes and get a decent score, then they'll be allowed to have a child.

Of course all of the above will be free so that their abilities matter more than their money. So, to fund all this, I'd set up a black market of untainted water that will supposedly flush out the birth control. However, like real bottled water, it'll just be repackaged municipal water, with the odd exception to make it look like it works. Since they won't have a parenting license, they will have their child taken away and given to someone who actually does have a license.

There are just as many stories of men doing equivalent things, especially abusive men who may see getting their partner pregnant as a way to prevent her from leaving.

And yet, I suspect that these people are in the minority. A small minority.

Most of it has probably already been said, but eh...

As long as the fetus/baby is a part of a woman's body, it's a part of her body. Depending on the legal system, she's allowed to abort it (or not). And that's why men don't get much of a say, at least not regarding whether she should abort it or not (might be more of a subject of discussion if they're a couple). Sure, there's birth control, but female birth control is expensive and doesn't protect as much as condoms - both regarding to the little swimmers and anything else they might bring with them. Birth control for women can in some cases be dangerous for her as well. Some types of pills can cause blood clots, for instance. The worst for a man is if he's allergic to latex, and there are latex-free condoms to be found, so that's not even a valid complaint. If they are two in the one-night-stand or the longterm relationship, they are two who decide to have some fun, and that means they're both responsible. (As for abortion versus keeping the baby after a rape, and all the consequences this brings, that's a whole different discussion).

Since it takes two to make a baby, both of them have a responsibility once the baby is outside the womb. And that's why there's child support payments for men who for some reason don't seem to think they need to help out in other ways. Babies/kids/teens need all sorts of stuff, in addition to food, clothes and shelter, and being a single parent is expensive at best.

If men insist on swinging around their equipment without wearing a safety hat, they should take responsibility for their actions. If women insist on having unprotected woohoo, particularly on one-night-stands or in short-term relationships, they better be sure they protect their woohoo as well, whether they use birth control or supply the condoms - and preferably both, to be doubly safe. That goes for men as well. If they suspect the woman can't be trusted with the pills, or just don't feel like having a tiny human to take care of just yet, they shuld insist on wearing a condom. Otherwise they better take the consequences of their actions. People should also wear protection after sterilization as well, as 1: They're not 100% secure (the tubes can sometimes grow back together), and 2: they can still get STDs.

Bottom line: If you caused a baby to be born, the baby is your responsibility. Either take care of it together with person #2, or pay child support. If you don't want a baby, but you want to have some adult fun, then use protection. Preferably two layers if possible, to be doubly secure (such as pills + condoms). And finally, supply the condoms whether you're a man or a woman. It's better that one or both have some, than having none at all. Make sure they're kept in the proper temperature and that the date stamp is alright, and all that. Rubber doesn't last forever, but a baby usually isn't out of the house until it's at least 18 years old...

I'm sure others have said pretty much the same thing but...if a woman does not want a child then it is her responsibility to make sure that there is not one. If the man does not want a child then it lies with him to make sure that birth control is used. Now should pregnancy happen and they have taken precautions I think that there is one other person who should be considered before there is infanticide and that is the child. Would, if he or she could, choose to end his or her life by being sucked apart or torn apart by sharp instruments? I doubt it. Would he or she agree to being burnt to death with salt? I doubt it? Would he or she want to be torn from his or her home and left dangling while a blade was inserted into his or her brain. I doubt it.

As for child support I think if the man or woman depending on whomever, is capable of paying a sum then by all means yes. Should the non custodial parent not be able to find or hold a job then no but they could offer support in other ways. maybe take the kids for a week and give mum or dad a break? Throw together a casserole and take it round? I believe that the adults should act like adults and not sulky kids, I'm just sayin'.

I agree. Therefore, we shall implant you with several artificial wombs and you can give birth to all the children who would be aborted. Please keep in mind that this may kill you, permanently disfigure your body, ruin your career, and cause random strangers to touch your body whether or not you like it.

Ooh, so you don't want to do that? Then quit judging other people. It's only your business when you're the one pregnant.

Additionally, an embryo has fewer brain cells than a tapeworm and people have no problem removing those. Interestingly, the symptoms of pregnancy are identical to an infestation.

By all means, encourage everyone to use protection and birth control. It's a far better method that abortions, which are expensive (for someone, even if not the couple themselves) and can cause complications, even without the whole you're-killing-a-baby thing.

But we're not really talking about that, we're talking about the situation where conception has happened, either due to bad luck or incompetence, and how do we deal with the consequences. Because this situation is going to happen to some people until birth control is perfect, which it isn't yet.

So suppose a woman is pregnant. There are four possible reactions:
(i) Both the man and the woman want the baby (or agree that they'll keep the baby)
(ii) Both the man and the woman don't want the baby (or agree that they can't afford it or whatever)
(iii) The man wants the baby, but the woman does not
(iv) The woman wants the baby, but the man does not

Most cases will be the first two, the couple will both want the same thing, or at least agree to the same thing, and as long as abortion is allowed then everyone gets what they want. Plenty of men get the benefits of abortion. And they have the baby and a parent leaves later on, then (whichever parent doesn't bring up the child) should certainly pay child support.

In case (iii), it's the woman's body that the embryo is growing in, and pregnancy and childbirth can have nasty consequences (even death, even in the Western world with good hospitals...) and so it has to be her choice. Maybe she can be persuaded to have the baby and let the father adopt it after it's born, but it has to be her choice.

Case (iv) is the one we're talking about here - one that doesn't happen often, but can happen. This is where we hit the problem of it being the woman's body, so an abortion can't happen if she doesn't consent. I think perhaps he should have an option to resign his parental rights and responsibilities, but working out how would need to be very careful so the system wouldn't be abused.

Altogether, abortion rights are not women against men - lots and lots of men benefit from them too and would suffer if they were taken away, far more than the men in case (iii) that would benefit. But equally, telling people, of either gender, that they just need to be better at birth control isn't terribly helpful either.