• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paper Abortions

Leaving aside the generally unimpressive arguments from fairness, it just seems like bad policy to me. It would introduce perverse incentives that would magnify some unfortunate reproductive strategies.

Just do the right thing and convince your girlfriend to have an abortion. Or get a vasectomy, if you don't have people skills.
 
casebro said:
Cavemonster said:
Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.



Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.




Not pertinent.


Cavemonster said:
3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks.
Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.



Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.




Ease of abortion is not the point. The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.
Click to expand...
Would you also allow a woman to make the same paper abortion?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I was brought up with the idea of taking personal responsibility for my actions, if I was involved in the production of a person I can't see why I should be able to avoid my personal responsibility in making the mess.

As I was told as a kid "you made the mess you clear it up".

The only time I think there is any kind of ambiguity in regards to personal responsibility (that either party involved in the making the mess, sorry person has) is if one deceived the other. But in the end if you have sex that could result in a person being created then you have to accept there is always some risk that you may create a person even if you really didn't want to and took reasonable steps to avoid it. Life is simply "unfair" in some regards.

I have never ever smoked in my life, not even a single puff on a fag, yet I may still get lung cancer, life is simply unfair in some regards.
 
An interesting thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a "paper abortion" only exists because our concept of parental responsibility is a very recent one even by modern standards. Prior to the latter half of the previous century, it really didn't exist as we understand it.

For most of history in the west and many other cultures, simply abandoning unwanted children was common practice for men who couldn't keep it in their pants. Nobles in particular would often father substantial numbers of bastards, who were then left to fend for themselves. The mothers of those children generally had little to no recourse for support from the father.

Mothers who were unable to care for children with family assistance (families which all-too-often themselves ostracized unwed mothers and their children), typically abandoned them at orphanages, or various religious institutions (convents, monasteries, etc.); or they killed the children outright (a common enough practice for the children of prostituted in some historical cultures). Something which is far less common today.

While some historical cultures did have some sense of parental responsibility, most did not. For those that did, these were almost entirely religious strictures, and linked directly to prohibitions on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. Remedies included forced marriage, and punishments included death for one or more of the parents.

In any case, historically, people have typically lived in large family groupings (much larger than the current "nuclear family"), and the children could depend on some sort of support from the mother's family at the very least. In the case of more primitive cultures, responsibility for all children was at least partly invested in the entire village or tribe -- the origin of "It takes a village to raise a child". Both of these cases ensured that children were cared for in the event of losing a parent to illness, injury, death in tribal warfare, or any of the other causes common to a time of high mortality rates.

The atomization of modern families has removed those customary support systems in much of the developed, and even developing, world.

We've also developed another concept in the modern world that was either absent or weaker in most historical cultures, the welfare of a child as an absolute good. Hence the legally-enforced taboo against infanticide.

So to compensate for the breaking of support systems and ensure the welfare of children, we've developed the concept of obligatory parental responsibility, and enacted welfare state programs to compensate for instances of parents being unable to support their child, or persistently resistant to supporting their child.

What the reactionaries and MRAS seem to so desperately want is a return to the days before the concept of obligatory parental responsibility; but without the customary support system that existed through much of that time.
 
Cavemonster said:
3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Would you also allow a woman to make the same paper abortion?
Click to expand...

Certainly, they do it- it's called Adoption. They don't name the father, just give up the baby. So no physical abortion. But a man can't unilaterally do the same.
 
There's an old thread on this, maybe even a half dozen threads. The child support is just that, child support. Sorry guys, you can't just walk away from your kids. That you think it is unfair is too bad.
 
luchog said:
An interesting thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a "paper abortion" only exists because our concept of parental responsibility is a very recent one even by modern standards. Prior to the latter half of the previous century, it really didn't exist as we understand it.

For most of history in the west and many other cultures, simply abandoning unwanted children was common practice for men who couldn't keep it in their pants. Nobles in particular would often father substantial numbers of bastards, who were then left to fend for themselves. The mothers of those children generally had little to no recourse for support from the father.

Mothers who were unable to care for children with family assistance (families which all-too-often themselves ostracized unwed mothers and their children), typically abandoned them at orphanages, or various religious institutions (convents, monasteries, etc.); or they killed the children outright (a common enough practice for the children of prostituted in some historical cultures). Something which is far less common today.

While some historical cultures did have some sense of parental responsibility, most did not. For those that did, these were almost entirely religious strictures, and linked directly to prohibitions on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. Remedies included forced marriage, and punishments included death for one or more of the parents.

In any case, historically, people have typically lived in large family groupings (much larger than the current "nuclear family"), and the children could depend on some sort of support from the mother's family at the very least. In the case of more primitive cultures, responsibility for all children was at least partly invested in the entire village or tribe -- the origin of "It takes a village to raise a child". Both of these cases ensured that children were cared for in the event of losing a parent to illness, injury, death in tribal warfare, or any of the other causes common to a time of high mortality rates.

The atomization of modern families has removed those customary support systems in much of the developed, and even developing, world.

We've also developed another concept in the modern world that was either absent or weaker in most historical cultures, the welfare of a child as an absolute good. Hence the legally-enforced taboo against infanticide.

So to compensate for the breaking of support systems and ensure the welfare of children, we've developed the concept of obligatory parental responsibility, and enacted welfare state programs to compensate for instances of parents being unable to support their child, or persistently resistant to supporting their child.

What the reactionaries and MRAS seem to so desperately want is a return to the days before the concept of obligatory parental responsibility; but without the customary support system that existed through much of that time.
Click to expand...

I like. A deeper conceptualization.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Because it's inside her body? If the male carried the fetus he'd have the "last ditch escape". Both parties had plenty of prior opportunities to "escape" and chose not to. That indicates to me they weren't very concerned about the risk. And saving foolish people from the consequences of their foolishness is ultimately impossible.




That's an argument in favor of using both condoms and the pill, not for using the pill instead of condoms.

You're not confined to using just one method of protection. And, I don't see why this isn't clear, some forms of protection don't protect against both undesirable outcomes.
Click to expand...

Today's discussion is about pregnancy.
 
casebro said:
Today's discussion is about pregnancy.
Click to expand...

And using a condom plus the pill is less effective at stopping pregnancy than just using the pill alone? Is that your position? Oh, and the other thing about condoms: the male can take responsibility for using them, and he can't be deceived about it, either. In case them evul, scheming womuns are after his precious sperm so they can have his baby against his will!
 
casebro said:
Certainly, they do it- it's called Adoption. They don't name the father, just give up the baby. So no physical abortion. But a man can't unilaterally do the same.
Click to expand...

Women can't legally put children up for adoption against the will of the biological father.

The father has a legal parental right.
 
How much does a vasectomy cost in the US? Is it covered by insurance?

I'm kinda too old for kids (well not physically uh oh) and zero sex life now so I have no skin in this game. Just wondering. And it's an interesting subject.

I understand the men's side of it, but I have nothing to add really. Maybe men could contest their liability on a case by case basis? Maybe they already do?

Yes, men can get screwed over by conniving women, I've seen it, but they can also ruin a woman's life. Seen that too.

Shrug. I'll follow the thread.
 
mgidm86 said:
How much does a vasectomy cost in the US? Is it covered by insurance?

I'm kinda too old for kids (well not physically uh oh) and zero sex life now so I have no skin in this game. Just wondering. And it's an interesting subject.

I understand the men's side of it, but I have nothing to add really. Maybe men could contest their liability on a case by case basis? Maybe they already do?

Yes, men can get screwed over by conniving women, I've seen it, but they can also ruin a woman's life. Seen that too.

Shrug. I'll follow the thread.
Click to expand...

Vasectomies are completely or partially covered by most kinds of insurance. Without it, they're around a grand or two. So, basically affordable for many people, but definitely not peanuts. Still, the procedure itself freaks a lot of guys out, and I understand that.

Whatever happened to that male birth control pill that was supposed to be coming out?


ETA - Turns out, it has apparently passed human safety tests! But it sounds like they are still doing some tweaking. One person in this article said it should be available within 10 years. https://www.technologynetworks.com/...control-pill-passes-human-safety-tests-317223
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
And using a condom plus the pill is less effective at stopping pregnancy than just using the pill alone? Is that your position? Oh, and the other thing about condoms: the male can take responsibility for using them, and he can't be deceived about it, either. In case them evul, scheming womuns are after his precious sperm so they can have his baby against his will!
Click to expand...

I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

My take (fwiw, as a married man with two children): I don't have a lot of sympathy for men who want to avoid their responsibilities. As Cavemonster pointed out in the OP, the biology is simply not symmetrical and if you think that men got the bum deal, you're daft. Only women can get pregnant, so saying that men and women should have exactly the same choices and if a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy the man should have the same choice doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to be potentially on the hook for this, then take the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens. Sorry, but that's it. Condoms and other forms of birth control may fail. It would behoove you to also discuss with any female you plan to have sex with what she would do if she were to get pregnant and take precautions accordingly (including avoiding vaginal intercourse, if she would keep it).
 
isissxn said:
Whatever happened to that male birth control pill that was supposed to be coming out?


ETA - Turns out, it has apparently passed human safety tests! But it sounds like they are still doing some tweaking. One person in this article said it should be available within 10 years. https://www.technologynetworks.com/...control-pill-passes-human-safety-tests-317223
Click to expand...

Yeah, human safety tests are just the first phase. Now they will need to do more trials for efficacy. They've determined that the pill is probably safe to take, but have yet to establish that it produces the intended effect. But it looks promising.

And, it isn't something that begins working immediately. You have to take it every day for at least a month 2-3 months and keep taking it before you can be confident that you won't produce viable sperm.
Because the drug would take at least three 60 to 90 days to affect sperm production, 28 days of treatment is too short an interval to observe optimal sperm suppression, Wang explained. They plan longer studies, and if the drug is effective, it will move to larger studies and then testing in sexually active couples.

"Safe, reversible hormonal male contraception should be available in about 10 years," Wang predicted.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that will be a difficult option for a lot of men. A condom starts working the moment you put it on, but this one, not for months. And what if you miss a day? Does the clock reset?
 
Puppycow said:
Yeah, human safety tests are just the first phase. Now they will need to do more trials for efficacy. They've determined that the pill is probably safe to take, but have yet to establish that it produces the intended effect. But it looks promising.

And, it isn't something that begins working immediately. You have to take it every day for at least a month 2-3 months and keep taking it before you can be confident that you won't produce viable sperm.


I'm guessing that will be a difficult option for a lot of men. A condom starts working the moment you put it on, but this one, not for months. And what if you miss a day? Does the clock reset?
Click to expand...

Yeah, these are good points. This method is far from a perfect solution. But still, it would be nice if men had an option that was a little less drastic than undergoing a vasectomy. Condoms exist, of course, but they have a 17% failure rate, and a lot of people (both men and women) seem to have issues with them. Latex allergy is a big one. Desensitized experience is a lesser (but still notable) factor. I'm not excusing carelessness, I'm just acknowledging everything I understand about the current obstacles.

If both parties have a workable pill option, I think that would be a step in the right direction.

It's crazy just how risky sex actually is when you think about it. Spontaneity makes it fun, but it can also make it riskier.
 
Weird, a colleague and I were discussing this just today.

A woman can have a "paper abortion;" she can give the baby up for adoption.

A man has absolutely no power in the situation. If he wants to keep the baby but she doesn't want to carry it, too bad. If he wants her to abort but she won't, too bad. That's a consequence of biology, yes, but so what? There is still an inherent and large imbalance there: The woman's decisions completely impact the man's life and the man has no decision making ability at all.

The only real question here is whether or not the current situation meet our standards of ethics, specifically the idea of equality before the law. Our system strives to treat everyone equally and it's pretty clear to me that we don't treat men equally under the law. The only solution is this idea of a paper abortion. Allow men the right to terminate their responsibilities under the same restrictions women are subjected to. But that decision is forever. From that point forward, the man is never allowed to see the kid; it would be as if the fetus was terminated.

The fatal flaw with this is that it totally ignores human nature. What if the couple gets back together? What if later on down the road, the kid wants to meet the dad? What if the dad regrets it and wants to see the kid?

As such, I can't endorse the idea of a paper abortion. Once a kid is born, both parents are responsible. That's just the way it is.
 
xjx388 said:
....
The only real question here is whether or not the current situation meet our standards of ethics, specifically the idea of equality before the law. Our system strives to treat everyone equally and it's pretty clear to me that we don't treat men equally under the law. The only solution is this idea of a paper abortion. Allow men the right to terminate their responsibilities under the same restrictions women are subjected to. But that decision is forever. From that point forward, the man is never allowed to see the kid; it would be as if the fetus was terminated.

The fatal flaw with this is that it totally ignores human nature. What if the couple gets back together? What if later on down the road, the kid wants to meet the dad? What if the dad regrets it and wants to see the kid?

......
Click to expand...

Comparable to today's adoption, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom