"Men have been ignored" That is too rich really.

If we really did ignore them, would they go away?

oh yeah, every 19 year-old guy i know cries into his baseball glove because their girlfriends didn't birth their babies. none of them are ever relieved or anything.

some men get upset, and i understand. but when you put sperm in a woman's body, you no longer have rights to your sperm or what it does. you can't force a woman to have a baby any more than you can force her to have an abortion. it sucks enough that we're the ones who have to carry the babies. if we have one tiny consolation it's the ability to decide whether we will or won't and when.

and since when do we make legislation based on whose feelings might get hurt? should a woman also not be able to leave her husband, or have a job because that insults his masculinity?

ew i just read the article and when one of the guys brooding over abortions that happened 20 years ago is asked if maybe his ex-girlfriends considered it a better choice for them today, says "i never really thought about it for the woman", i just got chills.

i can't even...

Part of me wants men to have a say in when they have children. I mean, men have many responsibilities regarding children as well, and it's not really fair to say, "Well, if your girlfriend or wife makes a choice, you have no say, but we're going to make you pay through the nose and treat you like a jerk or a deadbeat if you don't make an effort to be a good dad."

HOWEVER. There is no long-term detriment to not having a baby at a particular point in time. Therefore, a man should not be able to force a woman to have his child. He will suffer no detriment except MAYBE feeling like he missed out, and honestly, he can always have kids later. And most men are relieved, not hurt, when they hear that a unplanned pregnancy has been terminated.

I do think we need some sort of method so that men can have the same control over when they do have a child that women do, though. Maybe some legal proceeding to absolve themselves of responsibility early in the pregnancy, that would be void if they tried to do it after the birth. But it does seem unfair that a woman can rope a man into being a father, even though clearly it would be unfair for him to do the same to her.

Sorry if that was rambling.

I almost have to laugh at this one.

The problem or "syndrome" is actually the fucked up and SELFISH mentality these idiots have... Not the fact that they'll never meet their unborn children. Boo hoo, shed a tear for the helpless men whose evil girlfriends took away their children. Their angel wings just keep growing bigger, huh?

I am willing to bet money that the grief these men feel is much stronger when their imaginary children are boys. Not that they ever imagine they're girls, but I guess that's my point.

Yeah, the PAS-for-men shit scares me. I think there needs to be NO CONFUSION over the fact that, regardless of how conflicted and upset men feel about an abortion decision (and they have a right to those feelings) it's WOMEN'S BODIES that are at the center of the experience, and therefore they need to have the final say.

I was interested in this passage from the article:

Feit, who describes himself as prochoice, believes that when a man and woman have agreed not to have children and a woman becomes pregnant, a man should have, within a week or ten days, the opportunity to relinquish, through the courts, his rights and responsibilities to be a parent to that child, just as a woman has the opportunity to end her potential parenthood through abortion.

This is similar to a framework I've proposed to different people who complain about the inequality of women being able to choose parenthood while men experience consequences from an unplanned pregnancy that goes to term, even if they would have chosen NOT to become a parent. Any thoughts from others on this? Is there a problem with this that I don't see?

I see the legitmacy of regret, remorse, and grief. I couldn't deny that there ARE effects from choices we make or are a part of. With that said, I read the article and just couldn't buy into PAS as a syndrome or an epidemic of unjustifiable grief. If this guy is so broken up by his moral conflict, why did he have premarital sex? I mean, isn't that the real chore of his moral dilema?

What I am noticing is the underlying assumption that abortion choices shouldn't have feelings attached to it. I want the choice and it IS my choice regardless of what our gov't thinks, but I get that its going to effect me. If I slept with men, I suppose it would effect the potential father too. The reality is, I'm going to make the choice that best suits me and in that reality, the guy needs to do his own work regarding how it effects his potency or masculinity. If it feels like impetency, learn to think about differently buddy, because it ain't about you. Have grief, have remorse, but don't use them to deny me my rights to my own body!

Sorry the guy is grieving, but its not a valid reason to overturn women's rights.

I'm sorry that man is still grieving, but it seems his issue is not the abortion itself, but the lack of agency he had in it. Is he saying that women should be robbed of their control over their bodies so that he can have it?

annajcook, the problem is that you propose taking a situation in which men and women have different sets of options and consequences and changing it to one where they still have different options and consequences, but in a way that is even more unbalanced against the woman. Consider what you are proposing:

Man and women have sex. They may even use birth control, which burden usually falls more on the woman. SHE gets pregnant. She gets to decide whether to

a) have an abortion, a surgical procedure that, though safer than childbirth if performed early enough, has attendant physical and emotional risks.

b) experience 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then give the child up for adoption, with its own physical and emotional consequences.

c) experience 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then raise the child for 18 years, with its own physical and emotional, and financial consequences.

In all three cases, the man can decide to participate with the non-pregnancy/childbirth part of the woman's experience. Or he can walk away.

How is that more fair than the current situation:

Man and women have sex. They may even use birth control, which burden usually falls more on the woman. SHE gets pregnant. She gets to decide whether to

a) have an abortion, a surgical procedure that, though safer than childbirth if performed early enough, has attendant physical and emotional risks.

(The man walks away.)

b) experience 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then give the child up for adoption, with the consent of the father, with its own physical and emotional consequences.

(The man walks away.)

c) experience 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then raise and financially support the child for 18 years, with its own physical and emotional, and financial consequences.

The man ALSO has to financially support the child for 18 years and may choose to be involved in raising it.

In each of these cases the woman faces substantially more in the way of consequences for her decision. The man might be liable for child support with one of the outcomes, but that case, the woman is supporting it too! Yes she makes the choice, but SHE faces most of the consequences of being pregnant.

I really don't see your suggestion as an improvement.

@annacook: That, on its surface, is reasonable, but if you really think about it it's really not fair.

Look, there's inequality in reproduction. It's biological; it's one of the few true biological differences between men and women. Women get the short end of the stick in that they are the ones that get pregnant. Men get the short end of the stick in that their choice ends with whether or not they have sex, period.

I do not support consequence free sex for men, which is what that proposal is. Terminating your parental rights is nothing compared to terminating a pregnancy. Even if there isn't an emotional toll on the woman (which often there isn't, despite what antichoicers say), there is a physical and a financial toll. Add to that all the roadblocks and lack of access to abortion there are in the country, and you have an incredibly unfair system.

A proposal where men can terminate their parental rights continues to keep the onus of reproduction on a woman; SHE has to notify him, SHE has to be responsible for the birth control, SHE still has to get an abortion if she can't afford the baby. Would have even have to help pay for it?

Look, if a man doesn't want to risk getting a women pregnant, he doesn't get to have sex with her. Otherwise, the best he can do is to be open and honest about birth control and talk to her about what would happen if she gets pregnant. If he finds her outlook on unintended pregnancy unacceptable (either she would keep it or about), he should keep his pants zipped.

The man wanted nothing to do with his g/f 20 years ago! He didn't even go to the appointment with her because he had a softball game or something.
Maybe she *knew* you'd be a shitty-ass dad, asshole.
And the fact that you spend so much time obsessing about all the non-existant "children" you fathered, rather than focusing on your REAL children, proves your long-lost ex really dodged a bullet.

basiorana - in a perfect world, both sexes would have equal control over reproduction. however, given current human biology, i don't see a way around that at present. it's unfortunate and it may not be "fair" in the ideal sense, but ultimately one party has to have more power than the other if one of them wants a child and the other doesn't and given that only women can give birth, we sort of have to defer any imbalance of reproductive control to women.

also, as for the urban legend of women "roping" men into fatherhood, i'm not saying it never happens, but let's not act like there is NOTHING men can to do drastically reduce this possibility. if you have unprotected sex with a woman and then get all pissy when she wants to hit you up for child support for the child that wouldn't have been conceived without your baby batter, i'm not terribly sympathetic.

What I want to know, is why is it an absolute violation for men to say "She should have kept her legs shut.", but it's apparently perfectly fine for women to say "He should have kept it in his pants"?

Also, why be anti-consequence-free sex for men, while being pro-consequence-free sex for women? Makes no sense.

No matter how you look at it, though, if a woman chooses to have a child that the man did not want, it forces him, against his will, to be part of something he did not choose to be a part of.

From the group that is always speaking about personal choice and rights, that seems a clear violation of both.

I am completely for the right of men to opt-out of raising a child. Men aren't, and should not be allowed, to dictate if a woman has an abortion or not, and women shouldn't be allowed to force a man into fatherhood if he doesn't want to be one.

Also, for those that say "Well, she has to support it too!", yes, she does. But she chose to do that by having it. He was never given any choice at all.

88mph--as i said, in an ideal sense it's not "fair", but in a pragmatic one, it's the only workable option. being forced to pay money is not even remotely comparable to being forced to carry a fetus to term or to have an abortion. sorry, bodily integrity trumps personal financial rights. that's not inconsistent with the ideas expressed on this site at all.

exelizabeth said it best.

Thanks achren and exelizabeth for your long and thoughtful responses to my question.

I'm still not convinced (though this is all stuff to think about, obviously), and I think it comes down to something like what 88mph wrote:

why be anti-consequence-free sex for men, while being pro-consequence-free sex for women?

"consequence-free" is not how I would put it, because I believe that ALL sexual relationships have consequences, both positive and negative. I don't think calling for reproductive rights is about "consequence-free" sex. But I do think that sexual intimacy for women AND for men should not be the privilege ONLY of those who are willing to parent, either economically, physically, or emotionally.

Ideally, of course, a hetero couple should have a serious conversation about what they wish to do should an unplanned pregnancy occur. But shit happens. Peoples minds change, and sometimes partners you thought you knew can turn out to be manipulative.

If women are going to have (as I firmly believe they should) the option to choose an early-term abortion--or even access to Plan B!--then I think men, also, should have some sort of legal option for attesting to the fact that they are not ready to be a parent.

Clearly, this needs to happen within a legal framework that does not put an additional burden on women, additional hurdles to overcome before making decisions about their reproductive health. But I think that could be worked out. For example, there's a clear difference in my mind between a) laws that would allow men to relinquish their parental rights--thus choosing NOT to be a parent, and b) any laws that would require men's involvement in an abortion decision. The latter right is clearly an infringement on women's right to make a medical decision and is not tolerable.

Yes, there's a biological factor. As a woman, I'm going to be dealing with more physical consequences of any pregnancy (read: all of them). But I don't see that as a legitimate reason to deny men the right to choose not to be parents within that same early time-frame? To say, "you had sex, too bad, too late" to guys really seems to undercut a lot of what feminists have been arguing about reproductive rights for women . . .

Along with the issues pointed out by others about how this might be used to chip away at women's reproductive rights, I think this new movement has negative implications for pro-choice men as well.

There is no doubt that some men experience grief, frustration, stress, etc. after an abortion, even when they fully support the decision. Further, when they providing support for their partner, they might feel stress from not knowing exactly how to help.

Movements like this PAS interfere with the possibility of forming legitimate men's support groups around the issue of abortion because others will use it to their political advantage.

I fully agree! Look at this misogynistic, anti-abortion site: http://www.ihateyoujulia.com/?id=40516222d056ac17d90eabe4863670f3

Nice point, UCLA. I hesitate to say it's wrong to "politicize" personal, emotional experience . . . because of course feminists have pointed out that the personal IS often political, and that our emotional lives can provide important information . . . but it does seem like the extent of the political manipulation here is unconscionable.

"Look, there's inequality in reproduction. It's biological; it's one of the few true biological differences between men and women."

exelizabeth, I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Men and women are the same species so we obviously have more in common with each other than not, but scientists are beginning to discover that there are actually a ton of biological differences between men and women that are not related to reproductive organs. From brain structure - women have denser brains and more white matter - to our retinas - women are better able to see color, whereas men are on average better able to see movement - to our senses of smell (again, women's are better), there are actually a ton of gender-based differences. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. Do some jerk scientists try to twist these facts to support sexism? Yes. But that doesn't mean differences are necessarily bad.

Lol, sorry, just wanted to point that out.

I think I agree mostly with achren and exelizabeth. I just don't see how it's practical. For example, what if the woman either didn't know she was pregnant or didn't tell the father she was pregnant during whatever the legal timeframe of "early" is? Do his rights extend up until the moment the baby is actually born? Can he walk away at 8 months if he didn't know (or claimed not to have known) before then? What if the father was unreachable by the woman after she found out she was pregnant and he only found out he was a father when the child was born?

Wouldn't this open a door for lawsuits against women for not disclosing their pregnancies?

Also, if we keep on the trend of "being fair" are women going to have to go through a legal process to get an abortion? Or can we really call a legal procedure and medical procedure somehow equal?

Also, why be anti-consequence-free sex for men, while being pro-consequence-free sex for women? Makes no sense.

Ideally, we would like "consequence-free sex" for everyone. That's why feminists want more education on birth control as well as easy access and as many options as possible.

But if you're suggesting that getting pregnant and having the right and access to terminate an abortion = consequence-free, I think most of us would disagree with you. Dealing with the pregnancy is a "consequence."

On a related note, there are some places where one parent can give up all parental rights in order to avoid paying child support. But not all states or locations allow this because it punishes the child, as well.

What I would like to see is more social services and support for single mothers so that men who really don't want any relationship with the child can give up their rights and not pay child support without leaving the child more vulnerable.

acranom - excellent points regarding the feasibility of such measures

rileyst.clair: An abortion or a birth itself is a procedure that affects a woman more than a man by it's very nature. Thus a man should never get control over the woman's body, which this legislation would give him. She should always get that choice.

But. He should have control over whether or not he becomes a father. Because while yeah, many times it's a case of "he didn't use a condom" sometimes it is simply "The condom broke." If a guy genuinely thought he was protected against having a child, an accident happens, and he believes she should get an abortion while she does not want one, why does she get to have the final say? It should be a mutual decision, and barring that, both parties should have a way out. And it shouldn't be free for the man to opt out, same as it's not free for a woman to get an abortion, but the cost should be about the same. A $4000 price tag is still a deterrent to sticking it in unwrapped, but it gives the man the chance to have a say in the direction of his life.

There are many circumstances where there was a genuine mistake (or lack of education) and the man believes abortions are fine but the woman does not. Any "opt out" clause should be akin to saying "I want this woman to abort;" moreover, if he says "I'm opting out but she shouldn't abort," or "Abortion is wrong and should be illegal," she should have the ability to contest it on the grounds that he has made it clear that he values the child.

But in the end, the choice to have a child or not should be a person's own. I would not want to be told I had to have a baby that I did not want. I would not even want to be told I had to support a child that I did not want. Especially since many men who wind up in such situations feel obliged to do the right thing and do more than just pay the state-mandated support-- they get involved in the kid's life and try to be a good dad, even though they were not ready for such a commitment.

Also, I think that such a right should apply up until abortions are illegal. If an abortion is not legal, the man should not have such a choice. What's more, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that a woman knew that she was pregnant and did not tell the father, and she learned of it at a time when he could have applied for an opt-out, then yeah, he should be allowed to contest child support payments. But that's if it was intentional. If, for example, she didn't know until it was too late to abort anyway, he should not get the right to contest the child support, since she did not have the right to abort.

@Liz M: I know it's a controversial position to say there are few biological differences between women and men. Maybe I should state more clearly that that are few biological differences that matter. Getting pregnant happens to be one of those that matters.

This is sort of a new position I'm feeling out for myself. I'm starting more and more to feel that people who say men and women are inherently different are like the people who say that white people and black people are inherently different. Sure, there's a biological difference: white people have a gene that makes them produce less melanin. The question is, does that matter?

Now, of course, women and more ARE more different than people of different races, and considering the neglect of women's health and lack of understanding about how women manifest diseases differently than men (such as heart disease), it's probably irresponsible for me to say those biological difference don't matter. But my point is that I don't think that hardly any of the differences in behavior are biological; I think they are 99.9% socialized. So I guess my problem is when people say that how women and men ACT is biologically based.

Hope that clarifies.

Ok, so maybe I am a little too trusting of my fellow feministingers, but a moderator should take down the "i hate julia.com" link as it leads to a bunch of webcam shit. Douche bag.

Also, if we keep on the trend of "being fair" are women going to have to go through a legal process to get an abortion?

I definitely agree that women choosing abortion should be able to do so within a medical privacy framework--NO permission from other parties, and NO obligation to inform anyone prior, during, or after the process.

Men DO NOT have a right to either force women to carry a pregnancy to term because they want a child or to force her to have an abortion because they do not want a child. It seems like choosing to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities within a legal framework is a way to give men the right to choose not to parent, but CONTINUE to promote women's right to reproductive choice and their absolute right to bodily integrity.

I'm really getting annoyed seeing so many threads about abortion devolve into discussions about men's rights to not pay for their offspring. When it comes to pregnancy, the scales always tip in men's favor. Letting them walk away with no financial responsibility just tips the scales that much further. Children will be the ones getting punished and women will continue to get blamed for it.

Men have options, just many are either ignorant about them (blame abstinence only ed) or arrogant (refuse to use condoms because they don't feel good). Most men would refuse to take a hormonal birth control pill if it were available because they're afraid of the side effects, but it's ok and even expected for women to take them. All couples should be using a combination of medical and/or barrier methods to reduce the probability. A couple could even supplement such methods by monitoring her cycle to avoid the most fertile days and pulling out just before ejaculation. Those two last ones aren't foolproof, but like I said, used with other methods, they could be useful.

Once a pregnancy occurs, it affects the woman's body, so yes, she gets the extra option of deciding to abort. That's not a bonus, just a fact of biology. If a pregnancy goes to term, then the both parents have options available. Unless the child is put up for adoption, BOTH parents are responsible for its care, whether willing or not. Most people arguing for men's rights seem to forget that there are lots of reasons why a woman might not want a child, but still choose not to opt for an abortion or adoption. Men have been known to trick a woman into having a baby too, ya know.

In the many circumstances where neither parent is able or willing to pay for the child's care, the state has to step in. Guess who pays for that....EVERYONE THAT PAYS TAXES. I don't get to walk away from someone else's child, why should the parents? Keep in mind also that the amount most non-custodial parents pay in support is not even close to half the actual cost of raising a child. That burden falls on the custodial parent or the tax payers. I don't object to my tax dollars going toward those in my country that need it, and kids are certainly deserving of every chance we can get them. But I also know so many people that want programs that help these kids cut or removed. And the only people that get hurt when taxes stop helping and parents walk away...the kids.

No, it's not a fair system, but given the options, I'd rather have it be a little unfair for everyone than only unfair to women who have to make the choice and the unwanted children.

to the commenters advocating some sort of procedure for men to opt-out of fatherhood,

a bunch of other people have already listed some of the reasons why that's difficult / problematic. at the end of the day though, even if you could work through those issues, it's still never gonna happen for one reason -

if a man doesn't support his child and the mother and kid fall bellow the poverty line, the state is expected to pick up the tab. (the extent of this varies from place to place, and no state really has a good social safety net, but there's generally at least the theoretical possibility of some benefits) the gov't does not like this idea, and is therefore never going to go for letting men get out of child support. even if it did, you'd either have shitty benefits, more poverty and more poverty-related problems (health, crime, etc.), or everyone's taxes would go up and the opt-out dads would still end up paying.

to the commenters advocating some sort of procedure for men to opt-out of fatherhood,

a bunch of other people have already listed some of the reasons why that's difficult / problematic. at the end of the day though, even if you could work through those issues, it's still never gonna happen for one reason -

if a man doesn't support his child and the mother and kid fall bellow the poverty line, the state is expected to pick up the tab. (the extent of this varies from place to place, and no state really has a good social safety net, but there's generally at least the theoretical possibility of some benefits) the gov't does not like this idea, and is therefore never going to go for letting men get out of child support. even if it did, you'd either have shitty benefits, more poverty and more poverty-related problems (health, crime, etc.), or everyone's taxes would go up and the opt-out dads would still end up paying.

@88 mph: you make the common mistake of suggesting that an abortion is not a consequence. It is. To say otherwise is insulting.

Because reproduction is lopsided (women get pregnant, men don't), so is choice (women may still choose after getting pregnant, men can't). It's one of the unfair things about the world. The way to make it more fair to to take responsibility for your actions and to provide people access to information and birth control.

And, as a matter of fact, I think that if a woman can't deal with the consequences of having sex, she should keep her pants on, too. The difference is, if she gets knocked up, she HAS to deal with the consequences, she can't just walk away.

I'm really getting annoyed seeing so many threads about abortion devolve into discussions about men's rights to not pay for their offspring.

I don't see most Feministing threads devolving into discussions about men's rights.

We can quit talking about the issue of choosing to parent (or whatever we should call it) if people don't want to discuss it, but it's something I've been wrestling with and I'm finding the discussion interesting. And since it was a post about men and PAS, it doesn't seem entirely off-topic.

Talking about men's reproductive choices in the context of feminism is not the same as MRA discussions, which usually hold feminism to blame for everything. I don't see anyone doing that here.

Unless the child is put up for adoption, BOTH parents are responsible for its care, whether willing or not.

I agree. Roe v. Wade, in making abortion legal, laid out a framework that placed an increasing burden on women to justify abortion decisions (with an exception for life-and-health, obviously). I think the same should be true for men. Clearly, no parent, mother or father, should be able to walk out on caring for their child. But women have an opportunity to make that initial call prior to giving birth, and I think we should give men that option too.

Y'all are giving me a lot to think about, though, so thanks again for posting your thoughts!

I thought I'd point out that many men DO choose to opt out. It's not a legal choice to leave the woman and never financially support the child but it seems like it happens a lot. Once a fetus cannot be aborted, we have the responsibility to carry the baby to term and either raise the baby for 18 years or have the baby adopted. Society assumes women to have much greater responsibility towards babies so it seems to make sense to give us choice in parenting.

"Look, if a man doesn't want to risk getting a women pregnant, he doesn't get to have sex with her."

I haven't had the time to read through all the comments, so maybe this has been addressed - but the person who said the above (exelizabeth, I believe) - WTF? Isn't that the same argument antichoicers use? If you don't want to get preggers, don't have sex. Well, guess what, it happens. That is NOT a fair argument to not allowing a man any say in the matter (not that I think he should have say). Again, I am sure I will read this when I get time and someone else will have asked, but we can't cry foul when "they" say we should keep our legs shut and then say they should have kept their penis in their pants. It takes two people to get pregnant.

Clearly, no parent, mother or father, should be able to walk out on caring for their child. But women have an opportunity to make that initial call prior to giving birth, and I think we should give men that option too.

But we can't. No law can enable men to become pregnant. No law can enable them to abort pregnancies.

Abortion ends pregnancies. Allowing men to opt out of child support does not end pregnancies. Children would still be born, and someone would have to care for them.

If a man wants to avoid fatherhood, he can control his own body, just like women do. He can use condoms, get a vasectomy, have sex with menopausal/sterile women, have sex with men, etc. He doesn't get to choose not to reproduce after he's put his semen inside a fertile women. Once it's out of his body, it's out of his hands.