Originally posted by: Autumnmist
Ah, but you aren't worried about a life-destroying unplanned pregnancy... everything you are bringing up is only a problem if the woman wants to have the child and the man adamantly does not (and even if that happens, the man can only be held financially responsible within very small limits). It's not a huge financial committment unless you make it into one; not that I'm advocating running away, but the truth of the matter is that there are plenty of men who send a token $50 every month at most.
Oh yes, it is a
huge financial commitment unless you want to live the life of either a homeless person or a deeply impoverished person. Why do you think the states set up "Deadbeat Dads" lists and garnish wages from people? State governments and the courts take the payment of child support very seriously. $50/month my ass, try more like $500/month or $1000/month, with increasing amounts coming with your increasing income. And no, I've never had any children, either legitimate or non-legitimate, but I know people who have and they were ordered to pay far, far more than a mere $50/month. I think men would rejoice in the street if it were a mere $50/month.
You seem to be afraid of a woman becoming pregnant and then her 1) choosing to have the child anyway and 2) pressuring the biological father to marrry/take care over her and the child against his strong wishes otherwise. But, you are only considering the two (socially acceptable) options; the man still has the option of walking away. I agree that it's unfair that men can't choose whether to become a parent or not, but their health and life is never at risk. The woman never has the option to walk away once she's pregnant, even if she chooses to have an abortion because that's her body that's going through surgery--and in that case, the man has no "life-destroying" financial worries to take care of.
Certainly abortion is unpleasant, but that must pale in comparisson to having to be a parent for 18+ years when you do not want to be one. Also, in such situations, it might very well be possible for the woman to birth the infant and put her up for adoption as long as the father agrees to that. I suspect that a huge number of men would gladly go through having abortions themselves if that meant not being forced into fatherhood against their will. Women really do have 100% of the choice in this matter because they have the "last clear chance" of preventing pregnancy through abortion (and RU-486 and morning after pills). Also, men cannot force women to carry children the women do not want; the converse does not apply (and should not apply) for men.
I do not understand why you insist on denying that becoming an unplanned father is not extremely disruptive, both financially and otherwise. It's as though you're drinking the feminist Kool Aid and laboring under the belief that "men have all the power" and "men's lives are just amazing and wonderful because men have all the power and money." I hate to break this to you, but men have almost no power. (Know what an all male military draft is? Did you know that males have radically higher rates of suicide? Did you know that most serious on-the-job injuries are suffered by males? Did you know that males have shorter lifespans?) For a different point of view, I refer you to the heavily researched and footnoted works of men's movement author Warren Farrell (the only man to ever serve three or four years on the NOW board):
Why Men Are the Way They Are
(Highly recommended for anyone, both men and women, who wishes to better understand male psychology from a point of view that "rings true to men" and not merely what women wish to think men think.
The Myth of Male Power
(Men have all the power? Oh really? This book, heavily footnoted, demonstrates that men actually have little power and often suffer huge amounts of discrimination by society in general and the legal system.)
Why Men Earn More--The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It
(In this heavily footnoted work Farrell explains that men earn more because they choose to work harder, longer hours and work in more dangerous, demanding professions and that women are free to make the same choices and that when they do, they earn just as much if not more.)
I think if a couple can't agree on an issue like whether or not to have children and whether or not abortion is acceptable, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing things that puts them at very real risk of facing those two issues.
Of course it isn't that simple in application. What happens when two people find that they really like each other but disagree on this issue? Is this the sort of issue that should keep two people who are otherwise near perfect for each other apart? Can you really see a man deciding to make such a difficult decision? "I love her deeply, but I don't want to risk my life over this." I tend to agree with your sentiment, but I don't think it will work out in reality.
However, I would be open to the idea of having people be able to opt out of "Choice for Men" by contract. That is, a woman could ask a man to enter into a legal contract that would stipulate the contrary of the default law; that a man would agree not to seek out a paper abortion and that he waives his legal right to obtain a paper abortion.
That's like joining the military during a time of war without knowing beforehand what your opinions are on killing other human beings. You don't wait until you're in trouble before making up your mind. That's just asking for trouble. I am definitely not a save-yourself-for-marriage type, but man, if a couple is having sex without considering how they'd deal with an accidental pregnancy, I really question their lack of forethought.
Your argument would have some merit in spite of how difficult it would be to implement if women did not lie to men about such issues. Women lie to men all the time in order to get pregnant; they just "forget" to take pills. I don't see any reason why women wouldn't be dishonest about this issue as well. "Oh yes, I'll definitely have an abortion." But when the time comes, the woman decides she wants to have the child. This would often be the case in instances where the male is wealthy and she could look forward to a job as mother for $3000+/month.
And if you (not you personally, of course) are seriously worried about your gf/SO/wife deciding to keep an unplanned pregnancy against your will, I think there is a *serious* problem in the relationship.
It's hard to say because this issue isn't all that much about overall compatibility as it is ideology. It's similar to the issue of, "Could an atheist marry a casual Christian woman if their sense of life were a match and if they were otherwise compatible."
So why not just advocate legalizing "Choice for Men"? What would you have to fear? After all, women could ask men ahead of time whether they would exercise such an option and could ask them to enter into legally binding contracts not to exercise that option in the event of a pregnancy. Why would that be so awful? If it seems like it would be awful, remember that that exact same "awfulness", to a far far greater extent, is currently on men's shoulders. At least by legalizing "Choice for Men", both sexes would have a choice and women couldn't force men to pay for the luxuires of their (women's) choices.