The "Financial Abortion" Option for Men

This has got to be among the most obtuse posts I have ever read. My lord. "What about this "financial abortion" would stop men from saying things such as, "Hey lady, if you get knocked up, I am also not financially responsible for an abortion"?" Why should I be financially responsible for your abortion? When have men ever been financially responsible for women's abortions? It's your body, your choice, and *your responsibility*."The flip side of the coin is how does this actually help anyone but irresponsible men?" Flip this to 'women' and you have a cookie-cutter anti-choicer argument. 'How does abortion help anyone but irresponsible women?' And vasectomies? Oh, hey, maybe if women don't want to get pregnant, they could have their tubes tied and freeze eggs! Then abortion wouldn't need to be legal, right? 

I support financial abortion for men. Women have all sorts of options. She can abort, she can keep it but then give up all parental rights and responsibilities at birth, or she can keep it and raise it. Men really have no options. They're stuck with whatever the woman chooses. If a woman can give up the baby at birth, no questions asked (safe haven laws), then why can't men? Why do women get to choose when or if they begin parenthood, but men cannot?

I'm a woman, but a man should not be shackled to me for 18+ years just because I made a decision to keep a baby. I can hand it over at birth, why can't he?

For Criss

really ?

You gonna be kidding me ? Unprotected sex ? Why men are held responsible for unprotected sex while women still have a right to opt out ?

Which protection you talk about ?

Condom : Women could opt out even without condoms, so equality means men still can opt out even without condoms. It is a logic

Vasectomy ? Really ? Vasectomy is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men

And the woman is not stuck with consequences, yes she may be stuck alone with consequences if abortion is not allowed and fathers are allowed to run away. Again the woman still have the right to opt out by abortion AFTER UNPROTECTED sex but the man can not. SEXISM

And WOW what you saying ? He can NOT have sex ? I would say HE CAN HAVE sex and HE SHOULD be eligible to opt out. In any other instance if a woman had to choose either her right to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abuse\discrimination so making the man between two choices (either sex or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abuse\discrimination. By implying the same logic it is abuse to make him choose between NOT having sex and NOT being a father, both are rights and both are to be protected.

Women already have choices to opt out : Abortion, and adoption. While there is no choice after pregnancy for men.

And if pro-choices (Like Condom or not having sex) means 100% reproductive rights + control on wallet for men then let's cancel the abortion because the women already have more than 100% reproductive rights + control on body. Because pro-choices and contraception methods are more for women

And yes a woman have her right to financially abort. Actually financial abort comes automatically to women once they physically abort so it is still fair women CAN financially abort. But if they choose to continue bearing the child then this means they agreed 100% to support him\her and they gave up their right to abort. Similar thing for men, if they choose DURING pregnancy to support the child then he gave up his right to financially abort that child. You just do not understand how financial abort work BOTH of men and women have EQUAL rights to financial abort.

And by the way shareleann your argument is twisted way to talk about contraception and I replied it in the same argument

JoyfulHausfrau : then how about we do not apply the same outdated logic and tell the woman to have Abstinence, Coil,or Diaphragm. Then cancel abortion as we do not allow financial abortion>

From ChrisWrites: "I don't know what the laws are elsewhere, but here in Texas, if "dad" doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of raising his spawn, he can give up all his rights to the child (which is what this "financial abortion" would do), and he's "absolved" of paying child support."

I was going to say, at least this could never hold up in court. But then I read the above quote. How terrible! (But then, that explains why my "dad" moved to Texas and how he managed to never pay child support.)

There are two points that come to my mind: (1) If a man doesn't want any responsibility for an accidental child, he should have a vasectomy. End of story. And even then, there may be an accident which he would be responsible for just as she is.
(2) A woman who would not have an abortion, or who someday wants a child, should never date a man who would try to claim that pre-intercourse right. Who would date a man like that? I wouldn't!

But yeah, this idea is just ridiculous. I don't believe it could ever become law or hold up in court. And if it did, it would be a really depressing development in human history.

Why can't both the man and the woman choose to financially pull away if one or the other wants to keep the child?

(This is if they haven't had an abortion or an adoption.)

It's like agreeing to having a prenup for a commonwealth marriage.

Not very well.

There is always an unequal responsibility placed on a woman via pregnancy. So, your argument about equal decision making power for equal responsibility fails at its first test.

A woman cannot choose whether or not a uterus is developed and grown within her body or how it functions. When did it first become acceptable, again, to place blame, and thus, responsibility, on someone's shoulders for something that occurs outside of their control? Never? Yet it is almost always a claim used solely against women?

There is also a financial component that a woman has during pregnancy and one that she also has when there is an extant child, as either a primary or secondary caregiver. And, since women usually make less then men we see another reason why these 'responsibilities' would NOT be equal.

If BOTH partners used a form of birth control then both are being responsible. If the man did not be caring enough to use a condom or to get the big V, then the man cannot cry that it was the woman's fault and how he was trapped into a pregnancy. If the woman did not used birth control, then she must decide whether or not it will be worth it to raise a child by herself or to have to deal with a man that may or may not be the ideal choice as a parent. We all have heard how birth control can fail if not used correctly, but in those cases it's usually because only one of the two partners were using some form of birth control. If BOTH the man and woman took responsibility, then there wouldn't be so many unwanted pregnancies.

At the playing God comment that the woman made, well if you decide to have sex without the intention of becoming a parent, you are playing God already. God did not create birth control, Man did.

If there was no such thing as abortion, I'd be with you 100%, but so long as a woman can have an abortion without her partner's consent, it's her choice, decision, responsibility, and consequences. Why should women be the only one with the "safety net" of being able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Equal decision making power for equal responsibility, I say!

And yes, I am playing devil's advocate with you.

If a man and a woman have unprotected sex and conceive, the woman can choose to have an abortion at any time, and the man is expected by society to accept her decision because it's her body and right to choose. Assuming the conception was unintended, shouldn't the man be given equal right to terminate the pregnancy as you are wanting him to accept equal responsibility for the final outcome of the decision?

The choice is left solely to the woman, but you want the consequences to be shared. The equation is unbalanced in that scenario. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As a young man and dedicated husband and father of three, I can only roll my eyes at not just the absurdity of this concept of "financial abortions" but the way relationships and family are set up in current society. How can you be shocked and surprised this line of thinking is surfacing? I'm just surprised no one suggested it sooner...

Also the name isn't accurate because you can't actually stop a woman from having a baby by not giving her money.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile/Nordette ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

This is absurd. I've read this twice now, two days in a row, and I am still dumbfounded.

Now, we all know that pregnancy is always the woman's fault, right?

So any time a woman has sex, she's 100% agreeing to carry that pregnancy to term, regardless of what strain or harm that will cause to her body or her mental/emotional state, or how it will adversely affect her life (her livelihood, her ability to perform her job, etc.)

Since we're going to allow men to opt out of any financial responsibility from the get-go (before sex), then we should make it EQUAL (isn't that what the author wanted in the first place?) and have those men who choose NOT to opt out PAY their full half of prenatal medical bills, time off from work for prenatal appointments and for maternity leave, and child support for that potentially-conceived child until he or she turns 18.

It's ONLY FAIR, isn't it? Those men who don't want to pay, shouldn't have to. Those who do want to pay, should. Regardless of if the woman ends up pregnant or not.

(I mean, come on -- if we're going to be ridiculous, let's BE ridiculous... no?)

If guys don't want to be responsible for a child then they should take their own precautions NOT to create one!

Once Again, you've found a topic that I've never thought of before in my entire life! :D kudos. :)

First of all, this would obviously never work without a signed agreement from the woman. Regardless of what a guy tells a gal, the court is going to hold him financially responsible for a pregnancy.

What's missing from this conversation, as I've read through the post and the comments, is the concept that the dude's going to bounce (leave, vacate the premises) anyway if she gets pregnant.

If you think about it in that way, it's actually a GOOD thing that he's telling her ahead of time that if she gets pregnant, he's not sticking around. That way, she can elect to stop dating him or keep going, stay on top of her birth control game and take her chances.

Lots of guys date / have sex with women for long periods of time with ZERO intention of EVER getting them pregnant, which sometimes comes to an awkward conversation when she finds out that she is and then she only finds out at the moment of truth that he's not down for the family thing.

In general, it won't hold up in court, so it's an interesting idea but entirely infeasible.

Also the name isn't accurate because you can't actually stop a woman from having a baby by not giving her money. She can have it perfectly well with or without a guy's money as is proven every day in hospitals around the world.

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com/ )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com/ )

( http://billcammack.com )

Poor, poor men. They have it so very tough in the realm of sex and pregnancy, don't they? How dare we women expect them to take a roll in raising and sacrificing for the children that are a fairly-predictable result of their actions.

And what of the children? It bothers me that this debate is so often couched as a man vs woman issue, with the real person that is the child in questions lost in the debate.

It also bothers me that the stereotype persists of this woman who gets sneakily pregnant on purpose. The vast majority of women don't skulk around trying to get pregnant to men who don't want to stick around. Also, why wasn't he taking responsibility for his own fertility?

In a world where women are discouraged from using appropriate long term contraception, chastised for being single mothers, hated for having abortions, demonised for keeping a baby if the man doesn't want to, and infantilised of they don't have sex at all, it really is crazy talk to try to even the playing field by letting men off the hook even more easily.

It should be mentioned that I like men, i really do, and I understand that they do have their own issues with fatherhood and what it means, and where they fit when it wasn't on purpose. But that doesn't mean its equal.

"Financial abortion" sounds like it boils down to skirting the responsibility that goes along with sex for both parties.

If the guy is so concerned, gee take responsibility--wear a condom, and yes, better yet--get a vascectomy. A guy who wants no responsibility re sex is likely not ready to be a parent and may never be!

Laura
Families of Two
http://lauracarroll.com

The fact that they're using the word "abortion" in this little whateveritis is disgusting and horribly offensive. An abortion is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it's not a way to avoid the consequences for your actions. Anyone who says or thinks that had NO CLUE what a woman facing that choice goes through. Choosing to have an abortion IS accepting the consequences, and taking action.

I don't know what the laws are elsewhere, but here in Texas, if "dad" doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of raising his spawn, he can give up all his rights to the child (which is what this "financial abortion" would do), and he's "absolved" of paying child support.

My college boyfriend's brother did that with his ex-wife, he wrote himself out of his kids' lives and never had to pay child support (he gives up his right to see them when the does that, but if you don't want the responsibility, why would you want to deal with the hassle of seeing your kids and, like, parenting them and stuff??) One of my students a few years ago had also had his father erase himself from the child's life. It's as if the father had never existed, and the child had been conceived by the mother by magic. So why would we need this pre-coital contract, when the courts already give men a free pass if they get sick of their kids?

Please, did anyone really think MEN are the ones unjustly "stuck" with the consequences of unprotected sex??

Yes, YOU chose to have unprotected sex with your body (and the way you present the scenario, it sounds like you had A) access to birth control, and chose against using it, and B) medically accurate information about the effectiveness rates of said method(s) of birth control, which allowed you to make the conscious and informed choice to forgo protection/birth control) -- BUT SO DID HE.

Women can't get pregnant by themselves. Did you LIE to your son's biological father and tell him you were on birth control when you had sex? Did you drug him so you could slip the condom off his penis before he ejaculated? Did he not notice he wasn't wearing a condom?

The same choice you made, to have unprotected sex, is THE SAME CHOICE HE MADE. How come the woman is the only one to get stuck with the consequences?

If a man isn't ready to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, then he has several CHOICES: he can NOT HAVE SEX (notice how we say that to women all the time, but nobody says it to the other half of the equation??), he can get a vasectomy, he can use a condom (and, for good measure, make sure she's on hormonal bc as well).

My mom always said "It takes two to tango." TWO people made the choice to have sex (assuming we're talking about consensual sex, which I hope we are); it takes those same two people to decide to use, or decide NOT to use, birth control. Let's stop pretending men are helpless victims of pregnant women.

Well, the term "Financial Abortion" is certainly inflammatory, and as you point out, is likely more an attention-getting ploy than anything else.

In the Root article, there's a quote:
" 'It's all punitive -- be a good father or else,' says Maria Kefalas, a sociology professor at St. Joseph's University..."

Yeah, be a good father--what a "punitive" stand, that wholly crazy notion of taking responsibility for your actions. How about don't have intercourse unless you are willing to be a parent? You play, you pay...what is so difficult about that concept?

Financial Abortion isn't just an inflammatory label...it's endorsing irresponsibility. And this from supposedly educated individuals? Yuck.

P.S. The link to the Lumnata piece is broken...

~Margaret

Just Margaret ( http://maurhoffbarney.blogspot.com )

I hear you.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

See, the problem with working toward relationships that truly are equal is that it's, like, really hard, right? So it makes more sense to just not bother trying. Or something. As Jenna said, stupid, stupid, stupid.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

I really don't understand how this theory helps anyone.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com ) and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track ( http://offthebeatensubwaytrack.com ).

Does it work both ways? Can a woman financially abort a relationship if the man turns out to be a drain on her finances. For instance, if he gets ill? How does it feel when we put it in that context? When did we reduce our relationships down to money? What about not having sex with people who don't have our backs and would help us come to a decision together should we become pregnant? Personally, I think it's a low bar to clear.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.com/ ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

I am a mom that got pregnant accidently 16yrs ago and I was just a teenager myself, but I knew the risks of not using protection and as so many women love to say it my body. Well it is my body and I chose not to use protection resulting in a pregnancy. When I told my son's father, (not Dad), but his bioligical father he said he couldn't care for another child at that point in life. He suggested abortion or adoption, after much thought I chose to have my son and I did it on my own because although it was our mistake it was mine and no one else's decision what I would do since it is my body. It really bothers me that so many women accidently or secretly on purpose get pregnant and then instead of looking at the man's life also they only selfishly decide and then get pissed when having a baby didn't make them a happy family like she had hoped. So then they decide to go after ever cent possible with child support. Maybe financial abortion isn't a nice way of labeling it but I, a strong, independent, mother of a teen, am all for some action that defends fathers also. Just because it is our body does not mean that gives us the right to play God

It isn't fair for them to equate "financial" and medical abortions. For some people, the abortion decision is fraught with emotion - it is more than a financial decision.

In this hypothetical, couldn't all men - even pro-life men - choose to "abort?" It doesn't seem right that a man who insists on dating only pro-life partners could legally refuse child support.

Instead of "financial abortions," maybe it would be better for us to work toward more harmonious relationships. If a man is faithful and reliable, and his partner trusts him, I think she will likely let him participate in the decision-making process. THAT should help "level the playing field."

I'd be interested to see what child support offices and governmental assistance offices would have to say about "financial abortions." I wasn't allowed to apply for financial support without handing over his information. If he had already "aborted" us financially, would I have been able to receive assistance or not?

Interesting. (And by interesting, I obviously mean, "Stupid stupid stupid.")

Jenna Hatfield (@FireMom ( http://twitter.com/FireMom )), from Stop, Drop and Blog ( http://stopdropandblog.com ) and The Chronicles of Munchkin Land ( http://thechroniclesofmunchkinland.com ), is a freelance writer and newspaper photographer.