Originally Posted by Smithie
"If he doesn't want to risk reproduction, he shouldn't be putting his penis inside of women."
But see, that's the EXACT SAME THING I've had screamed in my face by anti-choice people, switched around so that it applies to the female's sexual participation. That's where the whole thing falls down for me. If it's evil and ugly to force the woman, it is evil and ugly to force the man. We have another, better option - we can contribute as a society to the support of economically vulnerable people who DO want to be parents and who are going to at least try to do a decent job of it, and leave the deadbeats out of the picture. And think about just exactly how much of a deadbeat we're talking about here - we are talking about somebody who would decline to be listed on his child's birth certificate. That's certainly a subset of of all men who participate in unwed babymaking!
In terms of economic consequences - eh. We spend so little on social welfare programs compared to other items in the budget that I don't think it would really make a difference either way. And I've never understood the reluctance to support poor children (directly and indirectly) with taxpayer dollars - it just seems pragmatic to me, as a person who wants to grow old in a nation peopled with healthy, well-educated, socially conscious citizens.
The problem with this however, is that your solution is overbroad. Meaning, it excludes people it shouldn't, and includes people it shouldn't. I'm trying to explain and I'm not doing a good job.
It doesn't account for the men who REALLY want to support and be part of that child's life, but under your reasoning don't have that right - it gives the mother SOLE say over a child that she did not create herself. What if your ds had a child, (in a place that uses your rules) and the mother didn't want him in that child's life. THATS YOUR GRANDBABY - that your son now desperately wants, but has no rights to.
Now, it might seem to make sense to allow a man to elect to be a "deadbeat" - but what are the consequences of that? He now has no incentive to use safe sex to protect against pregnancy outside of marriage, b/c the pregnancy doesn't affect him. He would be able to impregnate as many women as he wanted (have you heard about the guy in TN who has 25 or 26 kids and can't afford to pay for them - you think the government should be held responsible for his penis and sperm?) The woman however has to be completely on guard and make 100% certain that she doesn't get pregnant before she's married or she has no financial support.
What about rape victims? A man should be able to rape a woman, and not be responsible for a resulting child? (remember, the GOP is trying to re-define rape as being "forcible" for the purposes of seeking an abortion - so that choice may be taken away from women who did not physically fight back during an attack)
The second bolded part has me confused - do you think men should be able to elect to be on the birth certificate or not? It seemed like you were saying in previous posts that the man shouldn't have ANY rights whatsoever, and NO responsibilities whatsoever. If he wants to be on the birth certificate how is he supposed to do that if he's not married?
What happens when a married man has sex and creates a baby that he doesn't want - we're now making classifications based on marriage (which has a legal consequence - I believe that would be a constitutional violation). What happens when a married woman wants an abortion? The man STILL has no say in that - and theres another constitutional violation if we change it - we can't give different rights to people based on their "status" unless they are "rational basis" rights like tax breaks - fundamental rights need to be the same for all or we're headed right back down the "women are property when married and children are illegitimate when born out of wedlock". It's a slippery slope, and there is no "perfect" answer.
As for the first bolded part, I do not believe in abortion as a method of birth control. I am Pro-Choice - but b/c I believe it is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE that should be left between a woman, and her doctor. Other medical procedures are not nearly so highly legislated or debated (heart surgery anyone? should it only be available in certain special extenuating circumstances?), and so abortion should not be legislated either.