It's up to the mother whether to give birth, but once the child is born, the state should decide which parent gets primary custody. Excluding cases where one parent is truly unfit, we could flip a coin. The "winner" gets the kid. The other parent would have visitation privileges & be ordered to pay child support. The custodial parent would also have the option to change places with the non-custodial one, provided the non-custodial one agrees. Otherwise, the state takes custody. Alternatively, we could balance the mother's exclusive choice about whether to bear the child with a "first choice" option for the father about whether he prefers to be the custodial or non-custodial parent.

OK... abortion and labor are both medical procedures, and no one but the woman should have a say in what sorts of medical procedures her body will undergo, unless she is comatose or otherwise unable to decide.

But yes, men shouldn't be forced to be fathers either. What sort of options could we have?

The opt out option is one. He should, in the first trimester (within the framework that a woman would have to choose) be able to "opt out", and declare that he will not have any contact for the child, or support the child. He will have no rights or claim to the child. He needs to do this while the women can still have an abortion based on that decision.

The problem is, if the woman aborts, there is no baby to take care of, but if the man opts out and the woman has the baby, then there is going to be this kid who will probably end up in povery, on the taxpayer's dollar.

A possible solution would be for the father to give his half of the baby up for adoption... that is, he could opt out if he could find someone else willing to take on his role. But that isn't the same as the abortion "poof! no baby" situation.

I think as technology advances, these questions will resolve themselves. Maybe some day, the woman will be able to have the fetus removed from her uterus without having to kill it, and it can be grown in an artificial womb, in which case the father can be given custody, and the mother can pay child support, or, it can be killed if both parents choose.

Until we find a way to make babies not rely on uteruses, the system will not be fair. Either men or women will get the short end.

i don't at all give you that parenting is a right as such. it isn't absolute and it is dependant upon the effects on the rights of a child and so it isn't a right. it's a legally recognized, very, very protected priviledge. but, the child's rights to be taken care of trump parenting "rights." you, actually, should check out family law. there are certain parenting "rights" within the scope of exercising one's parenting priviledges, such as, for example, having veto power over whether or not an estranged grandparent can visit. but that "right" is only administrable if one has the parenting priviledge in the first place. a right can't be taken away. parenting can, and, unfortunately or fortunately (i'm not sure i've a definite feeling on this), be taken away not even for necessarily criminal conduct. that's how precarious it is. ask anyone whose lost/won a custody battle.

also, women are not absolved from the responsibility. if you read both of my posts (?), you'd see i said so. anyway, if the woman has the child, are you under some odd delusion that she has no resposibilities to the child? don't lets be coy. it's generally 20% of income for the first child and 30% for two or more. Guess how many child-support skipper guys have several children? how much is 20-30%? Usually not much and never enough. where else, praytell, do you think that child's RIGHT to be taken care of is coming from? magic? try "mom." whether the mom is doing it well is another issue...

and, again, you CANNOT get around the biology (as it stands). you can't. for a man to exercise that kind of supposed "right" he would HAVE to invade upon the woman's right (absolute) over her own body.

PERIOD. how is a fact of biology "unfair" to anyone? i can't have a baby without a man and would (as i'm not very straight). do i cry that my right to decide to spread my DNA in creating a new life is being infringed? no, i don't.

but, sure, maybe yeah for the day when i can and when men could. that day is not even on the horizon.

and: it isn't unfair or silly to tell men to exercise their right within, as law student said, their statue of limitations. it's logical and biological. as i've said, if i made my argument clear enough (debatable), there are at least three separate issue to look at here and if you divide them up properly, it is easier to see why the whole argument is odd.

though, i do appreciate your not bringing to tone down to women bashing. thank you for taking what i'm trying to say seriously.

That's 1 Corinthians 13:11. My bad.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

-- 1 Corinthians 13:12

Some of the postings here have provided evidence that conservative Christians, although they have (in my view) terrible politics, are far better people than many avowed liberals. I couldn't imagine the conservative Christian men I know whining childishly about how they were deceived by some bitch into impregnating her, or trying to use some other justification to escape parental duties, or insisting they have some kind of right to no-strings-attached sex.

I do sympathize with men who are sad when their partners decide to have abortions. Most likely, the women are sad, too. But ultimately, the pregnant woman is the medical patient, and she has to make a series of decisions about her medical care, based on an evaluation of risk. Examples: should she have certain pre-natal tests, should she use an OB-GYN or midwife, should she have a vaginal birth or C-section? I would hate to make these kinds of decisions for someone else, including the decision about whether to bring a pregnancy to term.