Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Roe-v-Wade For Men

  1. Mar 9, 2006 #1
    I saw this on the news today and just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. I don't know what to make of it yet, but at first glance, I can see their point.

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 9, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wow.... that is actually something interesting. I'm also not really sure what to think of it. I mean one of the major ideas behind Roe V. Wade supporters is that the government shouldn't just force you to take care of a kid. Seems like such a point can equally be mirrored to men.
  4. Mar 9, 2006 #3
    Logicaly its a pretty sound case. I don't know how popular it will be, most people will probably view at a simple excuse for dad's to weasel out of child-support. A pity, since it is a logical conclusion of Roe-v-Wade. Oh well, that's the problems that arise from physical procreation. These are the times that I am glad I'll never have to worry about problems of the body.
  5. Mar 9, 2006 #4
    Sounds logical at first glance but upon thinking about it, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. The father doesn't want to be present-- okay, we'll allow that. Now the father doesn't want to pay...yeah, just keep poppin' 'em out and abandoning them boys.:rolleyes:
  6. Mar 9, 2006 #5
    Lets say two umarried people get together, and the women gets pregnant. The mother doesn't want to have the baby: she can get an abortion. The father doesn't want to have a baby: well tough, there's nothing he can do about it. See the point? Either have equality for both sexes, or none at all. Right now under Roe-v-Wade a woman can, as you put, pop'em out becuase she can just have an abortion. The guy can't, he's screwed.
  7. Mar 9, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well thats exactly what a woman can do. Bout ready to pop em out... oh screw it, just kill it. To me its just rediculous... but i do think this can be a sound legal base. You really need to determine a sound legal reason why this shouldn't be the case. I mean if you can pull so far out of left field the idea of unreasonable search and seizure being a basis to protect a woman's right to an abortion... that should be reason enough to protect a guy too. If the supreme court was forced to do this, i don't see how they can really say no to it...
  8. Mar 9, 2006 #7
    I see that but, in the end, it's another way for little boys to get out of being men. It isn't always about choice-- the difference between a woman aborting a fetus and a man abandoning his kid is that pretty much everyone agrees that the baby is a baby, a person, not a clump of cells. That's the problem with the abortion debate-- some think the fetus is a person, others don't. However, in this case, it's clear that the baby is a person. What's better for the baby? The guy can already get out of even being present in his child's life but now it's too much to ask that he at least give some money to his kid?:bugeye:

    About the "poppin' 'em out" comment that seems to be getting rather noticed:rofl: , think about it. A woman gets pregant, that's it for at least nine months. A guy gets one girl pregnant one week, he can do it again the next. Maybe he should watch how far he spreads his "seeds", yeah?:tongue:
  9. Mar 9, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's not a legal basis though. If you can say its about choice in one case, it is verrrrry hard to say it's not about choice in the second case when they're so closely related.
  10. Mar 9, 2006 #9
    Actually, you're wrong there. Most abortions are conducted before the fetus has even reached the three/four month mark so it isn't "bout read to pop em out" time when most pregnancies are aborted.:wink:

    I know that already.:wink: Think about it this way-- the man can already exit his kid's life without even seeing it once, the only thing tieing him to the kid is his having to pay for his "half" of it (Weird way to put it but you get the point.:rofl: ). If that's gotten rid of, that means men everywhere can just start sleeping around knowing that they don't have to stay or pay. At least the woman isn't putting a kid into the world and ignoring it, figuring, "Ah, it'll live...hey, let's go grab a beer!" Even adoption is better than just throwing the kid into some hell hole to starve.
  11. Mar 9, 2006 #10
    Common sense, a kid is involved in one scenario, a clump of cells in another. What's best for the kid is always the case, not whether the father wants to do what's best.
  12. Mar 10, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wrong. The law's dont care about common sense.

    As with most of your argument (not to be taken as offense), that is irrelevant. We're looking at legal basis. If an abortion CAN be done legally at such a point, that is all that matters legally. This is a case of law. Roe v. Wade was based solely on law, not morality or what's "right" or "wrong".
  13. Mar 10, 2006 #12
    And what is abortion but another way for little girls to get out of being women? In both cases (aside from instances of rape or medical reasons) we're talking about someone (male or female) being irresponsible and not wanting to deal with the consequences.

    A woman can get an abortion, put her child up for adoption, sometimes she can give the child up to a family member or even leave the child with the father (and I have never heard of a woman paying child support either). Men have NO CHOICE what so ever of whether or not they are to be responsable for the child. NONE. The only choice they have is to stay or go and then either pay child support or hope that the courts don't catch up to them and have their wages garnished.

    Yes, a man getting a woman pregnant and then walking away from the situation is irresponsible but so is a woman who has a child that she can not take care of.
  14. Mar 10, 2006 #13
    for the record, there have been plenty of women who've paid child support for their children that the father's have raised. you can google it. i just read that about 15% of the people who pay child support are the mothers. while still a low percentage, you have to consider that most single parents are mothers, and that the number of women paying child support has also been on the rise.
  15. Mar 10, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Source gale!??! muhahahaha
  16. Mar 10, 2006 #15
    Thank you Gale. I just said that I have never heard of it. All of the single fathers I have known are going it on their own.
  17. Mar 10, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This is most likely due to the 'traditional roles' defined by society. It's harder socially for women to give up custody than men just because that's not the way it's been done in the past. If a couple got divorced and decided the kids would be better off with the father because of the woman's professional requirements (long hours, frequent travel, whatever), most people used to assume that custody was given to the father because of problems with the mother (child abuse, alcohol abuse, whatever).

    When the traditional roles did more or less apply, the same problems that resulted in the father getting custody usually meant the woman wasn't the type that was likely to have enough money to pay child support. Even in situations where the father 'won' custody, he wasn't too likely to press the matter of child support if he thought it would provide extra motivation for the woman to fight harder for custody.

    Nowadays, with more women having demanding professions, it's more common for men to wind up with custody. Plus a lot of states have laws that make child support non-negotiable. Regardless of how the rest of the finances are settled, the last step is for the state to look at how things were divided and decide how much child support one or the other should pay.
  18. Mar 10, 2006 #17
    There are a lot of sides to the abortion debate. A woman who has an abortion and was not impregnated by rape is not necessarily irresponsible. Some would say that bringing a child into the world and neglecting it due to poor living conditions is worse. But that's a different topic.

    Back to the OT: You can argue all you want about what is fair or double standards. However, the fact of the matter is that the court will rule in favor of what is best for the child. Therefore, men will have to pay child support. In this case, abortion is irrelevant.
  19. Mar 10, 2006 #18
    This entire thing hinges on when the ruling about childsupport is. For example, a guy can't decide to cop out after the child is born. If this is used as a mirror of abortion then it should only be used in the same windo of time as an abortion can. Say a guy gets his girlfriend pregnant, decides he doesn't want the baby but she refuses to get an abortion. He could file a simple claim, sometime during the pregnancy, that he does not want the child and waives all rights concerning it, ergo waiving all duties concerning it. Surely this is logical and could be ruled in favor of at court.
  20. Mar 10, 2006 #19
    It seems like it might work, but again, the court will rule in favor for what's best for the child. And regardless of the fact that the woman might still have the choice to abort or not during this agreement, if she does give birth to the child, the child, regardless of when the agreement was made, will need monetary support, and I think that's enough for a court to rule in favor of the child.
  21. Mar 10, 2006 #20
    Ruling in the favor of the child is in stark contrast to the laws now (if you're anti-abortion). Why would this change anything?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Roe-v-Wade For Men
  1. Men only (Replies: 81)

  2. Men's topic. (Replies: 35)

  3. Question for men (Replies: 277)

  4. Fashion for Men (Replies: 352)

  5. Men will be men (Replies: 26)