I dont think that anyone argues that there is an inherent difference between the experiences of a male and a female during pregnancy, abortion or other choice. If the female wants the child and the male doesnt, the male is on the hook to the female, if the male wants the child and the female doesnt, tough luck. With ‘emergency’ contraception being so commonly available, it seems little different to any other medication, although often times there isnt an initial indication that there was a problem.

I somewhat agree with the idea that males should be able to absolve themselves from responsibility, say, in the first trimester, pending positive identification of the male as the father of the child. And no, I dont mean what the woman says or swears, I mean through independant forensic analysis. Women lie. So do men, thats a given, but in something like determining responsibility for a life, well…

But my real point is, women make some really piss poor choices about fuckbuddies on most days. If you are going to have casual serial sex, get used to the idea of dealing with the fertilization of an egg. If you have beliefs that dont make this an option, you shouldnt be fucking anyhow, at least not casually. Select a better quality of man, train them properly and go on with your life. Since women seem to think sleeping with punks with popped collars and spray-on tans is cool, they get what they deserve. A real man supports his family, a real man gets a job and/or an education and as it turns out, real men often dont do the casual hook-up thing.

Noone is taking women to task for enjoying sex. I personally loathe sex unless the female in question is enjoying multiple orgasms, repeatedly. Sure, for many, it requires a fair bit of work, but if you arent willing to put the work into it, why bother? But if you do enjoy sex, you have to be aware of what that implies and be prepared to deal with it. If he buys the dinner and wine, you get to pick up the tab for the morning after pill, etc. Nothing wrong with enjoying sex and I dont think anyone is taking women to task for enjoying it, but women do have a responsibility to themselves if no one else, to be heads up about it.

Maybe there could be a ‘casual sex’ endorsement on women’s driver’s license, meaning that if you impregnate this woman, you have no legal responsibility for the offspring. That way, a guy could check the womans ID, know that his ass was covered and not worry. The female could opt or not opt and by not electing the casual sex stamp, could make it clear to the male that sexual activity has childbirth as a potential consequence. This would give some males pause about entering into a casual dalliance and perhaps make them think twice. If the young lady decided to carry the child to term and raise the offspring, the male would have noone to blame but himself and suffer accordingly (or, marry the woman, become a father in a real sense and live his life, etc).

I do molecular genetics and am very comfortable with the process of genetic identification. Any father of a child can be found and proven, almost without exception. But what protection do males have, and, do they even merit protection?

Last but not least, also remember that both oral and anal sodomy exist as forms of sex that dont tend to produce progeny. This encompasses both homo- and heterosexual relationships, another way to get your ya-yas (and orgasms) without risking issue.

True, some people would be more careful knowing that they go forward without a safety net, but I am going to make a stab in the dark and say that most people who would be concerned enough about losing a safety net are the very people who are concerned enough to use contraception.

The original post implies that women who have “casual dalliances” should be taken to task for enjoying sex as much as men do. It strikes me that under the proposed ability to legally disown an unborn child, men would have no incentive to be more discerning when choosing their sex partners and would just continue to have all the “casual dalliances” they like, because they can simply decide retroactively that they don’t want a child. The onus is then placed on women to vet every single person with which they choose to have sex.

I’m not going to knock on men or women who have casual sex, because it is their choice to live how they choose, and it is also the responsibility of both parties to make sure they use protection, and it is also the responsibility of both parties to be prepared to face the possibility of having a child with the other person involved. The concept of “trapping” is reprehensible, but it seems that many people here have forgotten that men have also “trapped” women by poking holes in condoms, for reasons as absurd as “saving” or “extending” their relationship. I even once saw a video in which a man poked holes in his roomate’s condoms so the girlfriend would get pregnant just because he hated his roomate–absolutely despicable. I can completely sympathize with men who feel they have been trapped, however the pure vitriol leveled at women here is disturbing to me; it is as if people feel this trait of using children as pawns and child support as leverage is endemic in the female population.

My immediate response was that to choose the verb “to be able to” is quite inaccurate here. This assumes a degree of responsibility and that the woman would think “I shouldn’t have this baby because I won’t get child support.” I do not think that it is fair (obviously with exceptions) to credit the women in question with this degree of responsibility.

I have to admit, I didn’t really read the posts before mine. As I was writing this, I skimmed them and they seem to be in support of this idea. It’s an interesting proposal, but while it may lower this type of pregnancy, it will also lower child support to women who find themselves in this situation. And yes, it’s bad to have kids that you can’t support, but once the kid is there, it would be nice for him or her to have a place to live and food.

I personally vote for methods 2 and 3, but I do have to admit that I havent had any form of intercourse that didnt fulfill method 1 as well, at least in the last 10 years or so.

God I am getting old….

The suggestions I made about how men would react to not being held financially responsible for the children they create are just as sexist and ridiculous as the assumption that women are incapable of making their own reproductive choices without taking away the ‘incentive’ for them to keep their children. There aren’t a whole lot of women in this world who decide to carry a child to term and raise it for 18+ years for the sole purpose of getting a measly little child support check every month.

Although it takes two to tango, still if one night in the toilet you would flush the pill, I would have no possibility to see that immediately. In couple of months when unexpectedy your belly starts to grow, but it is too late then.

Are you able to see if a man is wearing a condom? It’s not like one can “forget” it. If you have no condom, and a man has no condom and you say no, will there be sex? If there is going to be any unwilling penetration that is called something else than sex. I hope you are able to decide when, where, how and with whom you want to have sex. Doggy style and slipping the condom out without you noticing is not honest and that kind of guy would do it regardless of the law.

How the heck would it be possible for me to not care about contraception and you would get pregnant against your knowledge?

If we turn the tables, and men were promised that they wouldn’t be financially obligated to help take care of a child they helped create, we could assume that they would become careless about their sex life. Without the consequence of taking responsibility for their children, they would stop concerning themselves with contraceptions and have more sexual partners. All of the responsibility for preventing pregnancy would fall on the woman, and men would care less if they had put a woman in the position where she had to make the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

The concept of removing child support and government assistance from women with children is misogynistic because it suggests that women should be punished for having sex, while simultaneously suggesting that men should be able to enjoy sex without having to consider the outcome.

Alli is right. V is a stepmother who is pissed off that her husband had kids from a previous relationship and is having to pay child support.