i have to say i like this idea. i like it a lot. except i do prefer the eventually-removable iud or something similar versus permanent sterilization, because who knows, some of them might straighten out their lives, and then might make excellent parents. at least i would suppose they should have the eventual opportunity. but i like this idea.

The problem is this is still small numbers game. Unless it could become more mainstream it will be like throwing a sponge into the rising tidal waters and hoping it will stop the flood.

Where can we send donations? Seriously?

What about the sperm donors of these kids? If any of the fathers stepped forward and raised them I would say great, but if not, why not get them vasectomies as well?

I'm with Whatever, I like the long-term birth control idea. I think it is a great idea. It's also probably easier to straighten out if you don't have kids to deal with. Even if the kids were taken from you, and not an immediate distraction, I imagine the guilt would make one want to use more. This takes away that distraction, makes them free to hit bottom and recover. And if its an IUD, then when they get it together they can move on.

I think its a great idea.

Are vasectomies reversable?

... oh, and it's like the starfish on the beach story. Even if you can't save them all, why not save a few?

I think this is a great idea- as a teen I always wondered why there wasn't a program like this anyway. People who choose to live off the system, should not be allowed to reproduce. And I say this as one who was raised by a widowed single mother who's salary was well below the poverty line. I don't care about your reproductive rights if you keep expecting a hand-out. People need to learn to be responsible about their choices. I would love to have a pet right now, but I don't because even though they don't cost as much to take care of as children do, I realize that I can't afford to care for another life when I am struggling just to take care of myself.

If guys want to get paid for vasectomies I think that's great too-best to attack the problem from all sides

vasectomies are sometimes reversible. not always. FYI.

The "delicate area of family life"? How about the delicate area of my wallet?

"You're not going to be a fit mother, so we're going to take that right away from you.' "
To that, Barbara Harris says: Why not?"

Why not indeed. Really, where can we send donations? And boy, do I know what I'm doing if I ever win the lottery. What a great idea. I do question why she had to adopt so many messed-up kids from this woman before coming up with the idea though. Do single men qualify for welfare? If so, then heck yes we should snip them too. In fact, just like with stray pet control programs, we need to focus on the men first, since just one can impregnate so many women. If only we could do it when they go to jail. You know, fill out their intake papers, get their hair cut, get a vasectomy, get assigned a cell.

I don't see why it needs to be reversible. These women had their shot at parenting, they failed, game over.

"I don't see why it needs to be reversible. These women had their shot at parenting, they failed, game over."

I'm with you, momof4! I say the same for both the men AND the women. How many chances should you get to screw up a kid's life? How many of them should you be able to produce and then cast away like puppies at a rescue shelter? If the sperm donors of these kids don't want a vasectomy, they should step forward and adopt the kids they've already fathered and be proper parents to them. Otherwise, tough noogies. Hell, I'd take it a step further than what this organization is doing - I'd make it mandatory by law.

Here's where you can donate:

http://www.projectprevention.org/

I'm jumping on the momof4/Pirate Jo bandwagon. I totally agree with both sentiments.

PJ thought of the same thing I did... why not a program for the men too? I guess the mothers are easier to identify. But if one follows the conventional wisdom that there are a relatively small number of alpha males getting most of these women pregnant, then it makes sense to go after the men. They'd probably have to be offered more money, though... a couple of hundred bucks won't do it. And yes, it would be easier if there was a form of male birth control that works like Norplant. Nonetheless, it's an idea that ought to be considered.

I love this idea. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Amy.

Donation done. Love paypal!

Personally, I think it should be mandatory, and not something they get a reward for doing. Oh, well, 125 a year isn't very much. That will get you about six rocks of crack, and that will be gone in one night.

Ben Edward Akerley writes: Even though the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 prohibits any welfare mom from getting additional cash for another baby, she will get additional food stamps and that extra bounty can serve for some as an incentive to have yet another child.

Perhaps in the case of a welfare mom, yes. But regarding the crackhead in the story, I don't think crackheads are that savvy. "I'll just keep making babies so they give me more food stamps." Quite heedless of the trivial amount she's really being offered, I'd bet she'd go for the idea.

"Perhaps in the case of a welfare mom, yes. But regarding the crackhead in the story, I don't think crackheads are that savvy."

People popping out babies for a welfare check are clearly not thinking about long-term financial independence. If that was the case, they wouldn't be having babies they could afford to support in the first place.

But yes, these crackheads are even worse with their sheer, utter and complete thoughtlessness. It's less than short-term thinking and more like non-thinking altogether.

Listen to this dimwit:

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/crack/project_prevention_in_hartford_connecticut.php

"And is it about the kids, really? Or is it about the "haves" making decisions for the "have nots" about who should be allowed to reproduce? There's something frightening and familiar about that. It stinks of eugenics, of the coerced sterilization of poor Southern blacks in the last century."

Come on, is this more "code words for racism?" Who is the racist here? This person seems to be saying that only black people are crack addicts.

And this one:

"There's nothing voluntary when you're waving $300 under a drug addict's nose. Why not just skip a step and hand out rocks of crack?"

Um, wouldn't this be all the more reason for a person like that to be on birth control? If giving this person $300 means they are going to buy crack with it, what makes you think they will spend it on diaper or baby formula as soon as they give birth?

I can't get my head around the criticisms of the project. It's like they don't understand how many people are affected by this horrible, irresponsible behavior. No, it's all about the idiot's right to breed. Well who pays for that?

Meant to say *couldn't* afford in the first place. Darn keyboard - I blame Windows Vista.

So great that everybody's donating. Added a clear link above to the spot where you can donate on her site. You can also mail her a check or money order. There's an address at that link.

Wonderful! I don't give a damn what they spend the money on. And where's the coercion? Ms. Harris makes them an offer, they accept it or not. No force or threats involved.

I think the critics just can't believe it could be that easy. Some people just love the taste of sour grapes.

PJ, did you read the letter from the ex-addict, telling Ms. Harris to ignore her detractors and tell them about her (the addict)? I just read it and damn if that woman isn't right on the money. All of those people who have been critical of this project need to step out of their realities and step into this woman's. Then, perhaps, they'd get it.

I did read it. In some ways I felt sorry for her, and am glad that she seems to be getting her life together. In other ways I wanted to smack her silly for having done so much damage already. If you want to smoke crack, get on birth control FIRST! You will have more money for crack without a baby around anyway. For crying out loud. Anyone who will sell their fertility for $300 and then use it to buy crack ... IS SOMEONE WHO SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS ANYWAY. There is nothing wrong with saying this.

I also posted the link on my FB and my moms groups. They have buttons you can add to websites, too.

Boortz has been going off about single welfare moms all morning.

You know, convicted felons lose the right to vote. Why not lose the right to procreate also?

And get over the race/poverty thing. I don't want anymore Bernie Madoff's clogging up the gene pool either.

I couldn't agree more with Pirate Joe. I have long felt that you should have to be on birth control to qualify for welfare. I'd love to see these women have to go to the welfare office every month to pick up their check and get their depo shot.

As for the "What if they get clean and would make great parents?" argument....well, then they can do a goood deed and adopt some of the children that addicts who did not take advantage of this program are losing/giving up every day.

Am emailing the link and article to our local crisis pregnancy center. Who knows what the response will be, but with all of the Cabrini Green population moved up here from Chicago, I'm sure there would be plenty of takers.

For once, Hollywood actually pulled off a smart black comedy on this subject with Citizen Ruth (1996). Laura Dern was terrific.

[Imdb capsule: Ruth Stoops is a poor indigent drug-user (a huffer - inhaling glue and paint for a high) whose down and out existence is complicated once more by becoming pregnant (she has had and lost four children already). When a judge orders that she gets an abortion or face a felony charge, she is befriended by Gail Stoney, a pro-lifer whose husband is president of the local "Babysavers" group. Suddenly Ruth is thrust into the middle of the pro-choice/pro-life struggle, with each side wanting her to take their side as a "message" to others - and the situation escalates...]

Oooo, great idea juliana. We've got 8 or so-I'm sending it to them

The fabu part of this is the lack of force. There prolly hasn't been a time in the last 50 years where you could actually make a law that sterilization is required, it hits too close to removing a civil right, and they'd be screaming racism in a heartbeat... I wonder what the numbers are for the methheads in the heartland? I'd bet they have such issues too.

This works as a volunteer thing, but it seems like it could be done through govt. as well. I know someone who had her first kid on welfare, and medicaid paid for the tubal when she had the kid. [In TX] dunno if it's like that everywhere, but still. THAT'S an educational thing. Even so, the nurses and various tried to talk her out of it, as if she would regret it. DUMB. When you look at a person who is on welfare, has no education, and so forth... You can have HOPE that they will make stuff happen, but the numbers are against you. So, if they are willing to go for it, you should help them. Having a kid can derail whatever things they have going well for them, and unless you use B/C that they can't conveniently forget, the downside is high.

So, paying 'em $500 to get snipped, saves you the $5000+ if they birth a kid... and that doesn't cover the potential lifetime cost of that. OI! Cheap at twice the price.

About guys? Well you got to catch them... What're the odds? Yeah, you should have the program apply to them, but the rate will be dismal. Can't miss a pregger woman, guys are a whole other thing...

"There prolly hasn't been a time in the last 50 years where you could actually make a law that sterilization is required"

But birth control? Why should an IUD or Norplant not be a condition for receiving any form of welfare?

The cries of racism are nonsense: if it happens that more of one race than another are on welfare - and that is likely to vary by location - so what? It has nothing to do with the question.

The idea of paying women to be sterilized, rather than having taxpayers pay to raise their children, is not new. My homeland, the Czech Republic, and other eastern European countries have been doing it for decades. The Roma (gypsies) in these countries have astronomical unemployment rates (90% in the Czech Republic, for instance), and very rarely graduate from high school. But very large families are the norm. The state has to pay the bills, and these are poor countries that can't afford it. So during Communist times, Roma women would be paid to be sterilized. This practice continued after the collapse of Communism. Now lawsuits are flying everywhere, along with accusations of forced sterilization & Nazi eugenics:

http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/050724/sterilized-roma-say-they-did-not-consent

Since this was written, a number of Roma women have won hefty awards from the European Human Rights Court. As a Czech, I can confirm that the prejudice towards Roma described in the article is real. But so is the fact that these women kept popping out kid after kid for the state to take care of, and the state was at wit's end as to what to do about it.

I hope some of these generous donations to ProjectPrevention are going towards a legal defense fund, so that they'll be able to ward off the inevitable charges of genocide against the black community.

Heck, I could use $200 to get my tubes tied, since I'm not gonna breed anyways.

It's a little icky to pay people for something like this. Might make it better if that incentive were available for anyone that wanted it. It would be mandatory only in cases of documented abuse, etc, and would still be paid at the same rate, regardless of income.

One question: Are they also paying for the sterilization or birth control?

"If the sperm donors of these kids don't want a vasectomy, they should step forward and adopt the kids they've already fathered and be proper parents to them. Otherwise, tough noogies."

Just couple of comments from a "sperm donor".

1.) Birth control fails. Have you ever had a condom break? I have, or more correctly it was broken by my now ex-girlfriend who wanted to become pregnant to try and keep me from moving out of state.

Women have significantly more choices when it comes to birth control, [2 for men and 23 for women according to planned parenthood] an IUD or depo shot is much more effective then a condom. Especially when you look failure rates in actual usage compared to ideal use.

Also depo is free if you go to the health department. Claiming that the man and the woman are equally responsible when a pregnancy occurs, while; conveniently ignoring the fact that men have much less control over their fertility then women do is pretty disingenuous.

2.) Only a woman can decide to keep the baby or not AFTER she becomes pregnant. As I stated before birth control sometimes fails; but, the mother can still decide to continue the pregnancy. And usually does in spite of the wishes of the father who is held financially liable.

3.) Only a woman can feed a baby drugs in utero, which; is essentially what a drug addicted mother is doing.

4.) Only women get to leech off of taxpayers when they become pregnant, men don't. Men financially liable for any children they create. Not only are women NOT financially liable, but; they get to take other peoples money as well. Poor women have a financial incentive to have more children: They get food stamps, WIC, Free Health care, Child Support, and subsidized daycare. If the woman has a financial incentive to have a child, and the woman is the one who gets to choose whether to have that child, then guess what she usually decides.

By the way if you're pissed off that poor women women get a ton of money, goods, and services when they have a child. Then why aren't you writing your Senator demanding that they cut off funding? If you don't like the incentives given to poor women to become pregnant then use your common sense and reduce or eliminate those incentives!

That being said, dumb ass guys who go out and continuously sleep with women, not using protection, should be offered the same deal.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that MEN are the ones feeding drugs to unborn children, or; that MEN are the ones taking your hard earned money every time they pop out another screaming meatsack. They aren't WOMEN are.

This is extortion; I don't want to pay people to merely behave as they ought to anyway. You can prattle about the practicalities all you want; paying tribute to pirates is not a solution.

removal of their abilities to BE pirates, is at least a partial, no? I agree with the sentiment Crid... but the only answers I can think of, are so complex they don't work. Maybe the reducto of the potential group could help. :shrug:

Tribute; no.

Mike: I agree with you on all counts, which is why I often find myself repeating this, even to my male friends, because they just don't get it: Men need to be more careful than women, in both birth control and in choosing partners, because their choices are much more limited. It's not fair, but it is the reality of human biology. For as long as women are the ones to get pregnant, they will have final say in whether the baby is born.

Men and women ARE equally responsible for making a baby, assuming both people were willing sexual partners. If the baby has your DNA, you are ethically and legally responsible for it, whether you wanted it or not. This isn't a secret to anyone.

So be careful and never let your condoms out of your sight.

I even criticized my fiance for this -- for putting a ridiculous amount of faith in me that I am taking my birth control as I should. And I KNOW I'm not trying to screw him over.

Mike Hunter, good points.

"My body, my choice => my responsibility!" Oh, no!!

Men don't get welfare generally, and the law already has draconian machinery in place to extract $$$$ from "sperm donors" -- both voluntary and involuntary.

So, those who whine, "What about the menz?!", please accept reality. This is about irresponsible parasites who just happen to be female. Expecting women to be generally responsible in their breeding choices has proven to be a failure (40% of births to unwed mothers currently, and rising. 70% in the black community). Bribery just might work, so why not?

As for men "just stepping up" to fatherly responsibilites, don't be naive! The system is stacked to keep fathers, and unmarried fathers especially, APART from their kids (non-custodial "parenting") so that money from "dad", AND MATCHING FEDERAL $$$, can be obtained.

It can be VERY difficult for a biological father to gain custody of his child when not married to the mother. Child Protective Services often place children into the foster care system with NO attempt to contact the biological father, even where his contact information is known.

Women's maternity is automatically established; men have the burden of proof -- unless mommy decides to lie on the birth certificate and establish paternity for some unsuspecting dupe.

Just more reflexive male-bashing and woman-excusing. I don't hold it against anyone personally, though. I know this is how you have been taught to think. Trying to raise awareness, is all. :)

Why not go after the men? A couple of reasons.

First of all its simple practicalities.

Maternity is a fact, paternity is an opinion...unless you shell out big bucks tracking down and testing every single guy the woman slept with, many of whom she may not even have names for because it was a 1 hour "date" to pay for the next high. Its just not practical to go hunting sperm donars, either financially or logistically.

Second of all, it comes down the simple principle of population. Those of you who are hunters are well aware that the chief target of dear hunting is always males. Yeah the antlers look great over the fireplace & all that...but there is another reason. You can kill off many many male dear, without impacting the overall population levels. If you wipe out 20% of the males, the ones who are left will happily mate with that many more does, whose progeny will keep the population up. When the population is far to great for a given area, reducing the population means targeting does.

By the same principle, if you want to have an impact on the aforementioned problem, a simple cost benefit analysis tells you that the only thing you need do is target the unfit mothers in question. I do like the idea of a vasectomy as a standard part of serious offences. Who the hell wants those guys to perpetuate themselves?

But there is the argument of "What if...they get their lives together and might make good parents?"

Well I have an answer for that.

So what?

Choices have consequences. Not all of those consequences are good, in fact some of them are damned ugly, and don't tell me that the consequences of interminable years of horrible behavior shouldn't have some consequences.

There is an old adage, either Roman or Greek, that it is the horror of war that makes for peace. Fear of negative consequences, shame, jail, or the loss of future opportunities, these things are as relevant to how we choose to conduct ourselves as our desires to be great, our ambitions for a better life, a hunger for knowledge or a desire to create and express ourselves, as important as our desire to love or be loved, or anything else positive that you can imagine, whether praise or pride or self respect.

So yes, while it may be, hell IS, sad that a person sterilized during a decade long period of drug use in the gutter after popping out two or three crack addicted babies into the social services system...can't have any more children in her mid thirties when she's a stable soccer mom in the suburbs, we can't gamble on her becoming stable, we already know she's not when she's in the gutter trading a rut for rock, or her reproductive ability for cash so she at least doesn't get knocked up while she's shooting up. If you live your life as a dependent child of the government, you do not have the rights of an adult, because you'll just wreck the lives of children, and burden the resources of working tax payers.

In short, screw em. If the saddest thing that happens to them is that they can't have kids later, well its nothing compared to the havoc they wreak on the lives of the children they had when living as human train wrecks.

Wrong thing to be throwing money at. Wrong damn thing.

So they won't be leaching off the govt, they'll be leaching off charitable people who want them to behave better. How does this make sense in the long term?

What happens when you charitable people get sick of the leaching and find something else to donate money to? What happens when we get all these woman sterilized and pat each other on the back and decide now that the job is done?

Whatcha think is gonna happen to the crime rates folks? The sense of entitlement for people who get money for doing nothing knows no limits. Like the bratty child who keeps getting candy thrown at her so she'll behave...what happens when she wakes up to REAL LIFE?

This is a band-aid, not a solution. I'll save my money for the solution.

If someone said they had a charitable organization that was bending politicians ears to cut welfare and implement programs that show people life skills and teach them how to earn an honest living - I'd donate.

How does this make sense in the long term?

This isn't THE solution, the magic bullet that will cure crack addiction and make everyone responsible, but I'm OK with it as a Band-Aid, seeing as how that Band-Aid may prevent three, four, five crack-addicted, FAS babies from being born into that environment. Fewer children suffering, and fewer children to grow into drug-addicted adults and give birth to their own crack babies. $300 is a small price to pay for that.

I can understand that it is well meaning, it's just backward thinking IMHO.

The key words in Feeb's second comment? A charitable organization to run the program, not a government program. That's important.

(Amy, are you going to cry salty tears if that organization is churchy?)

Amy - the reason that this will never really get off the ground is the race hustlers will make sure to cry RACISM loud and long enough and with Obama in the WH, you can be sure there will be no serious welfare reform measures, just because of the RACE issue.

OK, I definitely don't want the government mandating any forms of health care, reproductive or otherwise. I think the government should stay out of this program.

But I'll probably give after my next paycheck.

"conveniently ignoring the fact that men have much less control over their fertility then women do is pretty disingenuous."

Really? Women breaking into your place and stealing your sperm while you sleep? Or do you otherwise have absolutely no say as to which vagina you penetrate, or the circumstances surrounding said penetration?

No. You just want fun with no possibility of consequences. Tough-that's not life. You bring the condom, you keep it, you apply it. But yeah, some still break. So you probably want to know a little something about the woman that vagina's attached to, before you stick it in.

>>I think the government should stay out of this program.

I agree, NicoleK.

And that's not my liberal side speaking either.
It comes from the soles of my trendy libertarian boots!

"If someone said they had a charitable organization that was bending politicians ears to cut welfare and implement programs that show people life skills and teach them how to earn an honest living - I'd donate."

There are plenty of these, but that isn't the problem. You have to WANT to do those things.

Human procreation is such a strong drive, I don't think you can account for it by saying 'don't do that'. How do you control feral cats? [besides shooting them] You snip em. This is the same thing. You are cutting off the problem at it's source, IMHO. Fewer that can have unwanted kids over their LIFETIME, fewer kids to grow up the same way. Reducto.
Anything else seems like backward thinking, to me. But the devil is in the details, wherein lies the rub.

Amy, I'll donate.

Swiss says: "There are plenty of these, but that isn't the problem. You have to WANT to do those things."

Well, I am quite sure if you remove our current government enabling programs that you will find a lot more of those people willing to WANT to do them....especially with chartable organizations in place ready for the offering.

The rest of the folks...tough shit. But THAT will be their choice.

I guess one of the big problems with this is that it allows the current welfare system to exist with zero consequences to the government and as a continued burden on the American public.

I don't fault anyone here for wanting to donate... I just would rather eliminate the wreck of a system that has enabled these folks for far too long - the one that has actually contributed to and exacerbated this problem (at taxpayers expense).

They are typical addicts. They won't want to get better if they are still getting their needs met, and our government continues to provide it because we don't demand the type of unPC-type-solutions that these situations require.

I can't in all good conscious donate money that I know will not solve the problem that is at the root of all this (Amy's project YES, this NO). It's about principle.

I say, YANK THEIR UNEARNED MONEY (OUR money actually), first, then we'll talk.

Crid writes: This is extortion; I don't want to pay people to merely behave as they ought to anyway. You can prattle about the practicalities all you want; paying tribute to pirates is not a solution.

I'm with Crid on this one, but with one particular. It's technically not extortion since the crack-baby-makers didn't extend the offer, "Hey, pay us money, and we won't make chemically dependent kids."

It's more like people are bribing them not to make babies. Not that this makes the arrangement that much more palatable. I'd rather see these pieces of sub-human filth undergo sterilization (permanent and irreversible) for another reason: staying out of prison.

Reminds me of a story I read in college. I judge named Victor Pyle offered three convicted rapists a choice: 30 years (because it was the most horrible rape he'd ever heard of), or voluntary castration.

Yeah, you can want the government to stop giving these people anything. But that's not going to happen, and certainly not soon. IN the meantime, any baby I can stop from being brought into a world of hellish pain and early death, I will. That's the great thing about voluntary charity as opposed to government-we can fund the things we want to.

For those of you who think this sort of thing ought to be mandatory: Are you also opposed to government involvement with healthcare? If so, how do you justify that?

franko writes: For those of you who think this sort of thing ought to be mandatory: Are you also opposed to government involvement with healthcare? If so, how do you justify that?

If that's directed to me, I have no problem with government involvement in healthcare. The current system failed, and miserably, due to corporate greed.

As I hinted at earlier, I think healthcare should be one of the public services, such as the fire and police department.

There is of course healthcare involvement by the government. The military's doctors are government employees, as are prison doctors & public health clinics and so on and so forth.

The system as it is has succeeded pretty well, unless you define success as things it wasn't meant to do, though it is true that in any large system there will be failures & abuses,they are few compared to the successes.

All that being as it is, well I think such a program of mandatory infertility while someone is a ward of the state & unable to care for themselves or others, would be reasonable mandate in order to go on or stay on the public dole, and whomelse would be suitable for managing the program?

Small point: To those who are wondering if Project Prevention offers sterilization to men as well, the answer is yes, they do. It wouldn't be a bad idea to play that angle up in their marketing, especially since (as many have pointed out,) one man can impregnante so many women at once, but I suspect that the lack of targeting the XY set might have something to do w/the fact that the men who father substance-addicted babies are less likely to be the type to even know if they've knocked up the mother in the first place/bear the burden of the child later.

"I think such a program of mandatory infertility while someone is a ward of the state & unable to care for themselves or others, "

And what would be the criteria of such person(s)? Foster kids are wards of the state. How about a victim of a car accident - unable to care for themselves...?

If people want to go about donating to a charity to do this - I got no qualms about it even though I myself wouldn't donate. You start in with the government - I'm gonna have big problems with that.

One thing though, a lot of birth control comes with risks. For example, a risk of the patch is blood clots, which can be fatal (I happen to know this one because I was on the patch and read the packaging).

Clot risk is increased in smokers. I assume they mean cigarettes, but I can't imagine crack being much healthier.

This woman needs to be prepared for a lawsuit in case one of her clients dies of blood clots.

The risks, slim though they are, is why I don't think the government should be forcing people towards any form of health care.

I don't see a problem as long as they are choosing this option. And the government is already involved in health care. Those mothers and their children are no doubt on medicaid.

My boyfriend is having a vasectomy this week. It'll cost $1200. Insurance won't pay. It's kind of unfair that repsonsible people don't have the same option. I agree with Crid that it's kind of like paying bounty to the pirates, but it's cheaper than supporting the offspring.

For fuck's sake... How much pampering do you need in your life. I eagerly paid for my own vasectomy... That's how it goes for "responsible people". No lottery ticket could ever have given me so much bang for the buck.

The problem is, Crid, some people apparently do need a lot of pampering. As things are we end up paying for them one way or another. Those kids that are born are going to be a drain on the system. I know that sounds cold, but they are. Even if you gave them nothing but what middle class kids... ie, an education, it is a lot more work to educate them than your average kid.

My insurance paid for my tubal; I had to pay a co-pay of $75, but that was a pittance, as far as I'm concerned.

Crid, if insurance will pay for viagra, but not vasectomies, it seems like they're sending the wrong message. Costs them more in the long run for people to have kids, and it certainly costs us all more for people to have kids they can't afford.

We don't need pampering - the procedure is affordable for us - but it seems wise for insurance to cover it. The cost of delivering a baby is much higher, not to mention all the doctor's visits a child needs. Like Flynn mentioned, they cover tubals, so why not vasectomies? You'd think they'd want to encourage it.

How about eliminating welfare and food stamps, and legalizing drugs, so that the drug-abusing mother won't have excuses for not seeking rehab (the law) and not getting a job (easier to stay at home).

And yes, I'm aware that getting a job is more easily said than done in these times.

> Those kids that are born are going
> to be a drain on the system.

This ain't a "system", it's a civilization. Many women, either through personal weakness or species-broad psychopathology, are going to be making babies but not providing them the love they deserve (including loving fathers). I agree that it would be neat-o if we could put a stop to this robotic pain-making, but I don't think we can. The clampdown on freedom that would be required is just too great... Even –or perhaps especially– when approached with velvet-glove techniques.

Money for sterilizations? Let's say the program took off bigtime. In the third year, someone does a geographic chart of the distribution of checks... And whaddya know! There's a preponderance of little gold stars in a America's urban centers! (Wink-wink, nudge-nudge!)

> it seems like they're sending
> the wrong message.

Responsibility is doing the right thing whether you get the right message or not. In any case, I know of no one who looks for messages from insurance companies on how to live. NOBODY trusts those people.

I don't see how offering incentives for people to act responsiby is a clamp down on freedom. It seems like common sense policy to me.

Why do we have to purposely act so stupid with regard to this issue? Why should almost all the social incentives of this civilization - from insurance to the media - be geared towards making babies not preventing them?

We have a problem that causes terrible suffering, and results in children becoming grownups with absoutely no idea how to behave responsibly since they've never seen that behavior. What is wrong with giving them incentives to at least hold off on reproducing? Especially if they've already dumped a few kids on the taxpayers.

The decision is still theirs. Just like me purchasing birth control pills for myself. Nobody's twisting my arm to do it. Yet, at $60 per month, it's a financial sacrifice. Surely, most of these women choosing the option of long-term birth control or sterilization recognize they don't need to get pregnant. It's more racist to presume they can't think for themselves and make an informed choice.

"If the baby has your DNA, you are ethically and legally responsible for it, whether you wanted it or not. This isn't a secret to anyone."

Your sentence should have read:

'If the baby has your DNA, you are ethically and legally responsible for it, whether you wanted it or not. Unless your a woman.'

After all women can pop out as many bastards as they want, and then walk away from their parental responsibilities; Leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill. Women unlike men can unilaterally abandon their parental responsibilities by taking advantage of adoption and abandonment laws. Or they can just kill it by getting an abortion subsidized by the government if being pregnant for 9 months is just too much of a hassle.

"It's not fair, but it is the reality of human biology."

Really it's biology that allows women to abandon their children after they're born; leaving taxpayers with the bill? It's biology that takes half my paycheck every month, and gives a irresponsible mother money that she isn't accountable for; all because of a bastard that I didn't want was conceived by using fraud?

I could have sworn laws pushed by corrupt special interest groups like the National Organization for Women, and passed by corrupt politicians did all of those things.

I wonder how many older women pushing the "It's not fair but biology isn't fair" line were singing the same tune when abortion was illegal, and women were compelled to see their pregnancies though.

"No. You just want fun with no possibility of consequences. Tough-that's not life."

Unless you're a woman. In which case you can be totally irresponsible; and still have multiple chances to rid yourself of icky things like responsibilities. Or maybe you'll decide to keep it and get all of that free money from the government and child child's father instead. Silly me I though women wanted equality. You know things like equal rights and equal responsibility.

Also a fun little fact for all of you haters: According to the National Institute of Health 50% of the adult female population has had an abortion at some point in their life. I wonder how many hypocrites are lurking on this board.

I love when people say "well women don't have any consequences for an unwanted pregnancy because they can just put their baby up for adoption or get an abortion" as if an abortion isn't a real consequence. Abortions are expensive, painful, inconvenient, time-consuming, and can potentially have horrible side effects-like infertility or death. Not to mention there's major stigma and emotional repercussions attached.

My friend, who like me is a college student, recently had an abortion. It cost $450 and the process took approximately 8 hours, including transportation time, and required several follow up visits. Still, she was relatively lucky because she has a car and there was a clinic only about 30 minutes away. If she we went to a college in a rural area where the nearest clinic was 3 hours away, or she didn't have a car, or she had a job that she couldn't take time off, or we were under 18 and needed parental consent, the process would have been really, really daunting.

The guy who she got pregnant with was a nice guy and paid for half of it, which of course he had no obligation to do. But she was the one who had to go through all of it; he paid $200 and got to walk away from it. I'd say he got off pretty easy.

Women have very real, unavoidable consequences of unwanted pregnancy: there's a baby growing in them. They've got to do SOMETHING about it, whether that's putting their life on hold to raise a child, carrying the baby and putting it up for adoption, or aborting it. None of these are easy solutions. Sure the woman gets to choose (and really, how else could you go about handling this?), but it's pretty much a frying pan-or-fire type of choice.

Guys on the other hand, can theoretically just walk away from a child that they've created. Obviously this isn't desirable for the kid or society, so we as a society have created state-imposed consequences for men (being forced to pay child support) to act as a disincentive to go around getting women pregnant. Women already have natural disincentives against unwanted pregnancy-they don't need any more.

Of course, this all gets screwed up when women have positive incentives to get pregnant on purpose. So I definitely say take away the financial incentives (welfare, housing) and watch pregnancy rates drop. At the same time though, fathers need to be held more accountable for their own kids. Why should *my* tax dollars be going to pay for *your* kid when you get off scot-free to go knock up more baby mammas?

As far as your abortion statistic, Mike, I wonder in how many of those cases the father said, "No! Don't abort my child; let's get married and raise this child together." My guess is very, very few. Men benefit from abortion just as much as women do, if not more, but they can say "Well, it's her body, her choice" and wash their hands of any responsibility for deciding to kill a child, when in reality they were at no point prepared to raise or support it. Talk about hypocritical.

I had a friend in High School it happened to, Shannon. He was pretty traumatized that his baby (fetus) got killed.

50%? Is that counting the Pill and Plan B and miscarriages?

What about the consequence of having to raise the child to age 18? This normally falls to the mother, so it's not as if women walk away scott free. Mike completely discounts that part of the scenario.

No woman has to raise the child. She can always abort or give it up for adoption. I think that is what Mike was getting at.

"Or maybe you'll decide to keep it and get all of that free money from the government and child child's father instead."

He seems to be implying that women who keep their children are just having a great time with the "free money"...that it's an easy job and only the man suffers.

I'm adopted, and I found my birth mother when I was 18. No, she didn't have to raise me, but she definitely faced consequences. She sufferes years of guilt, and her other children were pretty upset when they found out they had a sister.

I found my father too, so nobody gets to walk away with no consequences. Abortion is painful and often has lasting psychological effects, as does adoption.

" In which case you can be totally irresponsible; and still have multiple chances to rid yourself of icky things like responsibilities."

So do you. It's called: 1. use your OWN condom 2. know the woman you fuck 3. accept that sperm can and frequently do make babies when ejaculated into vaginas, no matter what you personally want. Have sex accordingly.

as if an abortion isn't a real consequence. Abortions are expensive, painful, inconvenient, time-consuming, and can potentially have horrible side effects-like infertility or death. Not to mention there's major stigma and emotional repercussions attached.

If abortions are so horrible for the perspective mother then why did your friend choose to have one? Obviously because the few days of discomfort, and the extremely small chance of negative side effects, which come from minor surgery, are nothing compared to the destruction that being forced into parenthood or yolked to an irresponsible partner can bring for the rest of your adult life.

"My friend, who like me is a college student, recently had an abortion."

"...but they can say 'Well, it's her body, her choice' and wash their hands of any responsibility for deciding to kill a child"

How does it feel? Believing that your friend is a murderer? By the way "my body my choice" is a female mantra.

...to act as a disincentive to go around getting women pregnant. Women already have natural disincentives against unwanted pregnancy-they don't need any more.

This isn't about incentives or disincentives. It's about equal protection under the law; and taking responsibility for your body and your choices regarding it.

Why should *my* tax dollars be going to pay for *your* kid when you get off scot-free to go knock up more baby mammas?

Indeed.

Why should my tax dollars be going to subsidize your friends abortion when she get's off scot-free to get knocked up again and murder more unborn children?

Why should my tax dollars be going to pay for all of children who were up for adoption, when the baby mamma's get to walk off scot free?

Why should my tax dollars be going to pay for all of children who were legally abandon at hospitals or fire stations, when the baby mamma's get to walk off scot free?

Not to mention that my tax dollars are going to subdize your education. After seeing your ignorant, and sexist comments I want my money back.

Here's a good idea. If you don't want to pay for other peoples children, then tell your senators to stop giving your money to them!

As far as your abortion statistic, Mike, I wonder in how many of those cases the father said, "No! Don't abort my child; let's get married and raise this child together." My guess is very, very few.

Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they want, the mother is the one who decides whether the child lives or dies. And whether the father can keep it or it gets given to strangers.

This is another example of women wanting to have their cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways privilege princess. Either people should be able to unilaterally abandon their parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has occurred, or; they shouldn't. Regardless of gender. And if you don't believe in gender equality then you need to shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen, because it doesn't matter what you think.

So do you. It's called: 1. use your OWN condom 2. know the woman you fuck 3. accept that sperm can and frequently do make babies when ejaculated into vaginas, no matter what you personally want. Have sex accordingly.

If you don't know the difference between avoiding the creation of parental responsibilities, and ridding yourself of responsibilities that you already have; then your even stupider then I thought. By the way I did all three. But it's pretty hard to avoid pregnancy when a woman sabotages a couples agreed upon method of birth control.

>"Why should my tax dollars be going to subsidize your friends abortion when she get's off scot-free to get knocked up again and murder more unborn children?

Why should my tax dollars be going to pay for all of children who were up for adoption, when the baby mamma's get to walk off scot free?

Why should my tax dollars be going to pay for all of children who were legally abandon at hospitals or fire stations, when the baby mamma's get to walk off scot free?"

What are you talking about? Adopted children are supported by their parents, who must prove they are financially sound before they can adopt. Babies abandoned at fire stations or hospitals are almost always adopted by loving, financially-secure families. My adoptive parents never took a dime from the state.

And Shannon just said her friend paid for her own abortion. Your tax dollars aren't involved at all. It's very presumptious to assume that you are paying for her education. Judging by your ignorant comments, I highly doubt you make enough or pay enough taxes to fund anyone's education....and, if you do, it should be your own.

Stop acting like such a victim. Like momoffour says, you DO have a choice - wear a condom, and don't screw people you barely know.

"But it's pretty hard to avoid pregnancy when a woman sabotages a couples agreed upon method of birth control."

Hard for someone else to sabotage something you are in charge of. And gee, you sure didn't know her very well did you?

Bitter, bitter man. With what-let's hear it-ZERO accepted responsibility for the fact that this kid got made. Gee, I have no IDEA how my sperm ended up in her!

What are you talking about? Adopted children are supported by their parents.

Some are. Many end up in the foster care system which is supported by taxpayers.

Babies abandoned at fire stations or hospitals are almost always adopted by loving, financially-secure families.

Again some are, many end up in the foster care system. Paid for by taxpayers.

Shannon just said her friend paid for her own abortion. Your tax dollars aren't involved at all.

Planned parenthood is subsidized by the federal government, and thus my tax dollars. I did help pay for her abortion.

It's very presumptious to assume that you are paying for her education.

No it's not. If she goes to a public university then it is subsidized with federal tax dollars. Where do you think that money comes from. The same is true if she gets student aid, and the overwhelming majority of college students do.

Like momoffour says, you DO have a choice - wear a condom, and don't screw people you barely know.

First of all I did both of those things. Read my original posts.

Second of all you can spin it any way you want but men don't receive equal protection under the law in regards to an unplanned pregnancy. Women have all the rights and men are stuck with all of the responsibilities. Common sense, basic fairness, and our system of government require that all people receive equal protection under the law regardless of race, gender, social class, etc. Either you believe in equality or you don't.

Now go ahead and lie to me. Tell me that you've never had sex with someone who you wouldn't want to have a child with.

>Now go ahead and lie to me. Tell me that you've never had sex with someone who you wouldn't want to have a child with.

Yes, I have, but, being a woman, and knowing that the outcome could drastically effect both my body and my life, I always properly used birth control, and I accepted the possibility that even that might not be enough.

I don't believe in abortion of a healthy fetus, so that wouldn't have been a choice for me. All my partners knew me well enough to know that.

Sometimes, we take calculated risks, and they may not always work out in our favor. Clearly, you trusted your sexual partner much more than you should have.

Yet, the end result is that you deposited your sperm into HER body. You made a baby. It's not about equality under the law. You simply don't have the right at that point to make the choice about killing that child or not, or telling a woman what she should do with the baby growing inside her, which may confict with both her physical health or her beliefs.

So that's an extra incentive to be especially cautious as a male. Biology controls this situation. There's no way to make it completely "fair". Some situations are just like that. Get over it.

The ugly truth is that women do have it much better in the above regards.

A woman can have an abortion and make the man pay, even if he never had sex with her, or even met her. Examples of this have been posted here before, and yes, it has ruined innocent lives.

A man has no say over his unborn progeny's fate, the sad truth here for men is that there is no equitable way TO have such a say. Biology is a bitch, so there it is guys.

That said though, it is equally commen for women to attempt to rope men into relationships, marriage, whathaveyou, by deliberately getting pregnant, in an attempt to force his hand. In such a case, where a woman lies and or defrauds the man in question, he has no legal recourse. He has no say over the product of the union, and he now has no say over what responsibilities he is willing to undertake...the government has already mandated that his wallet is fair game.

Is she charged with fraud? NO. Why not? What is the cost of child support for 18 years from a middle class man?

Well, when the progeny is born though, what are his rights?

Not much. Its already been covered here how badly women have misused the courts to guarantee custody, to sabotage visitation, to otherwise excise everything about the father (except his wallet) from their child's life...and how said woman expects to be lauded as heroic for being a "single mother".

If all that fails, she can just claim abuse, and expect the judge to "play it safe" even in the absense of evidence or even verifiable slander...but is she charged for her slanderous words or perjerous statements & accusations. No.

And if she's worried about that, she can always shoot him in the back with a shotgun while he sleeps, and claim she was abused because he liked her to wear high heels during sex, and god forbid, spoke harshly to her when he finds out she overspent thousands of dollars and wrecked the family finances. Those things are abusive too, because he wasn't validating her feelings, and we all know how vital that is.

And if that isn't enough, well there is always the false rape allegation to fall back on, even if its proven absolutely and unavoidably false, well there will still be hoards of "feminist scholars" eager to say, "well those men probably learned something about how hard it is for women now..." as if people paid for a useless discipline of opinion spouting and gender bashing have any idea what the word "hard" means in any context.

So yes, things are unbalanced in favor of women right now. No, things are not fair towards men, but worse than that, they are outright unjust and frequently unconstitutional. Yes, we've granted women special legal status that gives them both an infantalized mandate to be irresponsible at will, as well as the social & financial support to do so ad nauseum...(and hero status if they do it with a kid) as well as having given them a special protected status as permanent victims, which makes them of course, all but unassailable under the law.

I love women...but only certain ones, I have a good mother for my children, a daughter that is the delight of my days, a mother of my own whom I revere for her moral conduct and devoted parenting, and until she died I had a grandmother that was the best a boy could ask for growing up.

But the last ten years have also seen me grow very wary of trusting women, I know you ladies hate to hear it, but how else should I react? I've seen false allegations of sexual assault, rape, & harassment occur for the most frivolous & selfish of reasons. I have a friend paying child support for a child that isn't his. I have seen countless female soldiers get pregnant solely to avoid going on deployment, & or ride that no physical training mandate for well over a year or more, if they don't get out entirely and waste the 90 grand it cost to train them in the first place.

I truly want to hold a high opinion of women in general. Once upon a time, I did.

I have a female tenant renting my condo while I'm deployed who said & I quote:

"Having a realistic view of women in general, means having a low opinion of them."

She manages a restaurant, worked hard & got ahead, and barely a day passed when she didn't have problems because of the way women either treated work, their careers, their coworkers, their bosses, the customers, or each other (And rarely was there an occasion when there was not a man to blame).

Women such as Miss Alkon, or some of the female commentators here, are powerful & noble exceptions that show what women CAN be, (and you know who you are).

But you know, the truth of the matter is that even those of you who hate every word I've just said know the truth...that if you want to find a real misogynist, you need only find another women, no one hates women, like other women do.

Men like me resent the inequality, we resent special treatment, the abuse of our wallets & the imbalance in expectations.

Men like me miss the days when we weren't automatically assumed to be perpetrators just because a woman said so, most of us, myself included, don't "hate women", we're not "opposed" to the feminine, and yes, most of us have fantastic women in our lives, sometimes more than one in some capacity or another.

If you doubt it, well ask yourself how many women friends have turned on you over the years, hell how many women made sexist, misogynistic, and outright vicious verbal & written attacks on female politicians, compared to how many man do the same to the female politico?

I think Chris Rock said it best:

When a man meets his best friend's girl, if he's impressed by her he'll say to himself, "Man I gotta get me a girl LIKE that."

When a woman's best friend meets the former's man, she thinks, "Man I've gotta get me THAT."

Lovelysoul is dead on, some situations ARE like that.

But if a woman is trying to get pregnant, why the hell shouldn't she be required to disclose that? Why the hell, if she lies about birth control, shouldn't she be charged with fraud?

How would you prove that she did it on purpose?

I think that's the problem.

Robert, I used to have a very low opionion of other women. In my 20s, I tended to mostly have male friends. I was bullied in school by other girls, so I guess that left me with a distrust and dislike. And many times I was indeed betrayed by other women - gossiping behind my back, trying to steal my boyfriends, etc.

Yet, as I grew older, I began to make some really great female friends. These are honorable women who wouldn't hurt a man, woman, or a fly without just cause. I can always trust them to be fairminded and ethical.

In retrospect, I had just as many reasons to have a low opinion of males. I was hurt often by men too - dumped, cheated on, misused and lied to on many occasions. I've also seen my female friends abused and hurt. A friend of mine was shot to death by her boyfriend.

One of the most important skills for us to develop is the ability to tell the difference between decent people and non-decent people. And what I've come to realize is that non-decent people exist in both genders. It's really unfair to hold either gender accountable for the actions of a few.

Most of the non-decent people became that way because they weren't taught any values, or grew up with such a negative opinion of the other gender to a point where they feel no remorse at hurting them. Certainly, there are women who view men as "marks" or targets more than fellow human beings with feelings. But that is also true for many men.

So, I don't believe it's productive to become bitter at one gender or the other. What purpose can it serve? How does it further us in any way? We're only reacting from our individual experience and pain, not from a constructive viewpoint.

The best we can do is try to be better judges of character, and keep the toxic people out of our lives. By my 30s, I'd gotten much better at that...at choosing people, male and female, to invite into my life. If they create too much drama, or show poor ethics, I keep them away. As a result, I've discovered really nice people, of both genders. They do exist, so you can't close your eyes and just shut down that possibility or you'll miss seeing them, and the more experience you have around them, the better you'll become at spotting more like them.

I think most people are pretty decent. Very few people act out of malice, even when they hurt people, most people don't do it on purpose. Trouble is, the few malicious people that exist wreak so much havoc that they tend to stand out more in our memories.

"Tell me that you've never had sex with someone who you wouldn't want to have a child with."

I've had sex with plenty of men I wouldn't want a kid with. I always made sure -on MY end-that BC was covered. And being prolife, knew there was always a possibility of a kid anyway. And I didn't have sex if I couldn't handle that fact. Why should men not have that worry?

"...knowing that the outcome could drastically effect both my body and my life, I always properly used birth control."

Good for you, that makes two of us. But that has absolutely nothing to do with womans' legal right to unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities, and mens lack of ability to do so.

"I don't believe in abortion of a healthy fetus, so that wouldn't have been a choice for me."

Again completely irrelevant. The bottom line is in the event of an unintended pregnancy you would have had the chance to surrender your parental responsibilities, and your male partner would not have had that same choice.

As I stated before this isn't about abortion, thousands of women abandon their children at hospitals, and fire stations each year, or put them up for adoption without the fathers knowledge or consent. If these women are allowed to surrender their parental responsibilities then why shouldn't men be extended the same legal protection?

Laws discriminating against a class of people based on their gender are no different the laws discriminating based on skin color. The laws in question are both immoral, and unconstitutional. Everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th amendment.

"All my partners knew me well enough to know that."

Again irrelevant.

"You made a baby."

You probably fail health class so allow me to educate you. Men do not have a uterus, therefore they can not make babies.

Pregnancy is a female condition; it's her body that carries a baby and I am not responsible for her body or the choices she makes with it. If she chooses to have unprotected sex, or; sabotage our method of birth control then she is responsible for the choices that she made and the impact those choices have on her body. If she chooses have a baby and keep it then she should be legally, financially, and morally responsible for the choices that she made.

Likewise I am responsible for my body the the choices that I make with it. If I have unprotected sex and get herpes or AIDS she should not be responsible for my medical bills or any pain or suffering that I have to endure. I made a choice, and now I have to live with that choice and the consequences that it has on my body.

It's a pretty simple concept. In a free society people have the right to make choices about their own lives; and shouldn't have the ability to make others pay for the consequences of those choices. Additionally in a free society everyone should have equal protection under the law. Everyone should be held to the same legal standard.

"It's not about equality under the law."

Yes it is.

"You simply don't have the right at that point to make the choice about killing that child or not, or telling a woman what she should do with the baby growing inside her, which may confict with both her physical health or her beliefs.

I never said I did, and for the 100th time this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is simply a means to an end; that end is choosing to abrogate your parental responsibilities. How a woman chooses to do that is not my concern.

Under current law a woman absolutely has the right to choose to be legally and financially responsible for a child or not. But if women are granted that legal protection then common sense dictates that men should be extended that legal protection as well. In fact the 14th amendment of our constitution demands it.

Not to mention that that other people shouldn't be responsible for a woman's choice. If she chooses to keep a child and raise it then that's fine. But she should be legally, financially, and morally responsible for her choice. Her body, her choice, her responsibility. With rights come responsibilities. Again common sense.

"Biology controls this situation."

Really?

Biology made it legal for women to abort their children?

Biology made it legal for women to give their children up for adoption without the fathers knowledge or consent?

Biology made it legal for women to abandon their children at hospitals and fire stations?

Biology decided not to go after mothers for child support after they abandoned their children or put them in foster care?

Biology takes half of my paycheck every month with the threat of jail if I lose my job and am unable to pay up?

I could have sworn the politicians that make laws did all of those things. But keep lying privilege princess maybe someone will believe you.

"There's no way to make it completely 'fair'. Some situations are just like that."

But there is a way to extend everyone equal protection under the law. Which is a constitutional mandate.

"I've had sex with plenty of men I wouldn't want a kid with."

So you're a hypocrite.

"always made sure -on MY end-that BC was covered."

That makes two of us. But what does that have to do with anything?

"And being prolife, knew there was always a possibility of a kid anyway."

First of all this isn't about abortion; abortion is just a means to an end.

Second of all your personal morality is irrelevant, you have the legal right to have an abortion. Also I've seen plenty of "pro-life" women suddenly change their mind when faced with the possibility of being yoked to an irresponsible father for the rest of their life.

"Why should men not have that worry?"

Why should women not have to worry?

If you believe that people should not have the ability to surrender their parental responsibilities then that's fine. Outlaw abortion, repeal abandonment laws, and charge women that put their child up for adoption child support.

If you believe that people should be able to surrender their parental responsibilities then that's fine to. Extend those protections to men.

But allowing one class of people to adhere to one set of laws, and forcing another class of people to adhere to a different set of laws is immoral and unconstitutional.

In the 60's African Americans were fighting for legal equality by trying to end segregation. Today gays, and mens rights activists are fighting for legal equality in the area's of marriage and reproduction. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'll let you have the last word since you 'tards are basically repeating yourselves at this point, and I'm getting tired of typing the same thing over and over.

Interestingly enough, men CAN surrender their kids to the state. The only thing a man can't do is have an abortion, and really if you can't take the chance of BC failing, then LIKE women, you shouldn't have sex. WHen women abandon their kids under safe haven laws, they do notify the father if the father is known. Now, since it's impossible for the mom not to be known, it may seem like women have more rights since a man can't possibly surrender a child and say "I don't now who the mom is". But-like it or not-that is biology.

Plenty of men abandon their parental rights daily. Now, as to why a man has to pay child support if he's known and the mom wants to keep the kid, IT'S BECAUSE YOU MADE THE KID. YOU. YOUR SPERM. Go gay if you really, really don't want that risk any more.

I'll agree IF it can be proven a woman intentionally poked holes in the condom or whatever, then yes, laws should cover that. But since condoms fail with some frequency all on their own, and men aer equally as likely to say "I'll pull out" and not do it as women are to say "I'm on the pill" and not be, I really fail to see your POV on making women raise the baby sans support.

I'm not a hypocrite for agreeing I have had sex with men I didn't want a baby with. Had a baby happened through BC pills and condoms, then it was both our SOLs. We both screwed, we both pay. Really simple.

Mike, the problem is that you can't give men an "opt-out" clause without also offering the reverse. To be fair, men who WANTED to keep the baby and become fathers would then expect to have the right to mandate that a woman carry the pregnancy to term. That's never going to fly. But, technically, it would be "fair". So, then you'd have men arguing that their right to choose fatherhood was being denied.

What I don't get is that it comes as such a shock to you that sex - even protected sex - might result in a pregnancy. Momoffour and I have both said this possibility was always in the back of our minds, even though we used birth control. Sex is not a safe sport. Even with protection, there is the risk.

I sympathize with your perspective in that I always knew if an unplanned pregnancy happened, I could handle being a parent on my own, if need be. However, the idea that my sexual partner would likely be IN POSSESSION of the child that might result would put a different spin on things. I'm sure if biology was reversed, and men carried the pregnancy and raised the children, I would have been extra cautious about who I chose to have sex with and probably wouldn't have gotten intimate with some men. We women know what kind of parent we'll be, but we have no idea about you.

That's your dilemma in reverse, and I don't envy it, but I know that your solution would never fly. You can't mandate a woman have an abortion or endure a full 9 month pregnancy. It's a very personal decision, which needs to be made by the person carrying the unborn child.

And you can't opt out from responsibility for a child you helped create. In keeping with your questions, why should the taxpayers have to pay for your child because you made a foolish choice or took a risk? Why should your child grow up without a father, which contributes to all sorts of social ills, just because you selfishly don't want to take responsibility for your decision to have sex?

Either way, I don't want to see the government involved in mandatory sterilizations. We aren't Saudi Arabia. We don't punish crime by mutilating people's bodies.

LS writes: "What I don't get is that it comes as such a shock to you that sex - even protected sex - might result in a pregnancy. Momoffour and I have both said this possibility was always in the back of our minds, even though we used birth control. Sex is not a safe sport. Even with protection, there is the risk."

For you and other women who properly use any of the very-high-reliability methods of birth control available to women, not that much risk. Most women who use the Pill or IUDs will go through their entire fertile years without an unplanned pregnancy. On the other hand, men who rely on condoms, and have sex with unprotected women (whether they know it or not) have a 2 out of 3 chance of becoming a father sometime during their lives. You would feel differently about these things if your choices for effective birth control were limited to the irreversible choice of vasectomy, or lifelong abstinence. Men place a whole heck of a lot of trust in women, knowing that the women we love can very, very easily destroy our souls and our lives if they choose to, and the only thing we can do to avoid it is not not have relations with women, ever. It's damn scary.

"And you can't opt out from responsibility for a child you helped create."

Why should I not be able to? You can. Whether you would choose to or not is immaterial. You have rights under the law that I do not have. I grew up with the feminists hammering into my brain that differences in biology do not excuse making one group of people second-class citizens. Now I'd like to see the feminists live up to that high-flying rhetoric. But I'm not holding my breath.

"We don't punish crime by mutilating people's bodies."

Perhaps we should. My SIL is Iranian, and they (according to her, and she's no fanatic) have no theft problem there. Losing a hand is quite the deterrent, apparently.

Of course, I like the death penalty. Even if some innocent people die. heck, I'd sign up to be the innocent person who dies, if it means society can rid itself of predators permanently.

Tangent :)

Dave, it would be a nightmare if we allowed an opt-out for males. Mostly for the children, but surely for the already overburdened family courts.

And, like I said, you couldn't allow an opt-out without an opt-in too. That would reasonably be deemed a denial of rights for those men who don't want their children aborted. Their right to CHOOSE fatherhood would be denied. Again, another nightmare.

It's unfortunate, but I don't see a better solution, except more reliable birth control for men. Yet, frankly, I suspect that very few condoms are actually mutilated by women or break/fail as often as has been suggested. My guess, based on experience, is that men simply don't wear them as often as they claim. Most men I dated would wear them at first, but as soon as they felt we "knew" each other better - usually after only a few encounters - they'd want to leave them off, especially once they knew I was on the pill.

So, yes, that requires trust, and is a big risk, but it's apparently one a lot of men prefer to take rather than the "inconvenience" of wearing protection. That's their mistake.

Condoms are really not that unreliable if used properly and regularly. And if a guy wants to not wear one, then he should at least be in a committed relationship with a woman that's on the same page with him about parenthood and/or abortion. The pill is only reliable if taken properly, and even then, it can fail. So, I agree with momoffour, you BOTH take the risk whenever you screw.

It's not enough to say, "Well, yes, but you women can abort." Many of us don't believe in abortion. And even those who do wouldn't say it's a great solution without any negative effects, emotionally and physically.

I know I said I was done, but; I couldn't help myself from going back to look at the comments forum one last time.

"Interestingly enough, men CAN surrender their kids to the state."

Men cannot unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities to the state. At least according to the attorney I consulted when dealing with this situation, and I'd be willing to be she knows a heck of a lot more about family law then you do.

Also according to her fathers can also not take advantage of abandonment laws and leave unwanted children at fire stations or hospitals. Women can. At least in the state of Florida, and I'm willing to bet a weeks pay most states have similar restrictions.

But hey why have an honest debate about the facts when you can just lie.

"like it or not-that is biology."

Differences in biology do not excuse differences in legal protection. One has nothing to do with the other.

This quip should be familiar to anyone who has seen arguments in favor of government enforced segregation that were printed during the 50's and 60's. Segregationists claimed that blacks were biologically different from their white counterparts, and therefore could not [or should not] have the same legal rights.

Similar arguments were made about women by people who opposed woman's right to vote during the suffrage movement in the 20's.

"Plenty of men abandon their parental rights daily."

I'm concerned with parental responsibilities not parental rights big difference.

"IT'S BECAUSE YOU MADE THE KID."

I don't have a uterus so I can't make a child. Pay attention! I know you probably slept though health class but I already pointed this out multiple times above.

"But since condoms fail with some frequency all on their own..."

Wow we have one poster trying to attack my pov by claiming that condoms frequently fail, and another poster arguing with my pov by claiming that condoms are very reliable. I wish you two would make up your mind.

"men aer equally as likely to say "I'll pull out" and not do it as women are to say "I'm on the pill" and not be, I really fail to see your POV on making women raise the baby sans support."

Again if you can't see the difference between someone lying about the use of birth control, and someone not using birth control with a fully informed partner. Then your an idiot. Pulling out is not a form of birth control.

"why should the taxpayers have to pay for your child because you made a foolish choice or took a risk?"

They shouldn't. But your question is an example of the logical fallacy 'the false dilemma'.

The choice isn't either force financial responsibility on men, or; make the taxpayers pay. You can choose to do neither. Allow men to have reproductive choice, as women do now. At the same time holding women morally, legally, and financially responsible for the reproductive choices that they make.

Even if I were to accept the premise of your question, your argument would be ridiculous.

Either both sexes should have the the legal option abandoning their parental responsibilities, or; neither should. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a child because a woman made a foolish choice or took a risk?

The last time I checked taxpayers subsidize the foster care system, they also subsidize planned parenthood and therefore womens' abortions.

You can't have it both ways. Again this is an example of a group of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Which of course is nothing new.

"Their right to CHOOSE fatherhood would be denied."

There is no legal right to parenthood, although many women would like to argue otherwise. I'm not suggesting that we create one. I'm only advocating that we extend legal protection already granted to one class of people to everyone, or; repeal those legal protections all together. This is common sense, and our constitution explicitly requires it.

"So, I agree with momoffour, you BOTH take the risk whenever you screw."

Women don't. They can unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities in the event of an unintended pregnancy.

"even those who do wouldn't say it's a great solution without any negative effects, emotionally and physically."

Comparing the minor discomfort of a walk in procedure to the havoc being yolked to an irresponsible partner for most of your adult life is ridiculous. That's why so many women facing unintended pregnancies get abortions.

But yet again this problem has nothing to do with abortion. The issue is that even if abortion was illegal a woman could still unilaterally surrender her parental responsibilities, and a man cannot.

Ok I'm done now. I promise. You can lie all you want.

LS, I'll throw out a few more comments here, and then I'll let you have the last word. We've discussed these topics here before, and I don't want to tie up too much bandwidth whipping this dead horse.

"Dave, it would be a nightmare if we allowed an opt-out for males. Mostly for the children, but surely for the already overburdened family courts."

The problem is... that sounds like a tacit admission that the system is relying on the fathers to financially support the whole thing. Consider: when a court goes after a "deadbeat dad", what are they really after? Are they trying to make him be more involved in his child's life? Are they trying to make him assume his responsibilities as a parent? No, they just want his money. And no matter what else he does for the children, if he's not paying whatever arbitrary amount of money that the court has decided he should be paying, off to jail he goes. Conversely, if he does pay his support every month on time, the court is satisfied, even if the man has never seen his child.

(I will add this: the truly irresponsible baby-daddies get away with it more often than not. Courts don't spend much time pursuing them because, well, it's a lot of trouble. It's so much easier to just run a computer scan of employment and license records. Of course, most of the men they catch this way aren't scofflaws; they are well intentioned men who simply don't make enough money to pay support and have anything left to live on. Worst of both worlds.)

"And, like I said, you couldn't allow an opt-out without an opt-in too. "

Why not? When we're talking about one's own body, those rights supercede. I think we can all agree that no matter what one might think of abortion, no woman should be forced to abort because her partner wants her to. And as long as abortion is legal, no (adult) woman should be forced to carry a baby to term on anyone else's say-so. I compare it to situations that occasionally arise with children, one of which we discussed here recently. Children have a basic right to refuse ineffective or dangerous medical treatments, even if their parents think otherwise.

It's true that a man who wants to become a father still can't do so without the cooperation of some woman somewhere (at least, not until someone invents an artificial womb). These men always have the option to adopt, which is the same option open to infertile women. So there it is. Biology should not be an excuse for legal limits, but it can and does dictate physical limits.

"Yet, frankly, I suspect that very few condoms are actually mutilated by women or break/fail as often as has been suggested. "

Back in the day, I twice had condoms break. (And I didn't have a very active sex life as a single man.) Fortunately, both times it happened, um, early enough in the process to avoid repercussions. One of the two times, I didn't have another one, and we had to switch to alternate activities. (Yeah, she dumped me after that, too...)

I'll say this one more time, even though I've never met a woman who believed it: You'd feel differently about condoms if you had to have sex with a piece of plastic over your clit and a rubber liner in your vagina.

"It's not enough to say, 'Well, yes, but you women can abort. Many of us don't believe in abortion." (I'll assume this statement applies to the abandonment options too.)

But you do have the right. Here's an analogy: I have the right to make racist statements. It's a right I don't plan to use because I don't believe in that. However, that doesn't change the fact that I still have the right to do it. And it would be an intrusion on my civil rights if that were taken away. (I hope I don't have to explain that to anyone...)

Consider: A married woman who is opposed to abortion/abandonment is raped, and becomes pregnant by that rape. Now what? If abortion is legal, then she has an option, in which she hopefully is in consultation with her husband. They may decide that they cannot bear to raise the child of her rapist, and given the special circumstances, she makes an exception to her general view and has the abortion. Or they may decide that the life of the child is more important, and she carries the child to term and they raise the child. The important thing is, the law gave them a choice. The law did not compel them to raise the child of a rapist. They did not have to go through the next twenty-something years of their life resenting their society, their law, their country for compelling them to bear the burden of a felony committed against them.

And that's the point I'm trying to make -- this isn't a male-vs-female thing. It's a law thing, a civil rights thing. If the law cannot compel a woman to bear responsibility for a child she does not want, how is it that it can do so to a man? How does that not violate the 14th Amendment and make men second-class citizens? And again, I'll repeat that second-wave feminists made it absolutely clear that biology was never, in any case, a justification for all of the ways that the law used to discriminate against women, no matter what. So what makes it acceptable for biology to be used as the reason for the law to discriminate against men? And why are feminists OK with that?

"I don't have a uterus so I can't make a child. Pay attention! I know you probably slept though health class but I already pointed this out multiple times above."

Someone slept through health class alright, but it wasn't me. Do you honestly think that uteri grow babies all on their own? You aren't involved at all? And I'm really tired of your "partner lied about BC" line. You. did. not. choose. well. who. you. fucked. The law doesn't need to be changed to abdicate your responsibility for your own choices.

I know someone who dropped their kid at a safe-harbor here in TX after the mom walked out and left for parts unknown. He had no problems at all. I don't like the man, he's a relic of my DH's past, but I know him, and he did it, and the law let him.

This is just one of those areas of life where there is not a solution which will please everyone. A man and a woman who create an unborn child can have very conflicting views of what to do. Some men will be upset that their unborn children are aborted; others will be upset if they're not. The law simply can't give BOTH parties what they want a lot of the time.

And then there's the child. Unless you're going to mandate that any unplanned pregnancy must be aborted if the father is against it, there will be a child...with the fathers DNA, heredity, and the natural emotional needs all children have for a father. Not to mention the social benefit of that for all of us.

To propose that fathers be allowed to walk away scott-free if a woman chooses life over abortion is just bad policy, for the children as well as society.

Women forget to take pills on time. BC pills are only as reliable as the woman taking them. If she forgets a day or two (and, admittedly, I have), they can fail. Any man who would assume he's completely safe just because a woman is on the pill is being foolish.

In my view, this is just one area where the old adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law" applies. Biology is at play, like it or not. Mothers have physical possession, so they get to make the call.

If you're smart, and don't want children, you shouldn't have unprotected sex with a woman who desperately wants one or is against abortion. That is a discussion that any responsible couple should have beforehand. I had that discussion with my boyfriend before we stopped using condoms. He knew where I stood - that, although I wasn't trying to get pregnant, I would keep the child if it happened - and he made the choice to take that risk and stop using condoms. But it's STILL a risk (which is why he's having a vasectomy today). Sex is an inherently risky activity that can result in pregnancy. We can't just remove that risk for males because you want it to be that way.

Dang. There's that logic thing again ... .

To justify women's unfettered right to abort, pro-choicers say that no "child" or "kid" is being killed -- only fetal "tissue" is being removed that is no business whatsoever of the inseminator (not "father").

But, to justify their unfettered right to simultaneously hold men financially responsible when they choose not to abort, women say that men, simply by depositing sperm, created a "child" -- no matter what his "choice" or intentions were.

Mutually exclusive logically? Of course. But that doesn't mean anything to people who now expect to get what they want when they want it no matter what they wanted yesterday or will want tomorrow -- and have someone else pay.

Sorry ladies, but everything comes with a cost. The right to abort did not come for free. You have been able to unfairly shift the cost to men so far. But that WILL change. Equality, when it finally comes, will quite an unpleasant shock for most women.

Cousin Dave, the problem is the rights of a child, once born, supercede the rights of the parents. Once the kid is here, it is here, and someone has to support it. Better the parents than the taxpayers.

While it is true that the man doesn't have the right to force a woman to abort it is also true that neither has the taxpayer. If the man doesn't pony up, -we- have to. That is what I personally object to.

Honestly, the only way to make it fair -for the parents- would be to allow a time period after birth, say 24 hours, where either parent could kill the child.

I don't see that happening. And it wouldnt be fair to the kid.

Once the person is here, someone has to provide for it.

There are the needs of three people to balance. The kid comes first, if the kid comes at all.

Another issue is that many women do not even know they're pregnant until they're past the window for a safe abortion. What would happen then? How could you prove she knew in time to even have the choice or offer the father one? There are just too many variables here.

And, Jay R, women differ in their opinion of when life begins, just as men do. There's no grand consensus. The fact abortion has remained legal reflects the conflicting views of the entire country. Lots of men and women apparently view the fetus as nothing more than "tissue". That's the only way any of the men here could be advocating that a woman can "just abort" in order to give them the convenience and freedom not to worry about unplanned pregnancy.

I don't feel that way though. I believe a life is created. There's a heartbeat within 2 weeks of conception. The brainwaves can be read within weeks. I, and a lot of other women, do not view that as merely tissue and personally couldn't abort a healthy fetus. Abortion is a very personal choice....that's why it's called pro-CHOICE, not that every women would make the same one.

That's why this just won't work. There's no way to make it completely "fair" or "equal". You can't mandate that a woman either abort or go it alone. It takes two to create that life. And once the child is born, you both have a responsibilty to it. The mother usually doesn't get off scott-free - she still has to RAISE the child. You all seem to forget or dismiss that - like having a child is just a money-making scheme.

The best solution is for everybody to stop screwing around so much, having casual sex with people they barely know, much less trust. In decades past, you were supposed to wait until marriage, and if you didn't, the girl's dad would put a shotgun to your head until you took responsibility. Sex has never been without consequences for men and it never will be. At least, now, a man can walk away without marriage to someone he doesn't love and just write a check. Many would consider that an improvement and a greater freedom for men.

"At least, now, a man can walk away without marriage to someone he doesn't love and just write a check. Many would consider that an improvement and a greater freedom for men."

So right, Lovelysoul. Too bad, what with all this great "gender liberation" we've been having, that this is rapidly becoming the norm. Men have heard SO often that all these independent, liberated women are capable of doing it all -- and doing it twice as well as any man, at that! So, men are increasingly happy to let them. Fish and bicycles, remember.

And we wonder why the studies are showing that women, since the advent of their "liberation", have been getting measurably unhappier, while men's overall happiness has increased? Hmmmmm.

Seems to be getting worse (for women), not better. Welcome to the vaunted status of primary, no, make that sole, breadwinner! Bask in the power and the glamour of it all! Just like the men have been doing all this time.

Dumbasses.

We live in an era where the decision to have a child is considered by many to be of less importance than the decision to get married. Given how frivolously marriages are formed and broken, this is not a statement made lightly. The rate of teen pregnancy in the US is significantly higher than in almost all other industrialized nations. For a surprisingly large number of people, the idea of creating a new human life does not immediately imply the responsibility to create a safe environment in which that life can flourish. Would-be parents simply think that they will have a child and the world will somehow fall into place. Worse, the world does not even seem to recognize that this value system is flawed.

When I attended my younger brother’s remedial high school graduation a little over a year ago, a retarded girl was given special recognition at the ceremony. Her accomplishment? She was not yet eighteen years old and already had two children. She was eight months pregnant with another. The crowd saw fit to erupt in applause. Given the fact that every family there, including mine, was dysfunctional, this is not surprising.

Contrary to popular cultural memes, it’s not always a good thing when a child is born. Firstly, a child born to a family without a home or an ability to feed it is a child sentenced either to die or to become a ward of the state. Secondly, a child who grows up in a home where they cannot observe a healthy loving relationship (gay or straight) is sentenced to a myriad of mental dysfunctions. Yet when we see a retarded girl pregnant on a stage we applaud. It is no longer our impulse to demand to know who raped her, because a retarded person cannot possibly give consent. It is no longer our impulse to take her children away and give it to a loving family that cannot have children of their own. No, when we see a poor child totally incapable of understanding the magnitude of what she is carrying inside her, we stand up and cheer. They even gave her a plaque. I bet if she could read it, she would be honored. Maybe one day if she doesn’t kill her children by mistake, they’ll be able to tell her what it says.

Why this has come to be is complex. Most of it can be explained away by the fact that people fully expect that the world is responsible for them. They never stop to think that the world is full of people, and that’s it’s the individual people who have to shoulder the burden of their short-comings. No one ever thinks that if everyone has to lean on everyone else, we all die. In this environment it makes sense that people will have children irregardless of the consequences. If someone doesn’t even have to be responsible for their self, why should they have to be responsible for their child? The problem is complex, but the solution is simple.

In our society, a woman has complete biological authority over the life of her unborn child. Growing in her womb, taking its sustenance from her blood, an unborn infant and the mother share a unique bond observed nowhere else among humans. For this reason, when a woman becomes pregnant it is her absolute right either to keep the child or to have it aborted without considering the wishes of the father. This cannot be disputed. However, society, even in legal terms, does not recognize any such rights for men. I would propose that a simple tweaking in the law could fundamentally shift the entire reproductive paradigm for the better.

What I propose will shock you. Your immediate instinct will be to rise up and call me a misogynist. All I ask is that you seriously consider what I am about to propose, and carry it to its logical conclusions:

Allow men the right to legally disown their unborn children. In cases where the father is never told of the child, he should have no legal obligation to assist in the child’s upbringing except by free choice.

We currently have something in the legal system called child support. In the case of a married couple that has divorced this is a fair concept. But we have another situation in which a man that has had sex with a woman he does not love can be held legally responsible for the child she bears. He will then have to pay for this child, and his mistake for the rest of his life. Many mothers would be unable to support themselves without this source of income.

Our sensibilities of course immediately go to the mother and child. What will she do? How will she care for the baby? What if they can’t make rent? What if they starve to death? We know that such children are already disadvantaged. We know that they are predisposed to commit crimes if no one steps up to the plate. How can the world be safe for these children with this too stacked against them? How in such a world can such families hope to exist? Exactly.

You see, in a world where men are legally allowed to disown their unborn babies the incentive on a woman to make certain that the man she is having her baby with has some kind of nurturing capacity and integrity is directly tied to her survival. No more casual dalliances, no more use of babies as bargaining chips, no more families brought together by legal pressure instead of love. With the safety net removed people will be forced to become good parents. If you can’t find a partner you can be sure will stick around and raise your baby with you, you will not be able to have a child.

An immediate criticism of this is that it would destroy American families. What American families are we protecting exactly? Do you think dependable, respectable people raise their children solely out of legal obligation? Do you think fathers who love their children and their wives would be gone in a heart-beat if they didn’t have to be there? The obvious answer is no. This would cause the dissolution of exactly one kind of union: the dysfunctional family.

Of course necessary reforms would have to be made in the welfare system. Namely, individuals on government assistance would not be allowed to have children. If you cannot make enough money to care for one child then having another child is an act of intentional abuse. For those who suggest that this is a violation of liberty, consider the crime committed against hundreds of thousands of children who are born into an environment in which there is almost no hope. Compared to this, a required contraceptive is menial. Those who honestly need assistance can have as many children as they want once they’re back on their feet.

I know a woman who poked holes in her boyfriend’s condoms so he would knock her up and marry her. I know a man who uses his child solely to hand him beers when he’s having sex. I know a woman who sold her baby to his father for $500. I know a man who used to beat his son hard enough to leave bruises the size of baseballs. There’s plenty of blame to go around. Prisons do not fill themselves. I do not find it a bit wrong to create a system wherein this caliber of individual, by their own free choice, is allowed to stop breeding. That’s not discrimination, it is natural selection. No one is being forced, in fact quite the opposite. This is freedom of choice creating a healthier environment for children. We can simply stop letting a segment of society use the government to facilitate its breeding activities.

BC,

Hear, hear!

BC, you know some spectacularly shitty people. I would be all for men being able to sign off responsibilities to the kid. Except, then it becomes the taxpayers burden. And the taxpayer didn't have the sex, you did. You see? You want others to pay for the consequences of your actions. And once the child you made is here, it's infinitely better for it to have a father. A father who pays and see him on weekends. Which brings us around once again to needing to KNOW who you sleep with, prior to doing so. And be careful when you do have sex. Carefully responsible for yourself.