@Chris - you bring up a really good point. I'm thinking as I type so roll with me for a bit here.

Let's say a couple gets pregnant and the woman wants the baby, but the man doesn't. If she goes through with the pregnancy and keeps the child, the man is on the hook for child support for the next 18 years even though he had no say in the matter, really. If he pays and isn't in the child's life, we stigmatize him. Same deal if he doesn't pay and isn't in the child's life. That isn't fair, is it? Shouldn't the man, if the mother chooses to carry the child and raise it, have the right to choose whether or not to be a father and take appropriate legal steps?

Conversely, if the woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy against the wishes of the father, he is denied a roll in the potential child's life. Also not fair.

However, in both instances, it is ultimately a woman's choice because no matter which way she goes, the decision impacts her more. I don't know the answer, but I do agree that fathers cannot be dismissed.

@Chris- scumbags definitely excluded! We'll just have to agree to disagree about the level to which this decision (or tragedy in the case of a wanted pregnancy miscarrying) effects a woman vs. a man. But I do agree fathers matter. They matter HUGE.

@Heather

We cant act civil... we have differing opinions! (Removing my tongue from cheek)

I fully agree with your last sentence.

@Hoffa - Heather's post isn't about funding abortion through taxes, it's about equating abortion with infanticide, and I think she did a good job of pointing out the differences.

@Heather A -

Agreed - HRG does an excellent job of counter-pointing the argument posed by J.B.

I was merely responding to the financial side of the arguments that were somewhat raised in your given hypothetical.

But I do stand with Chris in that an abortion should always require the assent of both parents except in extreme cases such as rape, incest, health of the mother, and where the father cannot be diligently located. To otherwise presume that the mother is impacted more by such a decision is a straw-man argument at best and fails to give suitable weight to the interests of the father.

Abortion should also not be used as a form of birth control given the fairly inexpensive and relatively reliable other forms of birth control we have easily and readily available to us this day in age, such as the grand-daddy of them all - abstinence!

Although I applaud the sentiment that men should have a say, I would like to ask a question. Let us assume a woman become pregnant and after much soul searching decides she can not keep the baby (perhaps health or other issues?) The 'sperm donor' objects and wants the child. Big problem. So, my thoughts: Will he financially assist the woman through the pregnancy? She must bear the burden, and if they are not married, then her income etc, will be drastically reduced while she is pregnant.
After birth, Will he take custody of the infant and raise it? Seems only fair, if she does not want the child. If the man insists he wants it, will he accept full responsibility for raising it etc? If the answer is no, the shut up. Women have been forced into that situation by church and state for Milena. If he wants the baby then he needs to adopt it and be fully responsible for it. Otherwise, no responsibility, no say.

But that is my point. It is their "belief". You cannot legislate on that. You don't have to believe I am a person because I am right here...there is no denying that.

It is also not yours, mine or anyone else's place to tell anyone when, how and with whom to have sex (or not). That is again placing one's beliefs upon another.

And look at how hostile this world is now...imagine a society of pent up abstinent people...gesh. No thanks. Birth control works and should be available and used so that abortion doesn't even have to be an issue.

And as far as abortion being used AS birth control. Please. Again. That is spoken like a person who truly has no idea what it is like to make such a choice, carry a child or be in that position. There may be a few cases like that...but those extreme fringes of society are not who we are talking about.

@Brian Dey -

Excellent commentary on the issue!

@HRG -

I'm currently abstinent and have been for many, many, many years - and I am most definitely not hostile.

What would be so wrong with a world full of people like me?

I am just going to stay away from that one. Far far away....

@HRG -

:-) I like your response - it says everything without saying a thing at all! :-)

HRG- You miss my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear. I'm tired of this issue being a political football, and until a legislator is prepared to write legislation on it, it's a done deal.

My belief is that the decision should be made before sex, not after. I have no issue with contraceptives, just who pays for them. I'll pay for my own as should everyone else.

I don't think it is as extreme as you think...

Childbirth - no matter how advanced the country, unfortunately - is still one of the riskiest activities women go through in their lifetime. Even in developed industrial nations, women die in childbirth for a myriad of reasons.

Yeah, but WE had to all the HARD work in the beginning!

All kidding aside, nice article. My wife had 3 miscarries before our first child was born, I would say that each one affected her more then me. She went into a depression each time, I had the "We can try again" attitude. The third time was probably the hardest on each of us, because it happened in the 5th month, but again she was depressed, I thought it was time to seek medical advice and try again. I agree that in the end it is
the mother's choice.

Jimmy - Please know that I am so sorry for your losses. Please also convey that to your wife.

"We have to raise the kids when the dads decide to leave, go to the bar or decide they just can't handle it anymore."

Isn't the mother just as capable of doing these things as the fathers are? Let's be honest and fair here.

Exactly.

My "Exactly" is in response to Heather, not Hoffa. Just wanted to clarify.

@HRG -

It was your contention in the first place - shouldn't you be the one providing the 'statistics?' I merely pointed out that the mothers are equally as capable of doing these things as the fathers are. In fact, I seem to remember a film staring Keri Russell that was based on a true story illustrating such point - When Innocence Is Lost (1997)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120499/

You really need a link to prove that more fathers leave than mothers...SERIOUSLY??

I'm not convinced that adequate 'statistics' have been kept on the issue, as usually, such statistics are only kept on those that are receiving some form of government assistance. And it's far easier for a single mother to receive such assistance than it is for a single father, isn't it?

In fact, a little factoid at the end of the film that I referenced indicates that female abandonment of a child to the father is becoming a far more common occurrence in this country.

Usually, the 'deadbeat' dads were barely involved in the first place, if all. However, most of the abortions occurring today aren't necessarily happening in relationships where there would be a clearly identifiable 'deadbeat' dad involved, correct?

I don't know about actual statistics but I can speak from anecdotal experience. Over the last 50 years I have known more then 50 single parent families. Of those, I recall _two_ that were father only families. The reason I remembered them was because they were so unusual. Of those two, one father was a widower, and the second's wife was a junkie whom he divorced. So, using my own experiences as a probable average, I'd say the evidence points pretty conclusively to the fact that women are more likely to have to raise children alone. I'd also like to point out that national welfare statistics point to single parent families as being led by the mother.

@Bren -

Wouldn't an easier and far more logical solution be to not have sexual relations with someone that is inclined to be a deadbeat?

But no, it's never that logical for Bren! Instead, let's spend taxpayer dollars going after deadbeats instead of holding the women accountable for choosing to be with a deadbeat in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting deadbeats, but don't think that I'm the one that should be stuck paying for such. Instead, shouldn't the woman bear some responsibility for choosing to become sexually involved with someone that turns out to be a deadbeat?

It's called personally responsible sexual relations. I realize that may be a new concept for you, but just try to embrace it and perhaps you'll comprehend the point I'm trying to make here.

It's not deadbeats. It's Alpha Males women want. The Bad Boy - who won't stick around and only wants to use/abuse them. Women love that Man.

Betas provide. Omegas wank and play video games.

Women are naturally sluts - it's genetic. Many men whould be surprised to find that they are not the Father of the babies they raised. It just is.

Mr. Hoffa, I absolutely agree with you that it's better not to get involved with someone who is a deadbeat. But what if that tendency doesn't emerge until something goes "wrong," like an unanticipated pregnancy? (And yes, one would have to be truly 1-D not to anticipate the possible outcomes of sexual relations). It's the fight-or-fight reflex. This is why we also read about men acting out violently against pregnant wives and girlfriends, etc.

I know quite a few divorced women whose husbands left because she got pregnant, or while the child/children were very small. They married and had good intentions, but the financial pressures, the change in lifestyle, etc. became too much. The worst is, in every instance, after walking out on their families, they "got used" to the idea and started a new family with another woman. Then there are continuing battles about child support because the ex-husband honestly believes that now he is remarried, his only financial responsibilities should be for his new family and never mind the one he abandoned. So either child support is not paid or he makes it a hobby to make his ex-wife and children's lives an insecure living hell.

Mr. Hoffa, I take responsibility for my own mistakes because they are as much a part of me as my successes, and from what you write, you do too. I don't even pretend to understand how one person can treat someone else this way. But in the case of using taxpayer dollars to pursue deadbeats...

...we are talking about millions of dollars each year. There are women who need financial assistance from the government to feed their children because their ex-husband or ex-boyfriend won't fulfill their legal obligations. The problem is rampant and huge. It's why I insist that, dealing with this social problem would be more cost-effective than the status quo. Families would be more stable, the burden on local government would be reduced, and strong penalties might create social change. A lot of deadbeats' friends and employers are complicit in hiding information, and "under the table" pay arrangements keep the deadbeat living well and his "family" in poverty. Integrity can't be legislated, but legal obligations must be upheld. If this issue were addressed, along with the stigma that is still attached to unwed pregnancies and single mothers, I'm convinced we would see a reduction in abortions.

Tim Scott, I don't even know how to respond to your comments.

@Bren -

I too don't know how to respond to Tim Scott's comment, so it's probably best to ignore it!

"along with the stigma that is still attached to unwed pregnancies and single mothers"

Does such a stigma honestly still exist anymore?

Like I said, I'm all for prosecuting deadbeats of both genders, but don't believe it's the taxpayer's burden to shoulder. The disadvantaged parent should pursue their legal remedies to the full extent of the law and should not be allowed to collect government assistance unless they are able to first fully demonstrate that they have already done so. This just makes common sense. The current system of an unqualified general safety-net actually encourages irresponsible sexual relations by not promoting responsible ones. This needs to change if we really want a resolution to this problem.

But throwing a deadbeat in jail does no one any good and just costs us as a society more of our hard earned dollars.

If we cut off the safety net, then perhaps people will start to think twice before engaging in sexual relations, and isn't that what really needs to happen here?

Mr. Hoffa, that stigma absolutely still exists. In the case of the 15 year old I mentioned above, she had to switch out of her regular school schedule into the off-site parent program because she couldn't take being harassed and called vile names by classmates. Her parents had to deal with the words "Whore" being spray-painted onto the house. She had to leave her church. Her mother originally wanted her to give the baby up. When visitors came, the girl was made to hide in the basement to conceal her pregnancy.

Yes, if society could be a little more forgiving, then there would probably be fewer abortions and more women willing to carry a baby to term for adoption. I will see if any type of survey has been done about this--I haven't heard of any.

What you describe is the ideal situation--why don't we all just be responsible for our own behavior? But it just doesn't work that way. One has only to walk through the many rooms at Domestic Animal Control and look at all of the lost/abandoned cats, kittens, puppies, and dogs who are waiting for their humans to come and get them, and so many never do. No, people don't always do what's right by the animals and/or people in their lives.

So what's to do? Invest taxpayer dollars to make sure that innocent children don't go hungry and help women (and men in this situation too) find some stability, or leave them to fend for themselves and maybe starve.

@Bren -

I don't mind helping those with legitimate need, but the fact of the matter is that under the safety net system, the problem has only gotten worse - not better. And despite what you may claim, the stigma has been decreasing by leaps and bounds in the last half century. Also, doesn't such a stigma act as an effective deterrent? What would the increase in casual / irresponsible sexual activity be if such a stigma were completely eliminated from our culture / society?

The repeat offenders seem to pose the biggest problem for us. Perhaps we should start mandating sterilization for accepting government assistance after the first child, as that would eliminate the repeat offenders and act as an effective deterrent, right? However, there again, I don't want to have to pay for the sterilization!

As I said, the stigma is still exists. What 15 year old hasn't made a stupid mistake? This is one that will stay with the girl, and the father, forever. She would have been destitute without her parents' begrudging support.

We'll have to disagree on this one I suppose. To my way of thinking, it's common sense not to do something unless you can handle the repercussions. In the case of a married woman or one in a relationship, finding out that the relationship is ending because of pregnancy is a terrible and unexpected shock. There are so many stories of relationships destroyed because of a pregnancy.

And no, I don't think the stigma is a deterrent for bad behavior, it leads in many instances to abortion.

@Emily - adoption is a beautiful and selfless act, I agree. But that still means carrying a child and giving birth and having to deal with all the stress, change, potential complications that come with it. Again, the woman has to deal so it's the woman's choice.

As for the debate - we debate because people have different opinions. When you defend your position it doesn't mean you know you're wrong; it means you feel a certain way and you're expressing thoughts, facts, etc. to support that position.

@Heather A -

Well said!

Hard to argue with the numbers J.B., but I'm sure they'll try ;-)

J.B. - Exactly! A little personal responsibility goes a long, long way. This has become a problem in today's society regarding so much. Personal responsibility is the truest form of independence and self worth. Abortion is a reaction to someone making a poor choice. When you become pregnant, it is not only your body, it is home to another human being. If you are not prepared for that, then you need to figure out if sexual relations are good idea.

Anyone who has ever looked at an ultrasound picture cannot deny that a fetus is a human being.

@Brian Dey
You said, "Personal responsibility is the truest form of independence and self worth."

That is a great statement and I agree complete. If only those dependent on government for support understood the true weight of those word.

Abortion is the holocaust of babies.

@Tim Scott -

I was never very big on psychological stereotyping - human beings are just too complex to fall squarely into one box or the other.

After all, if there was any merit to the Freudian psycho-babble, most of the so-called 'alpha's' would end up first conceiving with their own mothers, correct?

@JRH...Why is it when it comes to a topic like this, you leave your logical mind behind. In the first place the "Freudian psycho-babble" has moved far beyond armchair analysis. Psychologists fully understand that human beings are each unique and that nature and nurture affect the being and the rise of personality. What Tim is referring to is biological as well as sociological.

The latest evidence has revealed that women are attracted to the bad boy or Alpha male during ovulation period, which incidentally is the best time for conception. There are two forces at work; strong sexual attraction and the need for security. Some of this is primal instincts and others are learned preferences.

Since abstinence is the only guarantee to prevent an unwanted and unnecessary pregnancy, it is the best option. However, the majority of people choose not to remain abstinent. Therefore, full access to birth control and contraception is the very best alternative to full abstinence.

As far as pregnancy termination is concerned, since it is the female's body it is her domain and her decision. The zygote/fetus is literally her until birth. She has the sole sovereignty over her own body. That part of her, which has yet unproven potential, does not and should not be assigned rights given to non symbiotic humans that have reached full potential and acknowledged personhood.

@Lyle -

An interesting response indeed, but I'd postulate that I'm using logic to defend my positions, as opposed to leaving it behind.

I was being facetious in my comment regarding "Freudian psycho-babble," but also sincere in that I don't completely buy into psychological analysis or its societal merits. Women being attracted to an Alpha male type based on the qualifiers you mention would denote some sort of inherent primal instinct, while discounting much of the nurture side of the equation, would it not? I'm reminded of Claire Danes' "My So Called Life" (TV Series 1994-1995) as effectively illustrating both sides of the equation here. I also know from personal experience that such theory has both merit and failure in actual practice - after all, I'm no Alpha male, not by a long shot!

I'm all for full access to birth control and find it to be readily and easily available, at a highly competitive cost in today's market. What I'm against is having the collective good paying for it because it punishes those of us who personally responsible on our own accord, doesn't it? Also sexual relations aren't a necessity, they're a luxury!

You're argument about female domination over a fetus premised upon a symbiotic relationship seems quite hysterical given the crux of your social democratic political stance, doesn't it? One could very easily use the same rational to conclude that those receiving some form of government assistance aren't worthy of their personal rights of autonomy, correct? But isn't that the kind of thinking that gave us things such as the MK-Ultra experiments? Do you really want to go back to that kind of crap?

@James and Lyle, are you two talking about getting knocked up? I never realized it was so complicated.

@mau! I just read your comment and snorted water out my nose!

That's the funniest thing I've read today! Thanks for making my night!

@Heather, we need some humor on these blogs.

@mau -

Don't blame me - Lyle's the one who was supposedly reading the book and constantly claiming that he knows what he's doing!

Although personally, I would have preferred if he would have started with the traditional flowers and chocolates ;-)

@JRH...I like your response, thanks for bringing rationality back to the discussion. There is one thing I would challenge, sex is not a luxury. In our culture it is given to be not necessary, but in Judaism it is considered a commandment from G-d. Therefore having sex is just following one of His commandments. :=) Moving on:

You and other conservatives keep referring to personal responsibility and I happen to agree in personal responsibility, but of course I am an elitist and I think you need a fully functioning brain and the capability of reasonable cognition. So if we are talking now about personal responsibility; let's talk about limited families. Before I launch, I will admit to hypocrisy, I have been married twice and the two women claim that I am the sire of two children from each relationship. that being said, I am a strong proponent of Zero Population Growth (ZPG). I find it completely irresponsible to have more children that just replacing ones self. Many have countered that it is OK as long as they can be afforded. However, additional children places burdens on the common good. For example, a large family will gain a tax advantage by being able to claim deductions for each dependent; thus; reducing revenues that are needed to support a larger population. Personal responsibility should be extended to family size.

@Lyle -

Hmmm… good thing I'm not Jewish then, as I'd be a rather poor one at best! Although, that may be changing soon ;-) Being a Gentile, you'd probably expect me to prefer the Poconos, however, I actually prefer to vacation in the Catskills as often as my schedule allows - I love the Borscht Belt!!!

In this country, we're actually expected to experience population decreases over the next half century, aren't we? I would argue that a ZPG stance would be a more prevalent global concern as opposed to a local one. And let's not forgot that I advocate for a complete redo of both the federal and state income tax codes!

@Lyle
I don't know much about carrying capacity of the earth for population and personally don't feel it very important. However, doesn't zero growth equate to about 2.5 or 3 kids per family? That is about where the US is and above the current production in Europe. I understand that it is probably below the what some third world countries are producing. Are we then supposed to kill our own to allow the third world societies to produce more? That seems counter productive to social advancement since our society is more likely to produce offspring equipped to introduce ideas regarding saving the planet. Therefore, truly responsible citizens of the US would overproduce with an emphasis on mandatory reduction in third world countries.

As a father of 5, I am in favor of a flat tax and hence would lose me deductions and that would not impact my family size.

@J.B. Schmidt...The maximum global carrying capacity is estimated to be not more than 9.0 billion. Sustainable carrying capacity is somewhere around 3.5 billion. It is important in this nation and the ideal number of gross children should be around 1.5 to 2.0 children per household to maintain the current 311 million.

One of the issues is that certain ethnic groups are under producing and not reaching replacement levels. At present Hispanics lead in population growth, part from having large families and the other is in immigration. Other high reproductive groups are the LDS (Mormons) and the Amish. Under replacement are generally Asians and Jews.

Globally and nationally the overburden of population has a number of consequences. Larger populations require more bureaucracies and larger government. Larger populations put greater strain on natural resources; water, food and energy. Larger populations are vulnerable to large pandemics and starvation. Larger populations create higher population densities, which create social competition and political instability. In short, the larger the population's disadvantages far outweighs any possible benefits.

@JRH, MK-Ultra or Manchurian Candidate
http://gma.yahoo.com/soldier-held-afghan-massacre-had-brain-injury-marital-061722796--abc-news.html

I feel exactly the same way. And I only had 1.

Okay heather, but torture has been around forever. Does that make it right? Slavery was common practice until someone stood up and fought, up to and including a civil war, to abolish it. Was that a bad idea? The logic you are using reminds me of my kids when they say, "Well everyone is doing it."

I think if every women who has an abortion for convenience, had to have their tubes tied as well, maybe attitudes would change. Actions have consequences and really, there are sooooooooo many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, starting with, "DON'T HAVE SEX!!!" And if you do, then own up to YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES!!!

@Brian - as you know, I don't normally take this tone. Honestly, I don't know what came over me, but there you go ...

I would argue that women who choose abortion are taking responsibility, aren't they? Let's say a woman gets pregnant and either birth control failed, she's not on the pill and no condom was available/on hand, whatever. The deed is done and a pregnancy has resulted. Now let's also say this woman (and for the sake of discussion, that the man is involved in the decision-making) can't handle a baby emotionally, mentally, physically or financially. They know adoption is an option, but that's still money perhaps they can't afford for the prenatal care and vitamins, eating properly, etc. So they decide to terminate the pregnancy because why bring a child into the world if they can't provide even for its care before its born ... they're limiting liability on the rest of us in the end, right?

You argue about safety net "entitlement" programs and not wanting to pay. Well, the only way to not have to pay is to not have folks need them. Making birth control for both parties more easily accessible and affordable with well-rounded, comprehensive sex ed is just one piece of that puzzle.

Who's advocating for Viagra to be covered by an insurance premium?

Unless it's a medical necessity, I don't need or want it! Give me the bare bones policy and premium please!

@JRH, teachers in Wisconsin insisted on coverage for Viagra in their health care coverage. And I am not going to say especially the ones who were caught with porno on their school computers :-( I'm bad.

@mau -

Needless to say, the teachers that pushed for this are quite simply morons!!!

If they wanted Viagra covered, then either the individual teachers or their union should have ponied up the extra premium for such - but definitely not the taxpayers!!!

Case closed, court is adjourned, and Judge Hoffa has left the building - peace!

@mau...To avoid future totalitarian impositions, then it is absolutely an imperative that we voluntarily limit reproduction. The Chinese have had the one child policy in place for quite some time. Forced abortions are part of the program. It has not been overly successful and they have found that in the new emerging middle class they are automatically are limiting their replacement reproduction.

I would hate to see forced abortion and forced sterilization. But if we don't responsibly deal with the problem, it is inevitable we will face such draconian measures.

Lyle, I just can't quite grasp, considering your heritage, that you of all people would condone this potential solution.

In your world would all races be compelled to be a part of this solution, or would only whites be forced. As it is now, there are certain segmants of society who feel compelled to pop out babies on a regular basis with no thought of the outcome.

For whatever reason, my paternal line has a history back to Europe, of having smaller sized families. Most were farmers and trades people. In the US my paternal line is actually dieing away because it went further yet in reducing family sizes or having no children at all. This was not the case with my maternal line. And in fact they were quite prolific breeders in marriage or not. There are many babies born out of wedlock in that line. Makes it tough to trace the lineage.

@mau...Let me be perfectly clear, I am not advocating forced abortions, forced sterilizations, or any other forced population control measures. What I am advocating is voluntary personal responsibility to limit family size and ease population burden.

If people don't do it, then either nature will take its course and create huge corrections or some future generation will gain power and become like the Chinese and implement forced population control. People have to see the bigger picture and stop worrying about minor issues. Communal sovereignty will always trump individual sovereignty in the long run.

We have gotten so far away from letting Mother Nature take it's course and survival of the fittest, that I don't know that we can put the genie back in the bottle.

What health care systems need to take a look at is expanded Hospice Care. The system in Marshfield Wisconsin is a prime example of a very good system. Their hospice system is not an immediate death sentence. You go through and in/out of various aspects of it, depending on your needs at the time. I don't believe there are any like it in the Milwaukee area.

http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/residents/?page=palliative

http://ministryhealth.org/MinistryHomeCare/MakeaDonat1/DonationsM.nws

I seem to recall that several years ago, at one of the global environmental summits, he recommending that fetus be used for fertilizer.

@mau -

Anyone that would marry Jane Fonda has to be certifiable!

Now Hanoi Jane wants Limbaugh fired.