The act of consensual sex in and of itself, without all of the feminist/PC bullshit that comes with it, entails RESPONSIBILITY. Rest assured that I agree that some men refuse to accept it, however Men don’t have a choice in the matter. Men are given the choice of nothing (look up “nothing” in the norse language), too either be a slave to a woman, or to be a slave to the state, for the “good of the child”. What a farce. Men aren’t given any rights to His own children in any way, We have to fight for our children. What do women have to do? How hypocritical feminists, and most women are when they speak of how “fatherlessness” is such a problem, like most women, they bitch about the problem that they have created.

We have taxpayer funded offices(USA), that will take away your money and your children at the drop of a dime, however it seems funny that that there isn’t any offices dedicated torwards Men recieving legal aid for their own children in these cases. Its funny how women can recieve so much for something that for the most part they don’t participate in, and all the while complain about how fucked up their life is. How small-minded, and selfish is the female gender, for the most part, much like our legal system.

Women can and do, refuse to accept the responsibility of their actions. Women, have over 11 different ways to control their reproduction, and afterwords, have both abortion and adoption as an option. Women shouldn’t control anything in my view, they’re incapable of it, that’s why they’re given so many “choices”. They know how to use their mouths, however the refuse to use their brains in a logical manner.

-Strength and Honor-

Jon, let’s not make this unnecessarily personal. The fact is is that many men do have unprotected sex with women they barely know, apparently without giving a second thought to whether the act would result in a child. You therefore can’t blame women for perceiving that men do not have as large an investment in children as the women themselves, do.

How many men do you know that have had casual sex, who have rung up the woman 6 weeks later to ask her if she is pregnant and to say that if she fell pregant to him, that he would therefore like a say in whether or not she decides to have an abortion? Or who tried to change her mind about termination by offering to marry or support her? Yea, probably not too many.

If a man and woman have sex and a woman gets pregnant, it should be a joint decision what happens to the baby. If they both agree to taking having it they both should pay for it. Female is making steriotypes like the man is the bread breaker and should make all the money and it should be the womans decision how she either aborts or extorts money from the man. Its her body but its HIS baby too! If she wants to force him to pay money for the child when its born then it should be his God given right to see the child any damn day he wants. Thats sexist to believe that a man is the only one responsible because he didnt have a condom or have his tubes cut and tied. You know theres women condoms too? Women can also have their tubes tied so they dont have children. Its a two way street and its equal responsibility from the birth of the child to the taking care of it. Dont try to act like men all run to mexico and leave women with the babies. Most men love their unborn babies too and would fork over their life saving so their baby could live. But the courts dont care about the mans plea they just give all the rights to the woman REGARDLESS of the situation. It doesnt matter if she fucked the drug dealer across the street or the doctor thats her neighbor. She is allowed rights men are not, is that equality Female? If i fucked you do you think its right for me to have no say even if i didnt wear a condom?

Laura said:

If conception was an accident then either have an abortion, decide to make a go of it jointly for the child or accept that the man doesn’t want it and make your own way. Those are the three choices - deal with it. You cannot control all of the miserable knocks life may deal you, but you can make sure you don’t needlessly contribute to the misery of somebody else. Forcing a man to pay financially for an accident that was as much your fault as his *is* needlessly contributing to his misery because you could have had an abortion, or accepted your responsibility and paid for the child yourself. To be honest, if you weren’t capable of supporting a child in the first place, what were you doing sleeping around with men you hardly know? Especially if you weren’t prepared to think about the consequences and the possibility of abortion. That is hardly a good basis for bringing a child into the world.

Right in every respect.

If conception was an accident then either have an abortion, decide to make a go of it jointly for the child or accept that the man doesn’t want it and make your own way. Those are the three choices - deal with it. You cannot control all of the miserable knocks life may deal you, but you can make sure you don’t needlessly contribute to the misery of somebody else. Forcing a man to pay financially for an accident that was as much your fault as his *is* needlessly contributing to his misery because you could have had an abortion, or accepted your responsibility and paid for the child yourself. To be honest, if you weren’t capable of supporting a child in the first place, what were you doing sleeping around with men you hardly know? Especially if you weren’t prepared to think about the consequences and the possibility of abortion. That is hardly a good basis for bringing a child into the world.

Out of Town said:
However, I do know that most real men don’t call women, bitches.

Say what things? You should provide a quote so people know what words you are referring to.

As for your question, why don’t women scream and cry about women negleting to pay child support, they probably do. Regardless of sex, any parent who neglects or abuses their child is unfit and should have their children removed.

There are plenty of real men calling your type what they are, Bitches. It don’t matter how you define them, they are real men. Women even boast about being a bitch. But can you find a real Lady? Not many of those exist anymore.

I forget you have a problem remembering what you had written. Maybe it’s because you change you mind so much.

You said ‘the probably do scream and cry’ concerning the women who fail to pay CS, and that is not the case at all. No one cares whether women pay up or not, it’s all about forcing men to pay for women, it’s surely isn’t becasue they are concerned with the children or else women would be forced to pay and labels deadbeats.

Notice when you use the word “Deadbeat” it only refers to men even though most women never pay CS after they are ordered.. You have no clue about what you’re saying. If she is ordered to pay CS then she is already removed from the custodial role. Damn you’re ignorant.

My name isn’t Billy Bob bitch and you can take your dubbos and cram them in your weibliche Öffnung.

schliessen Sie Ihre weibliche Öffnung Weibchen!

Out of Town said:
However, I do know that most real men don’t call women, bitches.

[quote="Billy"]When women say those things it is to force a man to do something she wouldn’t do.[/quote]
Say what things? You should provide a quote so people know what words you are referring to.

As for your question, why don’t women scream and cry about women negleting to pay child support, they probably do. Regardless of sex, any parent who neglects or abuses their child is unfit and should have their children removed.

There are plenty of real men calling your type what they are, Bitches. It don’t matter how you define them, they are real men. Women even boast about being a bitch. But can you find a real Lady? Not many of those exist anymore.

I forget you have a problem remembering what you had written.
Maybe it’s because you change you mind so much. You said ‘the probably do scream and cry’ concerning the women who fail to pay CS, and that is not the case at all. No one cares whether women pay up or not, it’s all about forcing men to pay for women, it’s surely isn’t becasue they are concerned with the children or else women would be forced to pay and labels deadbeats.

Notice when you use the word “Deadbeat” it only refers to men even though most women never pay CS after they are ordered.. You have no clue about what you’re saying. If she is ordered to pay CS then she is already removed from the custodial role. Damn you’re ignorant.

My name isn’t Billy Bob bitch and you can take your dubbos and cram them in your weibliche Öffnung.

schliessen Sie Ihre weibliche Öffnung Weibchen!

What do I know about being a real man? First-hand? Absolutely nothing. However, I do know that most real men don’t call women, bitches.

[quote="Billy"]When women say those things it is to force a man to do something she wouldn’t do.[/quote]

Say what things? You should provide a quote so people know what words you are referring to. We can’t all be psychics.

As for your question, why don’t women scream and cry about women negleting to pay child support, they probably do. Regardless of sex, any parent who neglects or abuses their child is unfit and should have their children removed. Fact is, many people are just stupid. Colloquially, they are called dubbos.

There’s alot of dubbos in this world. Don’t you be one too Billy Bob.

Fem you are an ignorant hypocritical bitch.
What do you know about being a real man?
When women say those things it is to force a man to do something she wouldn’t do. It’s time for women to grow up and become real women.

Why don’t women scream and cry when females neglect their ordered child support payments? The majority of women ordered to pay don’t, and nothing is said. They try to tell us they are concerned with the children, sure they are, they are concerned with the female children over 16 years old who Mothered a child..

“this does contradict your position in regards to Dubya.”

No, I was trying to reveal to you the internal inconsistencies of your view on the subject. You believe that women should have more choices than men do.

Wolfe, I thought about your comments on contractual obligation and I’m still thinking as I’m typing. There is always a risk that your wife/girlfriend/one night stand/friend with benefits will lie to you. Female, in that sense, is correct. While I do advocate that we should trust our partners, if it’s a stranger or new friend we are having sex with (or even recent g/friend), the man has no reasonable basis on which to assume that his partner is trustworthy and so he has a responsibility to look after the child that results. Yet, there should obviously be some consequences for the fraudulent party…because she *has* placed an undue burden on him. As of yet, I haven’t decided yet.

If it was a wife (who over the years earned the trust he gave her) or a longtime companion, that is another story entirely, obviously unintentional and so that places a significant craw in the mechanics here.

Is there an obligation if the action is unintentional? Well…it doesn’t deny the fact that the unborn child is obviously innocent. It didn’t just jump into the uterus by itself. It was placed there (*even* unintentionally) by the voluntary actions of the sex partners. So, I’m not sure it is right to abandon the child even in that situation.

Let’s try this:
X does such-and-such an act.
That act results in an unintentional consequence: through no choice of Y’s, Y has to live in X’s house, eating X’s food, etc. If Y leaves, he is dead.
Is X obligated to keep Y in his house?

Perhaps, we should think of it as a consequence. If Dubay unintentionally places an innocent third party in a condition of utter dependency..ah, I’ve got it! hahaha..this is so simple.

The mother is solely responsible for that child if she deceived him. *If* Dubay unintentionally placed the child in dependency on *HIM*, then he would be responsible for the child (consequence). Yet…..since the child does not ‘need’ him to supply for his material wants and needs (the child probably has other relatives, for example), there is no basis for which Dubay should be held responsible for something he may not have intended. This is - obviously - assuming his former lover was a long-time partner.

“I remembered the exact same phrase from the [criminal] code”

*grins* I remembered the phrase from a prolife site. That is actually part of the reason why I checked up on it. Prolifers (and pro-’choicers’ for that matter) - in their zeal - don’t always check back on their data and I didn’t expect female would trust information from a prolife site, anyways.

To Grump. Thanks for the correction (to you and me) on Canadian abortion after birth/umbilical cord. I remembered the exact same phrase from the [criminal] code, though remembered none of the context, which is why I thought your original statement was so plausible.

On the other questions you raise: sorry, really don’t want to debate it here. Too easy to get things way, way off track (even more than they are). I certainly admire your resolve on the matter.

Fem said:

I am not pro-life, I am pro-choice.

I can clearly see the argument about contract/intent, however, as I mentioned before to Dakota, I am on the child’s side when abortion is not the choice of the mother. This means that I believe men need to be accountable for their actions.

You are saying, then, that the child has no right to life from the mother, but has a right to near-indefinite support (’til 18-25 and beyond in some countries) from the father.

I don’t care if the man did not intend to become a father, the fact is, he was not held down and raped by this woman. He had consensual sex and he chose not to use contraception.

Because he believed, in good faith, that it could not possibly result in conception. You have to admit the woman was lying to him. Why would she do so? What rational woman, not seeking to entrap a man, lies to him about fertility?

after his drink was spiked with viagra; or, he never knew how babies were created. I find both of these scenerio’s a little hard to believe.

Actually, I don’t, because of female sexual predators. I’ll grant you they are probably rare compared to male ones, but they exist and are grossly underreported.

The viagara? Well, there’s pressure on from extreme feminist theorists to define rape as including any act of consensual sex where the woman may have been inebriated (and we’re not talking falling down drunk, we’re talking 1-2 glasses of wine). If this passes, I predict that ultimately, the same will hold for men.

The not knowing where babies come from? I’d put that on any situation of a mature woman having sex with a 12 or 13 year old boy. That’s statutory rape in virtually every country, and it happens more often than we know.

The man needs to grow up and accept the consequences of the choices he has made.

Tough to do for a 12 year old boy raped by a 30 year old woman.

Canadian’s lack of a gestational cut-off time for abortion is very disturbing.

We agree there, and yet it represents the endgame of feminism on abortion.

-wolfe

Grump, I guessed you were saying the man should also be responsible for his child, however, this does contradict your position in regards to Dubya.
I am not pro-life, I am pro-choice.

I can clearly see the argument about contract/intent, however, as I mentioned before to Dakota, I am on the child’s side when abortion is not the choice of the mother. This means that I believe men need to be accountable for their actions. I don’t care if the man did not intend to become a father, the fact is, he was not held down and raped by this woman. He had consensual sex and he chose not to use contraception. That was his choice, the only valid defense he could possibly have would be that he was raped against his will after his drink was spiked with viagra; or, he never knew how babies were created. I find both of these scenerio’s a little hard to believe. The man needs to grow up and accept the consequences of the choices he has made.

Canadian’s lack of a gestational cut-off time for abortion is very disturbing.

Wolfe,

First - correction to above “even though the infant is yours” = “even though the infant is your grandchild”

“where she says “that’s the lawâ€? it’s more accurate to say that in Canada, that’s where there is the lack of law — or, strictly speaking, legislation.”

Thanks for the correction. I knew this, but didn’t express my point very well.

“The feminist argument is that the child has no obligation to demand of the mother that he be able to live. The child therefore, by using the same impeccable logic, has no obligation to demand of the father that the child be supported.”

That’s what I was trying to say. I was arguing with female on her own terms to help her see the inconsistency of her position. Obviously, it didn’t work (but I should have realized as much - it’s very difficult to convince anybody of anything on the internet. Debate is a waste of time, but this subject tends to rile me up). Sorry to mess you up there, Wolfe.

“I believe that if it were possible for a father to intervene and stop a woman from having an abortion, then he should be fully prepared to pay surrogate fees, all her medical, maternity clothing, etc. expenses, and guarantee the child will be taken care of once born. ”

I sort of agree with you, in the sense that if he wants the child, he should be there to provide for her needs (esp. if they don’t live together), because in providing for her, he is providing for his unborn and every father should be responsible for the child he creates. Yet, I don’t consider this ‘payment’ for keeping the child, because the mother is also responsible.

“For a contract — an obligation — to be formed there must be intent. There was no intent in the Dubay case. ”

This is an excellent point. I’ll ponder it relative to the other things I have written here. Thank you.

“Is it good for a man to be lied to and forced into fatherhood?”

No

“Is it good for a baby to be able to be killed while she’s sitting there crying and the cord hasn’t yet been cut?”

No, even in the case of a baby who is partially birthed.

“Would it be good for women to be forced to become incubators?”

I really don’t like the analogy because I think it’s a little backwards, but yes - women should be forced to nourish and protect their offspring until it can survive on its own. This applies when the offspring is in her body *and* in her house, both in utero and out - hence, our laws against child neglect and abuse.

Just so that female doesn’t get on my case about it: YES, I believe fathers should be responsible, too!

“Please don’t take that as disagreement with your overall arguments or any lack of respect for you or your beliefs.”

*S* Wolfe, don’t concern yourself over that. I’m glad to receive a little disagreement or rebuke.

“I am extremely reluctant to say that we must end abortion immediately via the full force of the state.”

Wolfe, it is unrealistic. I’m prolife, but I don’t believe that criminalization alone will end abortion. We - as prolifers - need to do more than simply lobby for a change of the law. We must also work to influence our culture in a positive way, and to help women when they are in trouble or beforehand so they know what to do to keep themselves from getting into trouble. This involves many many different actions - working at adoption agencies and CPCs, writing a book, counselling and supporting women emotionally and financially. All of these things and more…one of my greatest worries is that after criminalization, the vast majority of prolifers will ignore the abortion issue as if it doesn’t exist anymore. Sorry for going on and on about this - I”m a little passionate on the subject.

“Yes, this means I acquiesce to some degree in the killing of human beings. Not a comfortable position.”

As a libertarian, I’m ‘forced’ to support the continual legalization of abortion in the case of rape. It is not something I like to talk or think about and I hope that I am wrong on that. I understand your discomfort.

“would I be prepared to use physical force and the police to stop her from having an abortion? No.”

If it was my daughter, I would, but I don’t even have children yet so perhaps my opinion would change. I doubt it, though. Wolfe, I’ve done so much research on this, so much reading (from both sides of the debate), so much that..I seriously doubt I’ll ever have any hesitancy about forcing anybody (including my own when I have them) to carry their child. I’ve got a question though: would you think differently if your daughter was about to commit infanticide (even though the infant is yours)? If so, why?

“If you want to debate this position, please take it to Politik, in the forums.”

Too lazy.

Gotta get going. Wolfe - your points are taken but..well, I don’t have time to comment right now.

Have a g’day

“in those situations, I think the pregnant woman should be treated as surragote and paid the going rate as such.”

I don’t agree because in most cases the pregnant woman was a willing participant in the sexual activity. I’m not about punishing people for having sex, yet if we do something (whether that something is inherently a moral and good activity or not) and that puts somebody else in a position of vulnerability - whether that person is born or unborn, I think that the individuals who may have (even unintentionally) put somebody in a situation of dire need has a responsibility to ensure that it is taken care of. Sorry for being so verbose. I ‘m trying.

“Women can abort/adopt out and men can run off.”

not without being required to pay child support.

“do you like the socioeconomic consequences of that?”

No. I’m quite aware of the law of unintended consequences. I was just saying that it was unjust of fathers to be given more responsibility than mothers.

“Do you think that it is fair for you, the taxpayer, to pay for these assholes children?”

No. That is what charities are for. We - as a community - *should* do a lot more for the poor.

“If your father deserted your mother, would it have been alright for her to be solely personal responsible for you?”

It would be inconvenient for her. I don’t think it is alright for fathers to leave their children, and neither for mothers! It would not be alright for my mother to abort me, either. Don’t confuse the moral with the legal, but at least both parties had and exercised their rights. I thought you would be more ‘pro-choice’ female. ;P

“Without assistance from other relatives/friends or the state, she would have had to work full-time to support you and raise you. Is that fair?”

It’s not fair, but why does a woman have more rights than a man? You do bring to mind something else, though, and that is the apparent foolishness of anti-abortion people to support Roe v. Wade for men, esp. because most women abort for ’socioeconomic’ reasons. So, I probably shouldn’t have so loudly cheered Roe v. Wade for men.

“Then, if you were male and grew up to be a juvenile deliquent or criminal, your mother would have got the blame for being a single parent, and it’s your own damn fault for being raised in a female-headed household. ”

My Mother would not be to blame. It would be my own choice. While your use of sarcasm is charming, it doesn’t help.

“I see a lot of women getting the blame here, even by other women, without thought for the actual pragmatic effects for the child and society as a whole.”

But this has been what feminists have been doing for years with regards to men. Most of them don’t even care about the unborn child anymore. That wasn’t always true in the history of feminism. Feminism used to be anti-abortion in orientation.

I only want women (feminists in particular) to realize what full equalization of the sexes mean. Unfortunately, that’s extremely unlikely because it would include cuttout alimony, sex-quota discrimination, child support payments for unwilling fathers, etc.

“and make the woman completely responsible, even for the fact that the man himself chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy.”

The woman chose to be completely responsible. She could have aborted or adopted out, and with regards to condom use - well, if she has a choice to abort or adopt out, he should have a choice to refuse child support if he chose (when she was pregnant) not to be involved in that child’s life, expressed a desire for abortion or adopting out, etc. It’s not that hard, female.

“Are you making this up?”

Nope. I take abortion very seriously. I don’t make up data, and when I’m mistaken - I am only glad to correct myself. Since you were doubtful, I went and looked it up again.

“Criminal Code of Canada Sec. 223

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”

Alright, to be exact, the criminal code of Canada will only criminalize abortion when the child is completely out of the mother’s body (which makes the act an infanticide), and it won’t matter whether the umbilical cord is cut or not. Sorry, I flubbed up on the nuance. Thanks for motivating me to double check that, female.

Fem said:

Now I am confused. Is the child born or not yet born? What is the cut off, in terms of gestation weeks, for termination?

In Canada, there is no gestational cutoff in law. There is no longer any law preventing abortion. Grump was, AFAIK (as far as I know) correct in saying “up til the cord is cut”. As Grump says, a woman could have a doctor smash the baby’s head in with a hammer, or crush it, just before the cord was cut, and it would be a 39th-week abortion.

Shocking? I think so. But it’s what the feminists wanted.

Wrong. This is about getting a woman to accept responsibiity by allowing a man to deny his.

OK, so if a couple has sex, and the man says he’s sterile so they don’t need to use a condom, and she gets pregnant, she alone is on the hook? Get real. The fact that you can’t see the obvious disparity in rights here is disturbing. I’ll repeat: morally, for a contract to be formed and an obligation to be incurred, there must be intent, even passive intent.

If a couple has sex, with both being fertile, and birth control fails, one could count that as passive intent to create a child. If a couple has sex and the woman states very clearly that she is sterile (and lies), it follows that there was no intent, even passive, to create a child on the part of the man. He therefore has no moral obligation, and is not reneging or denying responsibility.

Yes, a woman should be responsible for her lies, as a man should be for his.

I’m not sure whether you’re just arguing to argue, or whether you really believe what you are saying. If it’s the latter, I award you an “F” in Moral Philosophy”.

-wolfe

Female said

What’s that? You don’t want the man to pay for being a man and doing what his biological nature dictates? You don’t say…guess we’ll just leave everything for women to sort out then.

-No, what I am saying is that you still want more more more pretty much. Its not enough just to enslave a man and ride the state gravy train home, now you suggest that we actually PAY women to be “incubators”? How egotistical, and ignorant. Heres an idea, instead of giving women money, why doesn’t the state take that money that is taken by force and actually BUY the things that the child “needs”. I would be more than happy to do that, however it isn’t about that. As well I would ask about the ravaging effects of having your children taken away from you, withheld from you and being forced to pay for it for 18-19 years, or the emotional effects thereof.

First, Female asked if Grump was making up the whole business of umbilical cord/killing baby. Nope. I differ with Grump slightly; where she says “that’s the law� it’s more accurate to say that in Canada, that’s where there is the lack of law — or, strictly speaking, legislation. The courts overturned Canada’s abortion legislation some years back, and the feminists have dared Parliament to do something about it ever since. As a result, Canada has near zero legal protections for the unborn child.

Now I am confused. Is the child born or not yet born? What is the cut off, in terms of gestation weeks, for termination?

Next, Female once again totally misses the point. This isn’t about men denying responsibility; it’s about asking women to accept some. That’s it. Point finale.

Wrong. This is about getting a woman to accept responsibiity by allowing a man to deny his.

To JoeSchmoe: thanks for raising this, and thanks for the interesting articles. Thanks also for now condensing them and posting links. Good idea.

Grump: I devote a fair bit of space here to disagreeing with a couple of things you said. Please don’t take that as disagreement with your overall arguments or any lack of respect for you or your beliefs. You’ve proved yourself eminently rational.

I’ve largely stayed clear of this argument, but I’ll put my two cents in. FWIW, I believe almost all abortions entail killing a human being. I believe there are cases where abortion is perhaps morally justified, and cases where it definitely is if the mother chooses to. I am extremely reluctant to say that we must end abortion immediately via the full force of the state. Yes, this means I acquiesce to some degree in the killing of human beings. Not a comfortable position.

[The thought experiment that makes me take this position: If I had a teenaged daughter, and heaven forbid, she was sexually active and then got pregnant, would I be prepared to use physical force and the police to stop her from having an abortion? No. I would attempt to dissuade her from doing so; I would let her know that I believed she was killing a child, but I could not physically force her to my way of thinking. Given this, how can I force anyone's daughter? And yet, this makes me an unwilling accomplice to killing.]

If you want to debate this position, please take it to Politik, in the forums.

Grump is, as usual, both logical and passionate. (a good passionate, a passion that embraces rationality). I differ with her on (at least) two small points, but agree with much of what she says, ignoring moral aspects.

First, Female asked if Grump was making up the whole business of umbilical cord/killing baby. Nope. I differ with Grump slightly; where she says “that’s the law” it’s more accurate to say that in Canada, that’s where there is the lack of law — or, strictly speaking, legislation. The courts overturned Canada’s abortion legislation some years back, and the feminists have dared Parliament to do something about it ever since. As a result, Canada has near zero legal protections for the unborn child.

In Canada, the feminist victory is soberingly nihilistic in nature.

Next, Female once again totally misses the point. This isn’t about men denying responsibility; it’s about asking women to accept some. That’s it. Point finale.

Grump, surprisingly, seems to make the same mistake when she states “why can’t the man renege on his child support obligation if he has absolutely no choice”.

With respect, no, no, no a thousand times no. The feminist argument is that the child has no obligation to demand of the mother that he be able to live. The child therefore, by using the same impeccable logic, has no obligation to demand of the father that the child be supported.

To view it from a different angle, this isn’t about reneging on an obligation. For a contract — an obligation — to be formed there must be intent. There was no intent in the Dubay case.

Finally, to Female: Your non-sequitur on surrogate motherhood is truly bizarre. FWIW, sure, I believe that if it were possible for a father to intervene and stop a woman from having an abortion, then he should be fully prepared to pay surrogate fees, all her medical, maternity clothing, etc. expenses, and guarantee the child will be taken care of once born. Your weird introduction of forced pregnancy is bizarre; that’s not what’s being talked about here at all; quite the reverse.

For once, try and see it from the view of normal people — male and female.

Is it good for a man to be lied to and forced into fatherhood?
Is it good for a baby to be able to be killed while she’s sitting there crying and the cord hasn’t yet been cut?
Would it be good for women to be forced to become incubators?

I say no, no, and no.
-wolfe