My question to pro-choice supporters

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like I said, a written agreement should satisfy this urge for equality in the face of nature's demands.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think so too.  As it stands, it's as if one party has signed such an agreement without ever seeing it, or signing.  The other party not being beholden to such an agreement even if it -did- exist and even if they -did- sign it.  That much inequality can be justified...in that the two parties are not in equal situations, they do not have equal standing, or an equally compelling interest.

Lawyers could draw them up and fold them into tiny foil packages. You could put them in your wallet and not have to worry about their effectiveness after improper storage.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

A written agreement to have a kid?
I think of it like, guy gets the same number of days a woman gets to legally abort a kid. Obviously can't force an abortion on a woman so the guy "aborts" the kid essentially removing all his legal obligations and whatnot if a situation arises where he doesn't want a kid but she does. I think that's fair.

About the written agreement thing...what happens if at a later date(before the kids birth and within the legal time allowed) the guy decides he doesn't want the kid even though he previously agreed? What happens then? Does he get forced parenthood in him? Or what if the woman later decides SHE doesn't want the kid..does the agreement to have this kid become void? And if it doesn't will she be forced to have a kid against her will?...

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, can't do that.  Even in the case of a legally binding agreement between parties the male will be disadvantaged - but that's okay. We're basically just negotiating over -how much- of a disadvantage the male should be at...my answer is no more than is completely necessary. Legal equality isn't an issue of legal uniformity..of everything being the same for all people regardless of case or specifics. It;s an issue of making all things being equal, equal.

A unilaterally binding agreement isn't reproductive equality, in any case....but it's a compromise between what we have and equality. Baby steps. Look how long and how much shit women had to go through (and are still going through) to get an ounce of reproductive autonomy. Gotta temper expectations, lol. I doubt that anyone here will see, in their lifetimes...so much as -that- agreement. While the demographic that fought the hardest against womens reproductive rights is dying off at an ever increasing rate...we can still see (even in thread) that the next crop of legislators and their supporters are perfectly fine with the status quo, in this regard..despite our history and experience with the overall issue and -in spite- of their acceptance of female reproductive rights and rejection of the very arguments they now leverage to justify disadvantaging males with the immense power of the state.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A written agreement to have a kid?
I think of it like, guy gets the same number of days a woman gets to legally abort a kid. Obviously can't force an abortion on a woman so the guy "aborts" the kid essentially removing all his legal obligations and whatnot if a situation arises where he doesn't want a kid but she does. I think that's fair.

About the written agreement thing...what happens if at a later date(before the kids birth and within the legal time allowed) the guy decides he doesn't want the kid even though he previously agreed? What happens then? Does he get forced parenthood in him? Or what if the woman later decides SHE doesn't want the kid..does the agreement to have this kid become void? And if it doesn't will she be forced to have a kid against her will?...

Broken contracts have legal repercussions. If the agreement has a finalization clause (which it should), and either party abrogates it, family court can settle the matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not in the case of a "birthing agreement" - at least not without violating her 14th amendment rights.  It's an unenforceable contract on her end. Amusingly, I maintain that;s it's a violation of those same rights and that same clause that a male can;t opt out - can't choose not to be a father. His privacy and autonomy are impacted by the choice of another, it deprives him of his liberty -and- property, and he doesn't enjoy equal protection under law with respect to the other.

While none of the above applies, or even if it does is not compelling, in the case of a father who leaves his children or in the case of a divorce..it most definitely does apply before a child is born..if it applies in her case.

[Aliza]

Not in the case of a "birthing agreement" - at least not without violating her 14th amendment rights.  It's an unenforceable contract on her end.  Amusingly, I maintain that;s it's a violation of those same rights and that same clause that a male can;t opt out - can't choose not to be a father.  His privacy and autonomy are impacted by the choice of another, it deprives him of his liberty -and- property, and he doesn't enjoy equal protection under law with respect to the other.

I think the only way to allow the father to opt out is if the tax payers are going to be prepared to step in and fill his shoes financially.

[The Grand Nudger]

They will anyway, as we've seen..and even if he does pay (and the taxpayer should, and obviously could..imo)....but, again, that wouldn't be anything to do with him.  He explicitly stated that he did -not- want to have the taxpayer come in, that he did -not- want there to be a child to support in the first place.

It's not his decision that precipitates that wrinkle, but hers...and that's her decision to make (or isn't it).

[brewer]

Children need support. Nature doesn't really care about de jure equality, but I suppose the only real answer would be a precoital agreement, in writing, signed by both parties.

Man, talk about a heat of the moment passion killer. Is this Sheldon?

[The Grand Nudger]

IKR, and what's the point of it all...particularly when we realize that there is and can be no birthing agreement; silent, assumed, spoken or written, anyway?

Wrap it up or swallow the pill or don't, and if you dont'..and if you (as in the collective "you" of couples in coitus) happen to get kncoked up, and if you dpn;t want the baby, someone is going to have to pay for the abortion or decide to be a parent.

But...at no point...-at no point- should anyone else be able to make any of these decisions -for- someone else. Not him, not her, not the state.