My question to pro-choice supporters

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

"My body, my choice."

Okay, it does makes sense. You don't want others telling you what to do with your body, that's fine, you know? A unilateral power over whether a baby lives or dies is with it's mother because it's her body and it's her choice, which is fine, but what happens when a woman gets pregnant and the man she had sex with does not want to keep it but she does? 

I mean, obviously, you can't force an abortion, so what do you do for the guy? So my position is that the guy should be able to opt out of parenthood in that situation, so like, no parental obligations whatsoever, it'd be like it isn't even his kid. 
Anyway, that's my position, I think that's fair to everyone involved but I was wondering what pro-choice supportive folks think about it. 

Are you supportive or not supportive of it, why?

[Foxaèr]

In instances like that, I believe the man should not be held accountable for child support.

Yes, I am pro-choice for the woman to do what she wants with her body, but she has no right to ensnare a man into child support when he does not want anything to do with the baby.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds legit to me. I wouldn;t hold my breath waiting for that provision to be written into law though. Patriarchy is a bitch, even for men...and so long as John Congressman can come riding in like captain save-a-ho daddy will always be on the hook..even if mommy aint.

[Aroura]

In instances like that, I believe the man should not be held accountable for child support.  

Yes, I am pro-choice for the woman to do what she wants with her body, but she has no right to ensnare a man into child support when he does not want anything to do with the baby.

I agree with this.  He should essentially be able to abort the baby in name, detach himself from all legal obligation via some legal document.

That being said, once he makes this choice, he can't change his mind later without the consent of the mother.  He is signing away all rights to the child, as well as all obligations.

[Jesster]

I think you are actually bringing up a fair point for once. I'd agree that if abortion were 100% legal and easily accessible, the man should not be held liable in this situation where the woman wants the child and the man does not. We are not at this point yet, however. I'd also add that if an abortion was instead the choice in this more ideal world, the man should be expected to help pay for the costs involved there. I think that's a more than fair trade-off for removing the forced payments for the raising of a child.

[Foxaèr]

I believe the whole "child support" thing came about because of the primitive 50's thinking that women should stay home, raise the kids, and not work.

With modern feminism, the goddamn woman can take care of herself and the child without any assistance from the man.

[The Valkyrie]

In instances like that, I believe the man should not be held accountable for child support.  

Yes, I am pro-choice for the woman to do what she wants with her body, but she has no right to ensnare a man into child support when he does not want anything to do with the baby.

This.

I think it would be incredibly hard to implement though.  How many on both sides will lie?

[Aliza]

The only problem here is that you've removed all accountability for the man. Now he can go and impregnate a bunch of women and leave them holding the bag. I think we should be putting our efforts into creating male birth control rather than giving them a convenient out when they screw up and knock some chick up. There are men (I've uh... "met" many of them personally), who would love to germinate the female population with as much seed as they could if they could just opt out of the whole payment and responsibility thing.

[Foxaèr]

The only problem here is that you've removed all accountability for the man. Now he can go and impregnate a bunch of women and leave them holding the bag. I think we should be putting our efforts into creating male birth control rather than giving them a convenient out when they screw up and knock some chick up. There are men (I've uh... "met" many of them personally), who would love to germinate the female population with as much seed as they could if they could just opt out of the whole payment and responsibility thing.

Bolded: The woman is having sex with the man, she is as much a part of it as him. If she notices there is no condom being used, then she is just at fault for becoming pregnant.

In the end, it will be a she said, he said predicament, and courts have been notoriously famous for taking the side of the woman over that of the man when it comes to these situations, because how could a woman possibly support herself and a child in the modern times of feminism?

[Jesster]

The only problem here is that you've removed all accountability for the man. Now he can go and impregnate a bunch of women and leave them holding the bag. I think we should be putting our efforts into creating male birth control rather than giving them a convenient out when they screw up and knock some chick up. There are men (I've uh... "met" many of them personally), who would love to germinate the female population with as much seed as they could if they could just opt out of the whole payment and responsibility thing.

Bolded:  The woman is having sex with the man, she is as much a part of it as him.  If she notices there is no condom being used, then she is just at fault for becoming pregnant.

In the end, it will be a she said, he said predicament, and courts have been notoriously famous for taking the side of the woman over that of the man when it comes to these situations, because how could a woman possibly support herself and a child in the modern times of feminism?

She does have a point, though. There's really no reason not to pursue male birth control options. What could that possibly hurt? There's always going to be people with gaps in protection, but this would close that gap a lot more.