I was responding to the post as a whole and not the bolded part that was quoted. My mistake. I understand that the argument from property rights is much murkier in the case of abortion.

I would tell them that it is fine as long as I don't have any responsibility and I don't have to pay for it.

But you would have to pay for it. I'm assuming that carrying a child for 9 months isn't exactly a walk in the park. Besides, there is always a non-trivial threat to the mother's life or health during childbirth.

I don't know why, but I just wanna post this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz5AVYyj3gI

Ok, so what's your point?

Maybe I misunderstood your point. Are you suggesting that it's OK to prohibit abortion if the father agrees to take all responsibility for the child. If not, then i misunderstood your post. Maybe it's just semantical, but my point is that there is no way that a pregnancy can have no cost.

Buddy you even quoted this. BTW you didn't really take that good of a look at the game theory graph I made.

P.S - of course there is a price for pregnancy but this is minuscule compared to the costs of years 0-18

Forgive my forgetfulness, buddy. As for the graph, I took a perfect look at it.

As for the price of pregnancy. Who are you to determine the cost to the mother of carrying a child to term? I'm not talking just about dollars and cents. The mother does carry a risk to her health and even life by carrying a child to term. The mother can negative psychological effects due to giving up the child. For you to claim that you can value the cost to both sides is ridiculous.

Well obviously I didn't do an in depth economic cost analysis study of pregnancy but I think most people would say that

Cost of Pregnancy to Mother < Cost of raising child w/o help from mother.

Also consider the life of the child.

Currently, the economic incentive is the other way: a woman will always say that she wants to keep the child (even if she doesn't), since she knows she will always receive support from the father.

Which is more fair? Well, since the woman ultimately has the choice over whether the baby is born, she should ultimately bear the responsibility, and NOT have the child if she can't support it (and the father doesn't want it). As an aside, if the father doesn't want to support the child, he has no rights wrt visitations or whatever.

The end result would be a society with far less single mothers, parents who can't support their kids, and more complete family units. Women wouldn't have kids that didn't have a dedicated father, or that they couldn't support themselves. Unintentional fathers wouldn't be faced with 2 ugly options: get roped into taking care of kids they didn't want, or just being deadbeats and taking off, leaving a poor single mother.

One other point to consider is that the father would be voluntarily assuming the costs of raising the child, which means that the father would value the benefit of raising the child > than the cost. The mother, on the other hand, would have to be forced to carry the child.

I would.

The same argument can be said of both parties involved in the pregnancy, but women claim it is their RIGHT to choose wether or not to have the baby. To then expect the man to be forced to pay for the consequences of that choice is tantamount to someone eating Outback Cheesefries three meals a day every day and then expecting Outback to pay for my inevitable triple bypass surgery. It completely takes any responsibility away from the party who is charged with making the decision. I just don't understand howsomeone could justify both.

When he asked that he meant "could you clarify what article 2 section 3 says for me its been a while since I've perused it."

Forget before sex, its ALWAYS possible.

Maybe possible isnt the word you are looking for here? Pet peeve of mine. You'd LIKE to say likely, I think, but you know thats false. Its sort of an important issue...are you sure you want to go with "possible?"

Wait, now I'M confused. JayTee seems to be correctly paraphrasing your point here but you are disagreeing? You SEEM to be saying that you think that it would be ok to forbid abortion when the father is willing to accept all burdens or whatever. Is this what you are saying?

There is practically zero chance that "raising child w/o help from mother" will result in the mothers death or injury, so I think your inequality sign is backward.

Wat?

I said nothing about a man making a woman do anything, quite the opposite in fact.

If by refusing to pay any sort of child support the man would then give up any rights he would have to see his kid or be involved in it's life. I think this could be a very effective deterant for men who were looking to buck the system so to speak.

Highly doubt that but it would be a good deterrant for women who were looking to GAME the system.

Implied in the question is that there are two ways to make it "fair": 1) give the man veto power (if woman wants an abortion) or 2) give the man "walk away power" (if the woman wants to keep the child).

Oh, you are right, when I was originally thinking about the OP I was only considering option number two and wasn't directly trying to advocate veto power for the man, but I see now that it is sort of implied. Also, if guys could get pregnant and a woman wanted me to give birth and then she would take take the baby, raise it and pay for it I would be completely fine with that.

Just to be clear (because the question implies a moral position that I don't think you hold) you have to assume you don't want the baby and want to have an abortion (I'm assuming you would never choose this option, but the question assumes it) and that after making that choice you would be fine with an individual saying "no"

This is the issue that offends me most.

Regarding the OP, Once you stick your dick in it, you're on the hook for all the consequences. This idea of personal responsibility is difficult for most young males to understand, but it's the foundation of a reasonable life.

There's really not a good analogous situation that I can think of...this is the best (though flawed.) Perhaps my hot dog and pony loving analogists can come up with something better.

A & B are planning to rob a bank. A's role is to do the upfront work. B's job is to do the actually robbery. B pays A for his role prior to the actualy robbery. A gets paid and then says to B "I don't want you to do it, don't rob the bank." B robs the bank and gets caught. Should A be responsible even though he told B not to go through with it?