Mother trumphs Father. As for support, thats for the parents to decide, and failing that, the courts.

 Mother trumps Father

That doesn't work. There have been cases in which people have tried this and the women later decided that they did want child support and courts made the man pay up. You can not write contracts that contradict pre-existing law. So you can't exempt yourself from child support laws through contracts with the mother.

How about this though: change child support laws so that if the father advocates abortion and the mother refuses, he is exempted from child support. That way if the woman wants to keep a child against his will, she'll be doing it without his financial backing.

I actually agree with Jormungander.

Couldn't that same logic be applied to an argument against abortion?

The fact that with proper pre-emptive measures it's unlikely to be needed? What does that have to do with it?

Maybe I read it the wrong way, but I read it as "you should have though of it"

But anyway, there are enough abortion topics on the board.

I agree with Jormungander, but uuuuhhhh, this just sums up the whole issue in our court system.

I believe the invention of a condom, came about when a man realised, that being a eunik was a terrible idea...

Apperantly, this mans invention still has not made it onto the main stream market

BAD HAMBY! your supposed to discuss such measures infront of the Council of Men first!

Well, as I see matters, there are a few possibilities. However, before I get onto those, let me state that I am in favor of men being able to have abortions when they decide to have them. All that they need to do is get pregnant and then we will be having a proper discussion over this idea.

To my mind, it is of little importance whether it is the state or the father who is making the call. If a woman can be forced to carry a child that she does not want, then there is a form of slavery going on here.

Granted that Christians have strange ideas about reproduction. However, a different society that had different strange ideas about reproduction could, in theory, require mandatory defloration after a girl's first period. Would that be any better than disallowing abortion? I tend to think not.

So this brings us to the question of: “if the potential father wanted the potential mother to have an abortion, could he force her to do so”?

That is a much harder question. One point is that it takes both people to get into the situation. The woman chose to take the dick with no pills or condoms involved. If the woman does not want to engage in reproduction slavery, then she should be willing to take reasonable measures to avoid the situation. On that point, she probably should be willing to take the responsibility on herself and forget child support.

However, it does take two people to start the situation. So the potential father could have used a rubber. Or he may have taken the woman's word at faith that reproduction was not going to happen.

Honestly, I think that this needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

 There are plenty of natural abortifacients that can be slipped surreptitiously in the breakfast oatmeal.  Of course, you still need to check your local laws.  It's going to be illegal, to be certain.  The question is how illegal.  The thing is, you at least avoid the tagged on assault and battery charge.

And no, I'm not going to tell you any of them because I think doing such a thing is pretty rotten.  Like I said... vasectomy is the ultimate cure for needing abortions.

I find the hypocrisy disturbing. On one hand, the man is being held 100% responsible for pre-conception birth control or else he is court mandated to support the child for 18-26 years (because, statistically, he has a 7% chance of gaining custody if he seeks it). Yet the woman is entitled to post conception choices the man isn't, and she is solely entitled to those choices simply because she has 9 months of support?

Now, that said, I don't think a man should have the right to enforce a pregnancy, nor to force an abortion. But I believe he should have the right to "abort" his responsibilities and obligations, so long as it is done in time to allow the woman to make an informed choice for her future. Again hypocrisy rears its head when women cry "why should a man be able to shirk his responsibility?", the answer obviously is, because woman also has that choice. the question "why should a woman be required to shoulder the responsibility alone?" to which the answer is, because she made that choice, knowing full well the man had aborted his responsibilities. if a man aborts his fatherhood, the woman still has the choice to abort herself or adoption, leaving her with no responsibility as well. Why is it that a woman is legally and morally entitled to enforce , without his choice, an 18-26 year financial obligation (which is inherently biased against men), equivalent to extortion, onto a man for an act that she is equally responsible for, but has post conception options, yet, it is somehow unreadable for a man to absolve himself of the obligation (as the woman can choose to), leaving the woman still having a choice

Why then does only one get a choice regarding their future? if both are responsible for the situation, both should be given equal choice for their respective futures.

It also demonstrates clear female chauvinism (look it up)

In otherwords, surgery and self-mutilation is the best equivalent solution to what is inherently granted to woman by legal right to abort? and still isn't 100%, by your own admission. Seems a little one sided.

is 26 years of effective wage slavery not also slavery? is it acceptable because men are the victims?

not the issue at hand. No-one is advocating forcing the woman to have an abortion, they are advocating the man absolving himself of any rights or responsibilities to the child, early enough in the pregnancy to allow the woman to decide if she wish's to abort herself (or give to adoption if she opposes abortion) or if she will choose to keep the child knowing full well that support from the father will not be an option. no choice is being denied from the mother, instead, a post conception choice would ALSO be given to the father, granting a shift towards equity (men still wouldn't have the choice to keep a child against the wish's of the woman, but at least he wouldn't be forced to keep a child he himself didn't want, you know, the thing you decree as slavery when applied to women but "expected" when applied to men).