Otokonoko <"The question is: do unrelated women really have any more right than unrelated men to tell women what to do with their bodies?"

Yes , in a general sense they do. Only women really understand female body issues as such.
Regarding unrelated men, I really only meant other men besides the father of the foetus. Obviously, the father should have a say, but in the end it should be the mother's decision about what happens to her body.

Onthebeach, why are you targeting me to address all your 'issues' on this subject?
It is an opinion forum, not a lecture theatre.
There are many times you haven't answered my queries on this forum.

In any case, you agree that abortion is ultimately the woman's decision, so I have no issue with you on that account.
Your problem with the women 'stealing' the fathers genetic material is odd, given that I'm assuming he gave it away freely during the sexual act?

If he had worn a condom, there wouldn't have been a problem...

Suse, it's pleasing to see you s committed to the obligations of those who may otherwise choose to try to avoid responsibility for their role in interpersonal matters.

Presumably this heralds a new approach. For example, I'm sure you'll agree that the nagging wife who refuses to heed the warning to be quiet has no cause for complaint if her husband hits her, after all, if she didn't want to be bashed, all she had to do was keep her mouth shut.

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with many other instructive situations. I applaud your keen ethical insight.

Suseonline, "If he had worn a condom, there wouldn't have been a problem..."

It has already been established that contraception can fail and it is by no means a rare event.

It has also been established that women can choose to be mothers or not. That is the sole purpose of abortion.

Why shouldn't men also have the choice to be fathers or not?

The man would not be telling the woman what to do with her body. He would only be saying that he does not want to be made into a father by her decision to incubate a mass of cells. Up to her if she goes ahead and no further role for the man unless he elects to be a father when first advised of the pregnancy.

That is reasonable and fair. Exactly how could it hurt anyone? After all, the woman gets what she wants either way. You do regard the man as only the donor of semem and not the father.

She does not get automatic access to his wallet though. Is that the main problem?

I'll assume that Suse, intelligent woman that she is, has seen the ethical problem with her proposal vis a vis contraception and paternal responsibility.

Many men, myself included, find condoms inconvenient and messy, while they reduce the sensations of the act to such an extent that I rarely end up actually needing one, having put it on. I have been told by my female partners that they also experience a reduced sense of intimacy. Since penetrative sex is all about the sensations, it is unfair to demand that men must accept either a loss of sexual enjoyment or a non-negotiable risk of assuming a large personal obligation. On the other hand, female contraception is so unobtrusive at the moment of passion that a man has no way of knowing whether his partner is using it, or in the case of hormonal forms, whether she has been assiduous in keeping to her dose schedule. That means he is again in an unfair position and has to trust her diligence and even her honesty, which may be unwise when she is feeling passionate.

If it turns out she conceives, whether through accident or because of lack of care in using the contraception, she still has a choice, which is to abort or carry the pregnancy and once again, he is bound by her decision and even attempting to influence it may leave him subject to accusations of being abusive.

We need laws to make it possible for men to enjoy some of the same rights around reproduction that women do. The current situation is untenable ethically and is derived from an earlier time when sex was something between husband and wife in the eyes of the law and procreation was an assumed purpose or at least a reasonably satisfactory outcome that produced a shared burden and a shared joy.

In today's world, where a pregnancy may mean a man faces an 18 year commitment of financial support and may have no contact with his child at all, it is a very one-sided proposition.

Antiseptic, you have the choice to use a 'messy' condom, or face the consequences of a possible pregnancy, abortion or 18 years of financial responsibility....your choice.

As it happens, there are many women who never tell the donor of the sperm that they have fathered a child, as well as many women who don't want the father to have any involvement in the accidental pregnancy, financial or otherwise.

Then there are the many men who will go to many lengths to not have any responsibility for their children, financial or otherwise, even if they had previously been married and had wanted the kids originally.

So there you see the many scenarios of bad men and women in the circus of life.

However, the fact remains that it is a requirement by law for both parents to contribute to their child's financial upbringing following their birth.

If that law were to change, and the father was absolved of financial responsibilities if he was annoyed at the mother, then the Government knows it would have to up the family payments and other benefits to help with the child.

So you know you have a snowballs chance in hell of that happening...

Suse, The Feminine Mystique was published 50 years ago. In the ensuing period the social contract has been torn up and rewritten. The most significant change has been the empowering of women to self-determine whether they participate in a pair-bonded relationship or not. Today we are still in transition, with many women effectively now wards of the state in financial terms,but otherwise free to make their own way. Some men are too, although fewer. In years to come women will be expected to be genuinely independent except for the same safety net that men have in the dole and disability benefits. I would like to hope that women of good intent will argue the case for paternal reproductive choice, just as men did for women.

The CSA transfers just $3billion a year, mostly between couples who were in committed relationships and in some cases still are, but choose to keep finances separated, as one of my friends exemplifies. That's less than 1% of government revenue and male reproductive choice would barely affect it. I suspect that the number of men who would take advantage of such a choice might be initially high but would level off at a smaller number than the women who elect abortion for purely financial reasons. We are, after all, driven to want to reproduce.

The ethical argument demands it and there are no financial or other grounds to justify not doing the ethical thing. It is only the fact that we have few women of good intent in politics that prevents it, because a man could not be successful in carrying the public argument.