Poll: Male reproductive rights

[Eri]

A man consents to have sex and it isn't the same as consent to having a child. However, it is the woman's choice to allow that pregnancy to gestate and develop. So while you seem to have a large batch of crazy making the rest of us men look insane and fascist, you have a point hidden in there.

Simply put, men need an opt out. Women have the ultimate opt out and I will fight to the death to ensure they keep it. Their body, after all. However, I don't feel their choice should ensnare another. For those saying that he should keep his dick to himself, she should keep her ovum to herself. That isn't what he consented to. It takes two to tango, not one to make the entire decision with what to do with 20 years of his life.

So, give men the opt out and women an undisputed right with their bodies. Everybody wins. Those who wish to decry deadbeat dads and whatnot, what? She should have kept it in her pants if she didn't want a kid, right? That's what you say about men, it equally applies to women.

This. The fact men have no opt out is ridiculous. Men should have a say in whether they become a parent.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

He kind of does. He just has to avoid putting his dick in things with receptive ovums.

Seriously, guys, if you think this is a big problem, put some sperm on ice and get yourself a vasectomy. This may sound blunt, but you really do ultimately have control over your own sperm. Unrealistic? Maybe. But so is the idea that you are going to be running around forcing women to abort because you got too drunk to put on a condom.

Edit

it's legal and free to do so

Wait? What? When did this become free now? You've been watching too much Fox news.

Me and Rach got a kick from reading your response there Meg. Well said.

 

[lucaf]

I have this strange feeling that the people arguing for this don't have any idea what it means for a parent to skip out on their obligation to the family because they just don't feel like it.

Child support isn't some punishment for banging the wrong person, its to take care of the fucking child.
Its morally reprehensible to not put their well being first. Both for the mother and the father. Granted, sometimes putting a child up for adoption is the honest best chance a child has, but in these situations, where's the father?

As for a woman's right to adopt out a child in general, that's something that's been going on for as long as the human race has existed, and its best to do some historical research to find out how and why it got to be as it is now before making your opinion all willy-nilly.

the problem is that men are completely helpless in these situations. if a woman doesn't want to care for her child, she can abort or put it up for adoption. if a man doesn't ant to care for a child, he has to pay child support. how is that balanced?

it is all well and good to say "where is the father?", but in the end it was her choice to raise the child alone. what he is doing is the same thing as she would have been doing if she had aborted or adopted the child; relinquishing responsibility. it is completely unfair that men have to pay for a child they don't want, but women don't

 

[Caer Seraphim]

Just skimming through the replies, nothing I can say hasn't been said. A male's right to not have a child is a male's right not to have sex. Otherwise, use protection. Condom + birth control. There are male birth controls out there in development, and they'd be much safer, healthier, easier, more effective, etc, but companies fear that men aren't good gatekeepers. Many men want to have greater reproductive choice, and if men could decide when a good time not to have a baby is, then the world would be a better place. But forcing an abortion on an unwilling woman... I'm sorry, but that's just evil.

 

[Laurie Barnes]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Eugenics again. Oh goody.

That is not eugenics. Eugenics is ensuring that offspring have the best genetic make up for survival by ensuring that the parents are both good genetic specimens.

 

[Epona]

Change is coming, there are more people today than there was 5 years ago that see the unfairness in regards to the lack of male reproductive rights. Maybe in the next decade or two men will have an opt out.

 

[lucaf]

Just skimming through the replies, nothing I can say hasn't been said. A male's right to not have a child is a male's right not to have sex. Otherwise, use protection. Condom + birth control. There are male birth controls out there in development, and they'd be much safer, healthier, easier, more effective, etc, but companies fear that men aren't good gatekeepers. Many men want to have greater reproductive choice, and if men could decide when a good time not to have a baby is, then the world would be a better place. But forcing an abortion on an unwilling woman... I'm sorry, but that's just evil.

what about an opt out? if the man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to have a part in caring for it. the woman has the right to relinquish responsibility of the child, why can't the man?

 

[Alex Gray]

Just skimming through the replies, nothing I can say hasn't been said. A male's right to not have a child is a male's right not to have sex. Otherwise, use protection. Condom + birth control. There are male birth controls out there in development, and they'd be much safer, healthier, easier, more effective, etc, but companies fear that men aren't good gatekeepers. Many men want to have greater reproductive choice, and if men could decide when a good time not to have a baby is, then the world would be a better place.

MALE. LIBIDO. INHIBITOR.

/thread

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

Child support is set at a percentage of income so it is never beyond their means.

LOL, yeah right. Child support is alot more complicated than that. A court can set child support based on your POTENTIAL.

In other words, if a court decides you could be making $100,000 a year they could set the amount based on a percentage of that. That percentage could be more than you make at your current job. Further, child support doesn't take into account any abnormality you may have. Let's say you get laid off because the economy sucks, because your city got flooded or whatever, the child support will build up and if in three months you don't pay...you could be in jail or have your license suspended making it even harder to pay said child support.

Luckily I have never been in such a position but it could happen to me as I have seen it happen to others.

So again, LOL, yeah right!

This happened to my father almost word-for-word. He worked for the government, so his projected income was wonky and the child support was much more than the standard 1/3. Then his job got outsourced a few years back, and the amount he was expected to pay didn't change.

Indeed, it's pathetic that so many support treating men as slaves for committing the crime of having sex that resulted in pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for your actions must be horrible indeed. If there are flaws in the system then fair enough but that's not to say that the entire idea is flawed.

Men should have to accept responsibility for making a child as much as the woman who 'is left holding it' so to speak.

The casual attitude towards abortion in this thread is kind of shocking I'm pro choice but it's not like going to have your appendix out.

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Eugenics again. Oh goody.

That is not eugenics. Eugenics is ensuring that offspring have the best genetic make up for survival by ensuring that the parents are both good genetic specimens.

We already went through this, making sure that the parents are intelligent enough/blah blah blah is technically eugenics as well. I'm still all for it, but yeah. I got chewed out on this earlier.

 

[The Heik]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Eugenics again. Oh goody.

Actually I wasn't thinking of eugenics in this case. All this idea was is ensuring that kids are given the best chance (in a world where quite frankly the odds are against them) by two individuals who have proven themselves capable of the appropriate skills, which can be taught to anyone who honestly wishes to raise a child. It's like taking a test for a driver's license. Things like genetic stock never enter the equation, as humans by definition are incredibly adaptive creatures who defy things like "genetic quality" (besides, we've seen with the royal families what happens when people think that only a certain "stock" is worthy).

 

[aei_haruko]

I read the first two sentences...

A man makes that choice when he has unprotected sex.

Don't want a kid? Keep it in your pants.

And if a woman doesn't want a child, she should take a course of pills and have her brain ****ed out by whoever?
*Edit* Sorry, left a bit out. A woman only claiming to be on the pill is not unheard of. While you may be talking about one-nighters, the problem is that a married woman can force the conception, without consent from the male.

I'd support this. Right now, everything can and is blamed on the man.

All things considered, do we really need yet another regulation defining how we go about our personal relationships? Can't we just let people sort things out themselves? People are perfectly capable of communication and do not need a court or legal documents to do so. If the woman is to be so deceitful, then yeah, okay that's a bit unfair, but is it really up to us to tell her what she can or cannot do with her child? Is it that hard for the couple to resolve their differences themselves?

Our culture is being driven towards being a "nanny-state" where all the risks are eliminated by laws which prohibit any activity which may be of risk. Honestly, people are intelligent enough to work out for themselves what risks they want to take, and if they stuff up it's their own fault. The government, law or law enforcement, or courts should not be held accountable for the failings of the individuals

I agree that the government shouldn't regulate tons of things, however,
I think abortion is morally wrong. Like when 2 genetic codes are intermingled, and the egg is fertilized with 2 distinct genes, then in my opinion it's life, and to me it'd be pure tyranny to have the state saying wether i had the right to live or not.
Although i agree, i hate the nanny state, and I don't ant people telling me, or others what to do, because we in this american republic own our government with our votes

 

[lucaf]

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

Child support is set at a percentage of income so it is never beyond their means.

LOL, yeah right. Child support is alot more complicated than that. A court can set child support based on your POTENTIAL.

In other words, if a court decides you could be making $100,000 a year they could set the amount based on a percentage of that. That percentage could be more than you make at your current job. Further, child support doesn't take into account any abnormality you may have. Let's say you get laid off because the economy sucks, because your city got flooded or whatever, the child support will build up and if in three months you don't pay...you could be in jail or have your license suspended making it even harder to pay said child support.

Luckily I have never been in such a position but it could happen to me as I have seen it happen to others.

So again, LOL, yeah right!

This happened to my father almost word-for-word. He worked for the government, so his projected income was wonky and the child support was much more than the standard 1/3. Then his job got outsourced a few years back, and the amount he was expected to pay didn't change.

Indeed, it's pathetic that so many support treating men as slaves for committing the crime of having sex that resulted in pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for your actions must be horrible indeed. If there are flaws in the system then fair enough but that's not to say that the entire idea is flawed.

it is the womans actions as much as the mans. difference is, she has the option to not raise the child, he doesnt

 

[Ariseishirou]

Pubescent kids love to talk, especially in environments where they feel safe. It's well-established that adolescents of both genders routinely exaggerate their sexual experience and prowess to impress others.

True, but I'm not talking strictly about adolescents - these are grown women of my acquaintance as well.

I am quite a bit older than you and that has not been my experience or the experience of anyone I know (as long as we're citing Unverifiable Personal Gnosis here).

Very well, as evidence that is more than Unverifiable Personal Gnosis, a University of Georgia study found that over 75% percent of college co-ed had had oral sex and 51.8% performed it regularly. This certainly qualifies as "most". So for a young man of college age who is worried about paternity issues, oral sex is certainly a viable option with most female partners. You can read it here:

http://www.uhs.uga.edu/sexualhealth/oral_sex.html

I think we may have hit on a significant difference in perspective, then - not only am I quite a bit older than you, but I had the misfortune of being expected to study and get good grades in college, and my social life suffered accordingly (and for the best, I think). My experience mostly occurred after college.

I'm not sure how old you are, but again, according to the research (Sanders, Stephanie A., Hill, Brandon J., Yarber, William L., Graham, Cynthia A., Crosby, Richard A. and Milhausen, Robin R. (2010). Misclassification bias: diversity in conceptualizations about having 'had sex.' Sexual Health 7(1): 31?34. DOI:10.1071/SH09068. - summarized here: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/images/SexualBehaviorPIc.jpg), instances of oral sex actually increase after college, with 76% percent of women having performed it on a man within the last year in the 25-29 year old cohort. It declines to 59% for the 30-39 year old women, but it's still well within the realm of "most". In fact, it remains that way right up until the 50-59 year old age group; unless you're over 50, your experiences are unusual.

And, well... sorry about that, mate. Nothing more I can say really. If I were dating you, I'd go down. For most men over 18 and under 50, it's an entirely viable option if they've got paternity concerns.

(EDIT: Even more directly, the same study - National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB). Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, Centre for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University. Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 7, Supplement 5 - found that Half or more of women ages 18 to 39 reported giving or receiving oral sex in the past 90 days. Not only are they willing to do it, most women are willing to do it with considerable regularity. I think your sample size is a bit skewed, especially if they're comparing sperm to a gun to the face - you really need to get out of whatever dating circle you're currently in because it appears to be populated by the most frigid women I've ever heard of.)

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

Child support is set at a percentage of income so it is never beyond their means.

LOL, yeah right. Child support is alot more complicated than that. A court can set child support based on your POTENTIAL.

In other words, if a court decides you could be making $100,000 a year they could set the amount based on a percentage of that. That percentage could be more than you make at your current job. Further, child support doesn't take into account any abnormality you may have. Let's say you get laid off because the economy sucks, because your city got flooded or whatever, the child support will build up and if in three months you don't pay...you could be in jail or have your license suspended making it even harder to pay said child support.

Luckily I have never been in such a position but it could happen to me as I have seen it happen to others.

So again, LOL, yeah right!

This happened to my father almost word-for-word. He worked for the government, so his projected income was wonky and the child support was much more than the standard 1/3. Then his job got outsourced a few years back, and the amount he was expected to pay didn't change.

Indeed, it's pathetic that so many support treating men as slaves for committing the crime of having sex that resulted in pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for your actions must be horrible indeed. If there are flaws in the system then fair enough but that's not to say that the entire idea is flawed.

it is the womans actions as much as the mans. difference is, she has the option to not raise the child, he doesnt

Abortion isn't the casual choice alot of people in this thread seem to think it is.

 

[Epona]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Eugenics again. Oh goody.

That is not eugenics. Eugenics is ensuring that offspring have the best genetic make up for survival by ensuring that the parents are both good genetic specimens.

So testing people to get a license to reproduce is not eugenics?

Let's look at the definition again:

eu·gen·ics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
?noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

Your license system acts as a filter to only allow specific people to reproduce. Depending on how you set the tests up, you could weed out people (and I quote) having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics).

Look, this idea that governments should be in charge of reproduction is a bad one. History is not on your side here.

 

[Epona]

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

Child support is set at a percentage of income so it is never beyond their means.

LOL, yeah right. Child support is alot more complicated than that. A court can set child support based on your POTENTIAL.

In other words, if a court decides you could be making $100,000 a year they could set the amount based on a percentage of that. That percentage could be more than you make at your current job. Further, child support doesn't take into account any abnormality you may have. Let's say you get laid off because the economy sucks, because your city got flooded or whatever, the child support will build up and if in three months you don't pay...you could be in jail or have your license suspended making it even harder to pay said child support.

Luckily I have never been in such a position but it could happen to me as I have seen it happen to others.

So again, LOL, yeah right!

This happened to my father almost word-for-word. He worked for the government, so his projected income was wonky and the child support was much more than the standard 1/3. Then his job got outsourced a few years back, and the amount he was expected to pay didn't change.

Indeed, it's pathetic that so many support treating men as slaves for committing the crime of having sex that resulted in pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for your actions must be horrible indeed. If there are flaws in the system then fair enough but that's not to say that the entire idea is flawed.

it is the womans actions as much as the mans. difference is, she has the option to not raise the child, he doesnt

Abortion isn't the casual choice alot of people in this thread seem to think it is.

...and yet it is a choice.

 

[Dragunai]

"YOU CAN'T BREAK UP WITH ME I'M PREGNANT!"

Is a term that has been thrown around by chicks in the past to avoid guys leaving them.

Pregnancy has been forced by women in bad relationships who don't want them to end by, as mentioned before, sabotaging their Voluntarily used birth control and not telling the guy that the next time they have sex he is going to be an unwilling dad forcing him to stay in her life against his will.

What the women here and globally need to realize is men have feelings too!
And thoughts and everything you have in your head too! bar any standing gender specifics (No homo)

Therefore scapegoating us for every single thing bad that happens to women isn't going to fly much further.

Yes, the last 2000yrs were run by men.

Men that aren't us,
Men that are dead,
Men that we don't have anything to do with or even share thought pattens with.

Why are we being held responsible for shit we didn't control?
I'm not going to have some feminist accuse me of oppressing women when the last 2 girls I dated were spoiled, adored and loved at personal expensive of happiness, money and a social life.

***
I don't think forced abortion is a good idea. Far from it in fact because that is a state enforced mutilation of a human body with serious mental and physical side affects when voluntary, never mind when you lose your will over it.

To the same extent, men should be willing to accept that if they knock a chick up, its their fault and thus should accept the blame if they didn't take precautions.

On the other hand, If a condom broke or she somehow voided the effects of her pill (by choice or accident) and the morning after pill is a viable option she refuses to take on whatever grounds then the contract system would work very well.

IE:

A married couple find out the wife is pregnant, they go to family planning, fill out a form and everything is awesome because the form says the man accepts full responsibility for his actions and the child, so even if the marriage dissolves later on, he is under a court mandate to be involved.

***

Women gets pregnant after a condom breaks, both people are aware of it but the woman doesn't want to use the pill on ethical grounds. She chose to keep it, the guy doesn't want it. Both are say, 23 and the guy says "Too young to throw my life away on an unplanned baby as are you," but she insists on keeping it.

So he doesn't sign those forms, or signs forms claiming he wants nothing to do with the child in a court where he has explained the above situation and gets to keep his life.

Why should he be punished for an accident when he did his part to avoid the pregnancy.
The woman chose to keep it, so she can. Simple as.

Granted exploitation in the form of a guy sleeping with a chick then running out on her to avoid the consequences, having not taken measures is there, which is why a court is in charge of the "not my problem," forms. They can say "You did FA to avoid it, now suffer!"

Everyone wins!

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

Child support is set at a percentage of income so it is never beyond their means.

LOL, yeah right. Child support is alot more complicated than that. A court can set child support based on your POTENTIAL.

In other words, if a court decides you could be making $100,000 a year they could set the amount based on a percentage of that. That percentage could be more than you make at your current job. Further, child support doesn't take into account any abnormality you may have. Let's say you get laid off because the economy sucks, because your city got flooded or whatever, the child support will build up and if in three months you don't pay...you could be in jail or have your license suspended making it even harder to pay said child support.

Luckily I have never been in such a position but it could happen to me as I have seen it happen to others.

So again, LOL, yeah right!

This happened to my father almost word-for-word. He worked for the government, so his projected income was wonky and the child support was much more than the standard 1/3. Then his job got outsourced a few years back, and the amount he was expected to pay didn't change.

Indeed, it's pathetic that so many support treating men as slaves for committing the crime of having sex that resulted in pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for your actions must be horrible indeed. If there are flaws in the system then fair enough but that's not to say that the entire idea is flawed.

it is the womans actions as much as the mans. difference is, she has the option to not raise the child, he doesnt

Abortion isn't the casual choice alot of people in this thread seem to think it is.

...and yet it is a choice.

a very extreme and traumatic one. Why should a woman have to go through that just becuase a man can't cope with being a father?

 

[Connor Mulhern]

Men will always get screwed, but what happens if the man wants to have the child, but the woman wants to get an abortion. As I man, I think women have to go through more, although having to pay child support after 10 years of no contact from the wife is still stupid.