Poll: Male reproductive rights

[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.

But what about my father? He had a PhD in chemistry, a burgeoning career with real earning power and probably $2 million in inheritance. He moved his money around and then didn't pay taxes, so when the divorce came along, he looked like he was in debt, rather than owning prolly $2 million worth in inheritance.
And then he fought for partial custody so he would pay less. (Which God knows how he got, because the grounds for divorce were, "Hey, he's kinda abusive." But of course, a fracture isn't really a broken bone when you have a high-price lawyer, now is it?)
And then he proceeds to make being around him so bad and often downright dangerous for my sister and I that they effectively dropped the whole thing. (Did I mention he is a hoarder? You've seen the TV shows; would you condemn your child to having to live in a situation like that with a dangerous man?)

But he played the court and dragged out the legal proceedings of the divorce for four years draining my mother's time, energy and money, and threatened to do the same thing again, with the ammunition of "She wouldn't let me see the kids" if she ever tried to get more money from him.

Ten years later, he managed to shove two million up his nose, and between the exacerbated divorce, student loans, and medical bills, at 19 I'm already in thousands and thousands worth of debt, and I can't remember a time when I didn't have to be afraid of my family's financial situation.

So yeah, it really isn't reasonable to judge Child Support based on a few unusual and extreme cases, because you have your father on one hand, and my father on the other.

Here's something to think about. Your father was rich but your mother had no right to that money once divorced (what in the world makes women think they are entitled to the same lifestyle a man provided after kicking that man to the curb?). Child support enables her access to that money (which is why I called it the new alimony).

It doesn't take 100,000 a month to take care of a child, this is where the percentage system breaks down. Most of that 100,000 becomes MOMS MONEY, in other words...alimony.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

I personally find this whole subject pretty disturbing and shows the outright level of immaturity present in this thread.

First things first, I am anti-abortion; pro choice. For clarity; this means whilst I personally would not entertain the idea, I am happy with other people making their own decision. With my stance out of the way, I can discuss.

With that said, I still believe men should have no say in the status of a pregnancy. If a male does not want a baby - the options are plentiful at the primary stage.

Speaking for the UK, our advices are free - meaning the only reasons for not indulging them are laziness and potential embarrassment. Both being signs of immaturity and therefore signs that you are not of a suitable mindset to enjoy intercourse.

If you're in doubt that she's using contraception on her side chances are you don't know her that well and therefore a condom also prevents other undesirables of sex. You do know her and still in doubt (maybe she's 'baby hungry')? spermicidal lube can be applied in such a fashion that the female isn't aware. A fair amount of effort is required, but again if you cannot be bothered to put in the effort than why are you having sex? Thinking about it - why are you together if deception is necessary?

As a whole women are better equipped to deal with the consequence of babies etc and why it should stay primarily their concern. If not for that reason, than for the reason that it is their body and since when has it been alright to force another person to do your bidding?

How would you feel if, completely at the behest of a third party, a vasectomy was actioned upon you?

It says a lot of a person where they are willing to put someone through torment for the sake of a few jigs around the maypole, and reeks of a sense of entitlement and a false feeling of superiority.

 

[Carnagath]

Actually, there are many people in this thread that ARE suggesting that. Any person in this thread that has said anything akin to "If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex!" did exactly that. They might not have outwardly gone out and said "Cut your dick off" but they DID say Don't have sex. Ever. Unless you want to have a child, don't ever have sex. If you're a man. If you're a woman, it's cool, fuck until the cows come home, then fuck the cow, but if you're a man, go be a monk.

How is "don't have vaginal intercourse with a woman you don't trust or whose child you would be unwilling to take care of" equivalent to "chop your dick off"? Having other kinds of sex with said women, and having vaginal intercourse with women you do trust or whose child you would be willing to take care of, is of course perfectly fine. In fact, men, fuck until the cows come home and then fuck the cow, but use some common sense whilst doing do. That's not too much to ask, is it?

(On the other hand, I'd get behind an "opt out" option wherein the man signed away all paternity rights in return for waiving child support payments, but forcing a woman to have an abortion - or not to - is just bleeding ridiculous.)

Hmmm. I wonder if "Hey, uhm, listen, I only do anal because I don't know you well enough" would work. I'll try it out next time and post results.

 

[Alex Gray]

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.

Here's something to consider, guys: once you have a child, and you're involved in his/her life any more than financially, and ESPECIALLY if the child is legitimate, you're stuck in one particular "dating circle" for the rest of your life. God help you if the stress of childrearing didn't finish off every trace of your interest in sex or female companionship.

(And sex and the presence of children are nearly mutually exclusive for a large number of reasons, most of which should be obvious.)

In fact, maybe we shouldn't waste time waiting for Big Pharma - maybe men ARE better off taking our fates into our own hands (in the form of a handgun or power tool, with a high-proof general anesthetic of your choice administered beforehand). Yes, there are well-documented ill effects to a lack of testosterone such as weight gain and gynecomastia, and of course the risk of bleeding to death, but consider the alternative.

Downtrodden testicle-slave, OUT!

 

[Ghengis John]

Women get a measure of revenge against the Neo-Catholics endorsing this measure. The gene pool is cleansed of some of the worst elements polluting it.

I feel that even Noob Saibot would approve.

Neo catholics? I'm pretty sure the pope is against abortion. I don't know about the neo pope however. Who rules from a twisted version of St. Paul's basilica, dedicated to Judas Iscariot and built from human remains and rusted scrap. His ruby red monocle iris constantly focusing in and out on a map of the world within it's cyclopean halls as he schemes his return from darkest Lemuria.

I thought this would be a "why doesn't a man have a say in when a woman gets an abortion"

As in, why doesn't anyone give a shit when the man actually wants the baby and the woman disagree's where is this man reproductive rights ect ect, there you would at least have my sympathies, what you discussing now I would rather not contribute due to the fact I liked not being banned from these forums.

I thought so too to be honest. And that would have been a more engaging and respectable topic. As far as I care this is a monstrous and idiotic joke. You can keep it in your pants and if you can't, well, you took the gamble yourself didn't you?

 

[LuckyClover95]

No! While I think it's wrong for a woman to abort when the father wants the child, she shouldn't have to abort her baby if he doesn't want it. While I understand and as a female want equal rights we would have to accept women have babies and men don't.

 

[lucaf]

have you got an actual reason for why men should be forced to provide for a child that it was not their choice to have?

If you can't afford a broken jaw then stay out of fights. If you can't afford a kid, then keep it in your pants. Otherwise you cast the die your own damn self. If it comes up snake eyes, deal with it.

like they say, it takes two to tango. if it is just as much my responsibility as hers, why would I have less choice? if she wants to get rid of the kid, I can't stop her and she doesn't have to pay for it for the next 18 years. if I don't want the kid, I have no choice in the matter and have to pay for it for the next 18 years.

there is no equality there whatsoever. its her body? well its my life and money. I know that sounds harsh, but if a woman wants the responsibility of raising a child, what gives her the right to force it on somebody who does't, especially since they have not choice in the matter

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

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.

Wanting to make sure two human beings of nondescript genetic code are properly tutored and taught how to properly raise a child, regardless of their financial situations, is NOT eugenics.

Now, if by "inheritable undesirable traits" you are, in fact, talking about undesirable living conditions, maybe financially unstable families, then you may have a point. But when I think of "inheritable traits" in the case of eugenics, I'm really not thinking about the living conditions or salaries of those wishing to mate.

OK, fine, this sort of system would technically hinder people with "negative" child-rearing "traits" from reproducing, but it'd be in the same way that Driving Tests hinder people who want to drive down the middle of the road. Rather than simply saying "You can't take care of a baby, thus no baby for you EVER" this system would say "You have problems in these areas, here's where you can go to learn how to better yourself."

If this sort of system of (re)training individuals to be better parents is truly Eugenics, then is this form of Eugenics really a bad thing? Is the alternative really that much better?

 

[Vrud]

A man has an orgasm and is done.

A woman gestates for nine months, goes through excruciating pain, and suffers hormonal side effects for long after.


Do you see why this might not be equivalent?

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Women get a measure of revenge against the Neo-Catholics endorsing this measure. The gene pool is cleansed of some of the worst elements polluting it.

I feel that even Noob Saibot would approve.

Neo catholics? I'm pretty sure the pope is against abortion. I don't know about the neo pope however. Who rules from a twisted version of St. Paul's basilica, dedicated to Judas Iscariot and built from human remains and rusted scrap. His ruby red monocle iris constantly focusing in and out on a map of the world within it's cyclopean halls as he schemes his return from darkest Lemuria.

Heh.

I use the term Neo-Catholics because much of the Catholic Church's stance on abortion (and on many other things) has been based on men telling women what to do with their lives/bodies/etc. While the initial post was for abortion, it still boiled down to "men should have the right to dictate to women what to do with their bodies."

 

[Ghengis John]

like they say, it takes two to tango. if it is just as much my responsibility as hers, why would I have less choice? if she wants to get rid of the kid, I can't stop her and she doesn't have to pay for it for the next 18 years. if I don't want the kid, I have no choice in the matter and have to pay for it for the next 18 years.

So you're going to force her to abort the kid, even if she wants it? No. That's not equal either. Don't you see that all this does is reverse the position so that you have all the choice and she has none? What a load of misogynistic bullshit.

there is no equality there whatsoever. its her body? well its my life and money. I know that sounds harsh, but if a woman wants the responsibility of raising a child, what gives her the right to force it on somebody who does't, especially since they have not choice in the matter

You had all the choice in the world when you decided to sleep with this woman. It does take two to tango and for your part you didn't give enough thought to the possible consequences of your actions. After that point, you were really just taking a gamble on what the mother's response would be but you put yourself in that position to begin with. She can't force herself on you and she's not likely to miraculously conceive. You've got all the power in the world up until the cannon fires. Where's your concern for your life and your money then?

Yeah it sounds harsh, because it is. And it's stupid. Sorry. You fucked yourself over. Live with it. As long as it's not harsh for you it's fine huh?

it still boiled down to "men should have the right to dictate to women what to do with their bodies."

Well that I can understand and I think we're in perfect agreement on that point.

 

[CommanderKirov]

HERE ARE YOUR OPTIONS.

1. Buy condoms
2. Don't stick ya dick in places if you cannot handle consequences
3. Get a vasectomy

ALL of them cheaper than it would be to actually make such a thing legal and enforce it.

 

[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.

Wanting to make sure two human beings of nondescript genetic code are properly tutored and taught how to properly raise a child, regardless of their financial situations, is NOT eugenics.

Now, if by "inheritable undesirable traits" you are, in fact, talking about undesirable living conditions, maybe financially unstable families, then you may have a point. But when I think of "inheritable traits" in the case of eugenics, I'm really not thinking about the living conditions or salaries of those wishing to mate.

OK, fine, this sort of system would technically hinder people with "negative" child-rearing "traits" from reproducing, but it'd be in the same way that Driving Tests hinder people who want to drive down the middle of the road. Rather than simply saying "You can't take care of a baby, thus no baby for you EVER" this system would say "You have problems in these areas, here's where you can go to learn how to better yourself."

If this sort of system of (re)training individuals to be better parents is truly Eugenics, then is this form of Eugenics really a bad thing? Is the alternative really that much better?

Yes, it's a bad thing. We are not Borg, we all raise children differently, just what kind of society do you want?

 

[Epona]

A man has an orgasm and is done.

A woman gestates for nine months, goes through excruciating pain, and suffers hormonal side effects for long after.


Do you see why this might not be equivalent?

Let me fix this for you.

A man has an orgasm and is done. After the baby comes he will work many more hours to give the money away whether he wanted the child or not.

A woman gestates for nine months, goes through excruciating pain, and suffers hormonal side effects for long after.


Do you see why this might not be equivalent?

When you put it like that, it seem like men are getting a raw deal.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Le Snippity-

Ehhh. No. It should be more like this: Woman doesn't want to abort, man doesn't want child.

Man shouldn't have to pay child support if woman decides to keep the baby.

Woman should have an opportunity to ask for child support if the man was stupid enough to not wear a condom all the time / got drunk and had unprotected sex with the woman.

It's not perfect, but it seems fair enough to me at least.

 

[lucaf]

like they say, it takes two to tango. if it is just as much my responsibility as hers, why would I have less choice? if she wants to get rid of the kid, I can't stop her and she doesn't have to pay for it for the next 18 years. if I don't want the kid, I have no choice in the matter and have to pay for it for the next 18 years.

So you're going to force her to abort the kid, even if she wants it? No. That's not equal either. Don't you see that all this does is reverse the position so that you have all the choice and she has none? What a load of misogynistic bullshit.

there is no equality there whatsoever. its her body? well its my life and money. I know that sounds harsh, but if a woman wants the responsibility of raising a child, what gives her the right to force it on somebody who does't, especially since they have not choice in the matter

You had all the choice in the world when you decided to sleep with this woman. It does take two to tango and for your part you didn't give enough thought to the possible consequences of your actions. After that point, you were really just taking a gamble on what the mother's response would be but you put yourself in that position to begin with. She can't force herself on you and she's not likely to miraculously conceive. You've got all the power in the world up until the cannon fires. Where's your concern for your life and your money then?

Yeah it sounds harsh, because it is. And it's stupid. Sorry. You fucked yourself over. Live with it. As long as it's not harsh for you it's fine huh?

woah woah woah, I never suggested forcing abortions. hell, I didn't say anything like that. I just said it is unfair women can relinquish responsibility of the child (abort or adopt) but a man can't, he has no choice and if she keeps the baby he has to pay for it, whether he wants it or not.

so lets recap, despite both the man and the woman being equally responsible, the man has NO choice in what happens to the child. apparently the only choice a man has is whether or not to have sex (a choice women have too), but after conception the ball is entirely in the womans court.the woman can give up responsibility if she wishes, but the man cannot?

all I am suggesting is this: if a woman doesn't want the baby, she can abort, and if the man doesn't want the baby, he can sever all ties with the mother and kid. that way both man or woman have the right to not be tied to the child if they don't want to, and neither can force parenthood on the other. it is just common sense, if a man cannot force a woman to care for a baby, why should a woman be able to force a man

 

[Ariseishirou]

Hmmm. I wonder if "Hey, uhm, listen, I only do anal because I don't know you well enough" would work. I'll try it out next time and post results.

Honestly? If a guy told me he wanted to stick to oral because he was worried about paternity, I'd respect his decision completely. I mean, I'd expect him to respect my decision if that's what I wanted. It's a two-way street.

Here's something to consider, guys: once you have a child, and you're involved in his/her life any more than financially, and ESPECIALLY if the child is legitimate, you're stuck in one particular "dating circle" for the rest of your life. God help you if the stress of childrearing didn't finish off every trace of your interest in sex or female companionship.

In fact, maybe we shouldn't waste time waiting for Big Pharma - maybe men ARE better off taking our fates into our own hands (in the form of a handgun or power tool, with a high-proof general anesthetic of your choice administered beforehand). Yes, there are well-documented ill effects to a lack of testosterone such as weight gain and gynecomastia, and of course the risk of bleeding to death, but consider the alternative.

Downtrodden testicle-slave, OUT!

I think you've long since descended into distortion and hyperbole here, mate. As I've shown, most women are willing to have some form of sex with reasonably regularity well into their 50s, even after marriage and childbirth. Of course it's important for every LTR so find out of you're sexually compatible ahead of time, but the situation is - as backed up by the numbers - nowhere near as dire as you portray it. The fact is, most of the young men here will get married and most of them (60% of the Americans, 67% of the Australians, 72% of the Canadians - indeed, the divorce rate in the UK is the lowest it's been since 1979 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Statistics) will remain married to the same person for life.

And in that marriage, 67-80% report being satisfied with their sex life (in Western countries; in Asian countries this is much, much lower but I'm assuming as this is an English-speaking forum most of us hail from the US/UK/NZ/OZ/CA - http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060419.sex.shtml).

So, really? Relax, gentlemen. Most of you aren't going to get divorced. Most of you are going to have satisfying sex lives. Most of your wives are going to have sex with you - including oral sex - regularly. Contrary to what the embittered doomsayers want you to believe (and if I listened to those on my end I'd believe all men were rapists and deadbeats, which is also so much tripe) it's probably going to be fine.

Outside of marriage, though, should a man be able to waive his paternity rights in order to not pay child support? Maybe. That's a good question. But forcing women to have abortions - or not to - when their lives and health are at risk is completely out of line.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Some of my good friends were raised by single parents. With this policy in place, they would probably not exist.

So no.