Poll: Male reproductive rights

Katana314

New member
Oct 4, 2007
2,299
0
0
Yeah, I'm the type to commonly believe men are unfavored in such social / sexual situations and lawmaking...but even I can tell, this kind of thing is not a good idea. It would even introduce unnecessary paperwork into the idea of sperm donors and such.

It does present an interesting problem, but the solution is nowhere near acceptable for women. My idea: The morning-after pill must obviously come the morning after. If you don't trust a woman much, what about some kind of time-release pill she takes right then and there, and the effects begin in 12-24 hours?
(yes, you can tell this comes from a virgin who thinks condoms are a type of apartment)
 

zerobudgetgamer

New member
Apr 5, 2011
297
0
0
Crono1973 said:
zerobudgetgamer said:
Crono1973 said:
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?
I'll say it again, what is being asked for is NOT some sort of end-all-be-all my-way-or-the-highway mentality. It is the EXACT SAME FORMULA that is used for Driving Tests. People may drive their cars with one hand on the steering wheel, have the radio blaring out with the bass turned up so high that the whole car shakes, maybe use their free hand to eat, apply makeup, smoke, or jerk themselves off, but we all drive on the same side of the road, we all stay within the lines, and we all adhere to speed limits. There are certain infallible rules of the road we all adhere to, rules that we either know instinctively or are taught to us before we take the test. So WHY can't we have the same for child-rearing?

I mean, fucking hell, there are a few infallible rules I can think of for raising a child. Don't personally cause injury to the child, make sure the child eats a healthy diet, pay more than 5 minutes attention to your child every 24 hours. I could go on. Why is it so unthinkable to, at the very least, have these sorts of classes become mandatory for child-rearing? I'm no longer saying you have to have a License to rear a child. I'm just saying, we have Sex Ed classes for children ranging everywhere from 5th-9th grade, we're constantly telling teens to be protected, WHY OH WHY can't we just give them a Proper Parenting class as part of required curriculum? And not some week-long "Here's a Toy Baby, Take Care of It" Project (Which I never once saw during my education, and have yet to hear of it since), but a full semester-long class. If we have to teach native English-Speakers their own language from the ages of 6-18+, WHY THE HELL can't we have ONE SEMESTER to teach them how to be good/proper parents?!
 

ADDLibrarian

New member
May 25, 2008
398
0
0
Rather than go through, making a long response about my personal opinion which someone more than likely shares out of 13 pages (no one's going to read this anyway), I'm going to respond with a couple of snippets of other people who I agree with.
This

InfiniteSingularity said:
Um....right. So the man gets the final say? Wheres the balance of power, and why doesn't the woman get a say in this? Honestly, I don't think anyone has the right to tell any woman what to do with her unborn child, and it is entirely her choice. If you didn't want a child why did you have sex in the first place? You don't like it? Deal with it. It is morally wrong to take control over another person's body. The last thing we need is another legal document regarding control over personal relationships.
and

CommanderKirov said:
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.
This.
And really, I think sometimes the OP of threads like this are troll..trolololo...
http://trololololololololololo.com/
(end on happy note)
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Yeah because women are always so eager to have sex in the first place. So with how easy it is to get a woman out of the mood, how in the mood do you think shes going to be after having to file and notarize pre-coital documentation

Ill grant you, guys get screwed in this matter for their lack of control, but they also do not have to first deal with their body being taken over by another living organizim, and secondly be in essence biologically attached to it once it has been expelled. So, having that level of forced biological commitment does grant em a trump card of sorts.
 

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
Katana314 said:
Yeah, I'm the type to commonly believe men are unfavored in such social / sexual situations and lawmaking...but even I can tell, this kind of thing is not a good idea. It would even introduce unnecessary paperwork into the idea of sperm donors and such.

It does present an interesting problem, but the solution is nowhere near acceptable for women. My idea: The morning-after pill must obviously come the morning after. If you don't trust a woman much, what about some kind of time-release pill she takes right then and there, and the effects begin in 12-24 hours?
(yes, you can tell this comes from a virgin who thinks condoms are a type of apartment)
Not at all. This would be a decent idea.

A male pill would be even better. Then a man would have the same right to choose a woman had whether or not vaginal sex resulted in conception. Many of these have been in development, but they're often discarded because contraception is viewed - even by men - as the woman's responsibility, or they're too worried about side effects.

I think we need a paradigm shift in this regard. Male scientists should get on this; the Pill has mild side effects as well, but it's a small price to pay to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I'm sure mild side effects (like a small amount of weight gain, or sporadic acne, just like the female pill) in a male pill would be better than 18 years of child support.
 

Conn1496

New member
Apr 21, 2011
265
0
0
If you didn't want a baby, shouldn't have stuck it in. Though to be honest, the man should get a say in what happens to the baby. I believe that while the mother does give birth the child, it's just as important to the father as it is to the mother. It's THIER child. It should be something openly debatable within a relationship.
 

RN7

New member
Oct 27, 2009
824
0
0
Technically, (Please note that word technically refers to the logic of the situation and not my personal belief) it shouldn't matter if the woman has the child or not. The male's reproductive purpose is to impregnate a female to produce offspring so that the genetic lineage may continue. The only way not wishing to produce an offspring makes any sense is when you know the child is at risk of having some sort of birth defect. If the male does not want the child, he should not be there to raise the child.

Personally, I don't see why they wouldn't want the child. He knew the "risk" when you engaged in the act of sex and now he's backing out. I realize that in some situations, this is untrue, such as in the case of young adults, but it's still not meant to be trifled with incautiously. They face the consequence if they don't heed the risk.
 

Chibz

New member
Sep 12, 2008
2,158
0
0
wolas3214 said:
the word marriage needs to cease to be used, because of its religious overtones.
Hey! I'm here now!

I'm just going to point out that (where I live at least) marriage is a secular institution. You know that huge ceremony, with the best man/etc? Yeah. That is (legally) irrelevant. All that matters is the contract signed with at least one witness. This contract is LEGALLY BINDING. No court in the country would ignore it.

Also, if ANY religious person in north america tries to clam marriage as "their thing"(or any variant of this wording) please laugh at them for me. Thanks.
 

Iconsting

New member
Apr 14, 2009
302
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Women should not have the right to decide what happens to their child. They should be forced to have an abortion if the father tells them to.
I love how he points out double standards when his entire wall of text is one.
 

lucaf

New member
Sep 26, 2009
108
0
0
Conn1496 said:
If you didn't want a baby, shouldn't have stuck it in.
I really don't like that argument (in fact, I am sure something similar was used as an argument against abortion) because it is only men who have to view it that way. a woman can always, as a last resort, have an abortion, and so they can have sex and still not have a baby if they don't want to. it is only men that can end up in a situation where they are forced to provide for a child they don't want, and that isn't fair.
 

Kraj

New member
Jan 21, 2008
414
0
0
Ice your potential offspring, get a Vasectomy. If she comes crying to you about being pregnant, leave her. Cheaters gonna cheat.

Women are just like men, some are great, some are rotten, some are honest, some are vindictive and manipulative. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, don't take a chance especially with Americas crappy social rules and legal system.
 

Heathrow

New member
Jul 2, 2009
455
0
0
This is an interesting quandary. On the one hand Women have the reproductive right to choose not to haves sex and also the right to decide how to deal with the consequences, on the other hand, men only have a right to decide not to have sex. In some ways this is purely a matter of equal rights, women have the right to decide what happens after conception and men do not.

If, for a moment, you forget everything you know about men and women then this is an obvious inequality. One type of person is offered two votes and the other is offered only one. However, if we remember that there is an inherent biological inequality in men and women then this disparity can begin to be accounted for. Women are the only parents tasked with the process of actually carrying a child to term and feeding it for the first months of its existence, these are burdens only a woman can carry and therefore the question of whether or not they should be undertaken is one which is only directed at women.

Until science provides us with a reliable way to have men transfer the onus of pregnancy to ourselves then we will not have any right to tell a woman what to do with her conceived fetus because we have no right to tell her what she can do with her own body.
 

Thanatos5150

New member
Apr 20, 2009
268
0
0
wolas3214 said:
It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father.
Oh, this is going to go over great, well, let's see what he has, ladies and gentlemen.

When a man doesn't want a child, and the woman uses her religion as an excuse to not get an abortion (or any other reason) children are born without a loving home with two financially stable parents. This behavior has created endless problems in our society. I would posit that having children, like having sex, should be a decision reached mutually, and not forced upon a party by one overbearing, overzealous individual. Some feminists have suggested 'sexual consent forms'. Why are there two different standards for getting consent for the sexual act, and the birthing act? Contrary to what Christians would have you believe, people have sex for pleasure, and only rarely set out with the intention of creating a child. Children are most often an accidental byproduct of the act. Women should not have a monopoly on reproductive rights.
I'm compelled to ask for you to cite a source for this statistic (About accidental versus planned births).
The division between willingness to actually birth the child does not automatically make the home unloving. It does not automatically cause a divorce or break-up. Two people - even when consenting to both sex and birthing does not mean that the child's family will be financially stable. You seem to be making assumptions about sex and birthing.
I'm unsure of what you mean by a sexual consent form, but another damnable piece of bureaucracy between a man and a woman (Or any other conceivable combination of consenting adults of a number without limit) having sex seems like a very, very bad idea.

On a similar subject - what if the mother doesn't know who the biological father is? This happens too.

If a man doesn't want a child, he should be able to have control over what happens to his genetic material, in the same way that women have control over who has sex with them. Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard. A simple consent form accompanied with genetic samples can be used to ascertain the validity of a birth. If a woman wants to give birth, she'd better have a consent form from the father, as well as a signed contract specifying the terms of the relationship with the father, preferably with indication the pair will remain a couple indefinitely so that the child may have both a mother and a father, provided that both parties agree to those terms
The average man does have control over his genetic material - even more so than the average woman. Certainly both can be victims of sexual assault, and both shed large amounts of skin and hair. Both unwillingly bleed. A man can choose to not dip his wick, just as a woman can choose to not have a wick dipped. The woman, however is more slave to random chance than the man over whether or not two zygotes meet, through sheer biology.

not to mention that Marriage contracts have become legally meaningless as there are no longer any courts which uphold them. This also needs to change, but the word marriage needs to cease to be used, because of its religious overtones. Contracts imply that a promise must be made, and a promise must be kept. That people honor all of their contracts is an essential part of any society, whether it's a marriage contract, or a contract for the exchange of goods or services.
Marriage contracts are still honoured. Furthermore, we're humans, not Salarians.
Marriage has lost all religious under/overtones in the lexicons of most people I've spoken to, including myself. We're pretty sure it's a strictly legal thing. Contracts other than marriage, I should remind you, are broken constantly. Hell, when was the last time you said "I'll just play this one more level." or "Wait until I get to a save point." and then proceeded to play even after the level/save point in question? You just established - and broke - a verbal contract.

Whenever there's a single mother, they have always blamed the father, while assigning no blame whatsoever to the mother, who refuses to get an abortion even when it's legal and free to do so. The mother is applauded for her bravery and allowed to repeat this atrocious behavior in order to get a meal ticket. When the child stops being cute, the young mother puts the child up for adoption (or worse, neglects the child while retaining custody), creating a burden on society.
[Poster's note: Minor grammar fix in the quote]

Firstly: I ask you to please define "they".
Secondly: You're using notoriously shaky (and easy to discredit) all-inclusive language.

Abortion is not free and legal everywhere, you'll recall. A mother might not have the finical or civil liberty to actually carry out an abortion that she may dearly want.

I would also like to point you that you seem to be taking the actions of the (highly-visible) "Bottom two percent" of people women and applying it to the entire, broad spectrum of people women as a whole. You're taking horror stories and outright assuming that's the way the world works. One hundred percent of the time. All of the time.

Is this change to our society really too much to ask?
Yes.

Whats your opinion?
My opinion is thus: What you are proposing - that a man should be legally able to force a woman to have an abortion - is tantamount to legalizing rape.
Yes, I'm being intentionally sensationalist with the phrasing above, because it drives the point home hardest. You're saying that a man should legally be able to force a woman's rights into a matter which suits him most. He should be legally able to have some doctor stick *something* into *somewhere* usually considered sexual and have the *man's* way with the *woman* regardless of *her consent* in the matter.

It also seems like it could even further solidify the concept of a male-dominated society.
 

Vrud

New member
Mar 11, 2009
218
0
0
Crono1973 said:
Vrud said:
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.
. . . Except, doesn't the mother have to pay for the child to live, too? :p
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
There already is a male birthing contract, and said contract is subject to being voided when he inserts it into a woman's contract, without the necessary protection clause.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Vrud said:
Crono1973 said:
Vrud said:
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.
. . . Except, doesn't the mother have to pay for the child to live, too? :p
Yes but she is not told how much she must pay every month with the threat of imprisonment. Further, if she doesn't have enough money, she can get welfare so in the end she can live off of food stamps, medicaid, welfare and child support. Everyone except her is paying for her child.

If he can't afford to raise his child, he gets punished. If she can't, she gets paid.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Gotta love a bunch of upset middle class white teenagers throwing their toys out of the pram because they are obviously discriminated against by everyone and everything. This idea is ridiculous and unreasonable, and no human should have a contract over another humans physical or psychological life. That's what we in the industry refer to as slavery.
 

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
Kraj said:
Ice your potential offspring, get a Vasectomy.
You don't even have to go that far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vas-occlusive_contraception

Women have been getting IUDs for decades. I'm sure the gentlemen can handle having one too.

WanderingFool said:
There already is a male birthing contract, and said contract is subject to being voided when he inserts it into a woman's contract, without the necessary protection clause.
I loled.