Poll: Male reproductive rights

OldGus

New member
Feb 1, 2011
226
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
While I agree that men basically get screwed when it comes to things like this... no. Good God no.

meganmeave said:
If a man doesn't want a child, he should be able to have control over what happens to his genetic material
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.
This is basically the answer. If you don't want to have to pay child support for an unwanted pregnancy, or don;t want your kid scooped out by a doctor, where a spermicidal condom. or, you know, pick what you hump more carefully.
Yeah, pretty much this sentiment. I can already think of a few outside instances where this wouldn't always work (Milkman syndrome, I think I'll call one, which can either happen in marriage or result in it.)
Believe it or not, halving a couple does not result in a child half-raised. A birthing contract? Making it illegal to have a child without two parents? Really? So, I do have to ask, is the intention here to legally claim that single parents are worthless to children, or that grandparents can't legally take care of children, or daycares? Because right there are three options that I have seen work, and have seen work better than my two parents in some cases, and the single parent one doesn't usually last forever. Either way, the choice to have a baby should be made beforehand by all parties available. As in, before you start using the world's most complicated syringe for one of its intended purposes. Doesn't mean you and your partner can't suffocate the snake, or see how fast the single engine piston can run, or ride the saddlehorn, but always remember, the most important rule of animal husbandry is planning.
Lastly, sure, when the bun is in the oven is a little late to decide what you're having for dinner. But keep in mind, the father isn't the one who has to carry the bugger for nine months (oddly enough, 10 is average here.) SO, I say if he really wants the kid, he should at least be busying himself helping out, cause if you want a bun with none of the hassles of baking, that's what bakeries are for. And for anyone accusing me of being Huxleyan, I'm talking about orphanages.
 

Caiti Voltaire

New member
Feb 10, 2010
383
0
0
somonels said:
Sober Thal said:
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.
You have a right to do with your body as you please. You do not have a right to tell ME what to do with MY body. So, if you don't want kids, don't do the naked pretzel.

It's not that hard.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Your argument fails on several accounts--the individual is not the entirety, the place of custom, culture and tradition, the presence of domineering personalities coexisting alongside submissive ones and their tendency to seek each other out, the hard fact that not all sex is consensual, and the ability to choose from any of damn near 100 means of birth control that exist means with self control and responsibility, you won't have to have children until you are ready to, provided you are in that position. Forming a legal contract to do what you want to do is ridiculously inhibiting.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
The only way I could see anything like this working is under these conditions.
1) The man legally revokes any right to the child and has no right to pursue or contact the child in any way.
2) The man must offer to cover or at least partially cover the cost of an abortion so the option is open to the woman and not closed due to financial reasons.

Might have to be amended later, but those two would be pretty important if something like this were to come into effect.
 

Daffy F

New member
Apr 17, 2009
1,713
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Contrary to what Christians would have you believe
I read this far before deciding you were an idiot. I read the rest and confirmed my theory.
If you don't want children, don't have unprotected sex. It isn't difficult.
Even in the case of failure of contraception, you shouldn't have sex with anyone without properly thinking of the potential consequences/risks.
I'll say it again: You are a moron.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Once the man goes and puts it up the tubes he should have little say outside of marriage least until after birth. Her personal rights and freedoms over rides his in most cases I should hope to think due to the fact he can always have another child easily while a woman has limited time and energy to have them and she has to bare that physical and emotional burden for potentially the rest of hr life.

Sure it should be qaussi equal after birth(some tend to fall with one parent) then in such instances the courts should be the final rights maker if issues arise.

At the end of the day its a matter of trust and having something more than a friendship as so many relationships I see today are built upon acquaintanceship and equal self gratification over having a Gdamn life together, if you do not plan on being a parent just don't have sex with people its easier done than most people care to think it is.If you do not sleep around or screw up your first time or become unable to cope with a relationship the less likely hood of a man needing a Gdamn lawyer.
 

Reallink

New member
Feb 17, 2011
197
0
0
I get the argument, but I think giving the father the right to essentially terminate the child isn't really practical. If there was a way for the father to not have to take responsibility when justified, eg. the woman lied about using contraceptives, I think is a different case.

Some sort of ruling that ensures a child is born into a stable home, though near impossible to regulate, is something I would support however.
 

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
Chairman Miaow said:
Kathinka said:
Chairman Miaow said:
I would just like to point out, that at best, condoms are 99% effective. 1 in 100 chance of failing. How often does somebody in a stable relationship have sex? How many people are in stable relationships? How many people have one night stands and how often? that's a lot of unplanned pregnancies even if people use protection. People are far too judgemental over these things. If I got somebody pregnant because my condom failed, I would certainly want to be able to decide not to have it. I don't however think a man should be able to decide to have it if the woman wants it. Having the baby should be a consensus, not having it should be a right.
just saying: your number is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. condoms, correctly applied, have a pearl index of 2. meaning that out of 100 women who apply condoms correctly for A YEAR, 2 become pregnant.
still, condoms are not the safest bet. hormonal anticonception is preferable.
just wanted to point out that your numbers weren't righ by a longshot.
Fair enough,I didn't bother checking my sources, probably should have.
no problem, your point remains valid regardles. just had to fend for poor little condoms a little.
that's why i use a hormon implant. the chance of that thing not working is smaller than me getting hit by lightning.
 

Estelindis

New member
Jan 25, 2008
217
0
0
The original post of this thread is the worst thing I have ever seen on the internet. I sincerely hope the original poster is trolling and not serious.

Abortion should never be forced, whether it's by the mother on the father who wants his child to live, or the father on the mother who wants her child to live. Law should never privilege the wish to inflict death over the desire to protect the innocent. The fact that so many people voted otherwise astonishes me, even though I'm glad the majority disagree with the OP.
 

Eirak

New member
Feb 28, 2011
5
0
0
XD are you serious? You have two wonderful solutions: contraception, abstinence. Isn't great?
You can get a vasectomy EVEN if your wife or girlfriend doesn't agree with it. That's cool uh?

Because some religious marriages imply that you must/should procreate and are against abortion, why don't try the opposite as well, marriage against reproduction and for the abortion. Really amusing.
 

Dense_Electric

New member
Jul 29, 2009
615
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Not having an abortion is to 'opt out' of responsibility in your world, eh?

I respectfully disagree. You want a law that allows (male and female) dead beats to not pay child support, fine.

There are plenty of ways to have sex without risk of impregnating someone. I suggest you look into these things.
That loud jet-like sound was my point flying over your head.

What I'm saying is that if women are legally allowed to abort their unborn children, the father should be legally allowed to have nothing to do with it (including child support). It's just what I said before - I'm not too keen on either parent doing either of these things, and yes, I believe people should finish what they start (particularly when human life is involved). Legally though, it's only fair that if one parent gets to be irresponsible, so does the other.

I'm also well aware of the contraceptive options, and I'd remind you that they make contraceptives for women as well (I don't know if you were implying they don't, but a lot of people seem to think it's somehow only the male's fault if a female gets pregnant).

PeacanPie said:
The father has always had the option to back out of the situation. It's called walking away. Why do you think single mothers exist? Just because someone you slept with is having a baby that doesn't make you legally responsible. Nor do I think it should. If a woman chooses to have a baby, she should accept that she can't bully or expect the man to help out. At the same time, it's sickening that men do just walk away. Unless they have a damn good reason, that life inside her is as much his doing as hers.
Not to mention, you make abortion sound like you go into a clinic, drink some medicine and it's all gone. It's painful. It's absolutely horrible. And there should be no way someone can force you into doing that.
Hence what this whole debate is about, the fact that in these situations, the parent who's not taking care of the child (usually the father thanks to our blatantly sexist legal system) *must* pay child support or face prison time. Meanwhile, the mother can get the abortion (and yes, I'm very much aware of the details) and be done with it with no legal ramifications.
 

commodorejohn

New member
Oct 16, 2009
61
0
0
Crazy as it may seem, I'm not too keen on the idea of children having to get the thumbs-up from somebody in order to not get killed. Two somebodies is twice as odious.
 

Thaa'ir

New member
Feb 10, 2011
119
0
0
Don't have sex irresponsibly. If you do and get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy, it's your fault and you deserve to suffer the consequences if the woman refuses to get an abortion.

This also violates religious rights. I am not religious, but I would be horrified at the idea of forcing a religious woman to get an abortion.

It's not like the woman is not making any sacrifices for this...she'll make far more than the guy will.

In short, this seems like a way for idiots to shake off responsibility for their sex lives by giving a clear way out of their screw ups. Sorry...but if you screw up and end up having a kid because the woman refuses to abort, you deserve to be screwed for it. You should've listened in sex ed.
 

the27thvoice

New member
Aug 19, 2010
136
0
0
...don't really have the time to read all replies, so to the OP...what the hell is wrong with you?

I'm a guy. I don't like my limitations, but they were put on me by nature and the evolution of our species, not by single mothers. I don't like how mothers are the de facto right person to care for a child, and I do believe a family with two parents on a general basis is a better foundation for a good childhood that a family with one parent. I came into this thing hoping you'd have some valid points...but damn it, you're basically rooting for forced abortions unless a woman can produce a signed "consent to repopulate" form from the supposed father of the child. You're suggesting religion is just a convenient excuse to do whatever the hell you want to do. You even suggest that to make things fair a woman should be forced to carry a child to term if the supposed father want her to. That's 9 months + recovery time + the health risks involved. The hell?

I really want to give you props for saying contracts should be honoured by all parties at all times, I do believe honesty should be at the heart of all things, but even as I think that, I can think of several reasons why the option of divorce should still exist.

Women can reproduce and look good in dresses, men can pee standing up, lift really heavy things and park cars. It's a give-and-take, it's not anyone's fault and we don't need to fix it. Get over it.
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
wolas3214 said:
To the vasectomy crowd; So I should have to mutilate my body because a woman is too untrustworthy to use her birth control? That would be a violation of my civil rights.

To the condom crowd; they can break people. it happens.
Okay, let me put it this way. The act of having sex is acceptance of the consequences (whether you want it or not). If you are a male and don't want a child, there are three options (two technically), the first is a vasectomy (this is the 'non-option', because it isn't always guaranteed as far as I know), the second is to not have sex in any way that can possibly result in conception, and the third is to make a formal arrangement with the partner before hand that you are to have no responsibility for any child that results from your sexual activities. If you opt for the third, then if the woman does get pregnant, then she has agreed to leave you out of it, so it is entirely up to her whether to keep the child and raise it or not.

The use of cotraceptives doesn't give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is like playing russian roulette. You can have no bullets (no sex) and there is no chance of death, you can have one bullet (sex with contraceptives), in which case you are participating in the game, so you are responsible for the outcome regarding your own well-being, or you can have more than one bullet (sex without the maximum contraceptives). The only way that your responsibility for any deaths (pregnancy in this case) is waived is if you don't have any bullets to begin with, or if you get a formal consent from the other parties involved saying that they accept full responsibility, and remove you of yours, in regards to the outcome of the event.
 

Rex Fallout

New member
Oct 5, 2010
359
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. 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.

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

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.

Whenever there's a single mother, they have always blamed the father, while assigning no blame whatsoever to the mother, whom 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.

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

Whats your opinion?
... So I am not worth Shit and my mother should have murdered me because of her mistake? Thanks pal, needed that ego boost after the week I've had.
 

Alanj95

Regular Member
Aug 20, 2010
36
0
11
To avoid having kids, keep it in your pants.
I still think that in cases of separation, the situation should be analyzed.
Whoever is deemed most fit to raise the offspring should get the offspring, and the other half should get stuck with the Child Support. That way people looking for quick money through children have a much harder time and actually have to work and the children have a better life growing up with their more responsible parent.
 

Naal

New member
Feb 24, 2009
92
0
0
Rex Fallout said:
... So I am not worth Shit and my mother should have murdered me because of her mistake? Thanks pal, needed that ego boost after the week I've had.
I'm with you there, brother. My birth father (whom I have never even met) wanted my mom to get an abortion with my older sister and I. When I was three months old she left him and didn't ask for anything. She did it all on her own.

OP: You must have had a bad childhood or met some pretty bad women to classify all of us as such. Yeah, there are a few bad apples but don't let them spoil the bunch.
 

knight steel

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,794
0
0
Dastardly said:
wolas3214 said:
Is this change to our society really too much to ask?

Whats your opinion?
I see what you're getting at. I may not agree, but I understand.

When two consenting adults have sex, and that sex ends in unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, the perception is that the woman has two choices she can freely make: Have the kid, or don't have the kid (abortion or adoption). And the perception is that the man has one choice--do whichever the woman says.

That means if the woman doesn't want/can't afford a child, she has an "out." If the woman wants it, but the man doesn't want/can't afford the child, he has no say, no "out." The common statement is that he "made his choice when he decided to have sex," but it seems this doesn't apply to the woman. I can understand the perception, and it certainly is an asymmetrical system. Both parties do not have the same options or the same level of say. However:

1. Many of those people also think the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex, and thus abortion is only for rape, incest, or cases of health crisis. In that sense, this view is more internally consistent with itself--the idea is that both parties waived their "right to choose" when they chose to have sex.

2. Forcing an abortion on a woman, if the man says, "No," is a fiercely dangerous thing. If you're going to push this angle, you should instead push for a system that allows a man to sue for non-parental status--if she chooses to have the child, and he mounts a case against it, he could say, "Look, if I don't get a say, then it's all on you." At least with this idea, you're not on the edge of forcing abortion on a woman... though an idea like this is so full of pitfalls I don't see how you could make it work.

3. Yes, it's a double standard (in a sense). A hypothetical woman who says, "Oops! I had my fun, but now I don't want to pay for it!" can open the escape hatch and get away. A hypothetical man who does the same cannot, and he'll be on the financial hook for the next 18 years at the very least.

Similarly, a hypothetical couple who has a child on the way with a known severe birth defect (say, Down's syndrome) has a decision to make. If the mother decides, "We can't afford the care we'll need, and we don't want a lifetime of that kind of work," she can opt out. If the father thinks that, but the mother does not, he's up a creek.

So yeah, it can be a double standard. More accurately, it's an asymmetrical choice. They seem unfair, but often they can't really be called that. Fact of the matter is, the woman is the one that houses the baby for nine months and endures child birth. As a result, any procedure performed on the baby is also performed on her. That means she gets veto power, plain and simple.

The "unfortunate" part is that, once childbirth is done, both parents have equal responsibility even though they didn't have equal choice. But that's just a feature of the way the biological system is designed, not an unfair social construct.

In principle, if the biology was symmetrical, I could agree with you. But that's not how the species is built, so it just doesn't work that way.
This so many time this, i had planed to say something similar {although no were near as good as the way you said it} but now i don't have to ^_^.
Really the best solution is simply let the man walk away if did not want the child, that being said there's still the issue of if the man wants the child but the woman does not in that case there's nothing you can really do since it's the woman body but still....it's kinda sad :{