Poll: Male reproductive rights

alandavidson

New member
Jun 21, 2010
961
0
0
Kermi said:
As a guy, I have the right not to bust a nut where my swimmers can get to an egg waiting to be fertilised. After I waive that right, all bets are off. A reasonable person accepts this.
This is pretty much the answer. You don't want a kid, but still want to have sex? Better use protection, not just the guy, but the girl as well.

As far as a "birth contract" goes? As a former fetus, I would have to say I'm against that.
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,220
0
0
Having sex with a woman is just like signing a waiver. You lose all rights of say and have to take upon your responsibility of any eventuality.

One of my cousins actually had a kid last year, and the wife ran off with it to British Colombia with another man. He was quite mad but not so because it was unplanned. She threw away any chance of getting a court to grant alimony for her though. And though he'll probably never see his first born again, he won't have to spend the vast amounts of time and money it takes to raising a child. I don't mean to sound cruel on this. I like kids, just don't want them myself.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Raesvelg said:
It would be arguably fair if the man had the power to waive parental rights and responsibilities, at which point the woman could make the choice based on her own resources, not the ones she's assuming she can get from the father.
that's pretty much the ideal solution, as far as I'm concerned.
 

RickRoll

New member
Aug 4, 2009
104
0
0
aba1 said:
Well I dont think the majority or children are born out of a mistake I also think if the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't than the man can walk away and it goes backwards too the only thing is women have to give birth to the baby so ya I think they deserve a litte bit more say its only fair

I think alot of this comes down to the fact that if people were a litte more responsable it wouldn't be such a issue.

If you don't want a kid take lots of procautions and you have to relize yes you are infact taking that risk and are taking reasponsability for and negative kickbacks that come with it
a man can't just "walk away." if a woman has a child without the man's consent, he pretty much always still has to end up supporting the kid financially until the kid is 18. so, actually it isn't fair at all; women certainly have far more control biologically and legally with regards to reproduction.
 

6_Qubed

New member
Mar 19, 2009
481
0
0
Sir (you must be a sir),

I am a man. I agree with the general spirit of what your suggesting, and I'll commend you on the rather, ahh, "spirited" debate you've started. However, I disagree with your implementation. Bearing this in mind, I will try to step back and look at the whole picture objectively, play "devil's advocate" as it were.

Let's start by breaking down your first point: Should a woman give birth without the consent of the father? No, because a child needs the support of both parents. The last thing a child needs is to be forced into the situation of having a choice of favorites demanded of him/her, which would most likely result from such an act. However, should a woman be required by law to sign a contract restricting her from birthing this child? No, because this is not something that should be judged by a court or senator or what have you. Frankly, there are too many insipidly specific laws that should have never seen print as it is. (I admit this is a personal bias. Disregard as you see fit.) So in short, while it should not expressly be illegal to have a man's child without his consent, by all means it should be frowned upon. This is not something a loving, considerate person does, period.

As a sort of intermission, in regards to your "Christians" line; I have yet to meet a Christian that says what you said they say. If anything, they fully admit that people are having sex solely for pleasure, if only because they disapprove of it and want it stopped.

Next point: Double standards. You are free to dislike it all you want, I certainly do, but double standards will never go away. The table is tilted, boyo, the game is rigged, and it was rigged by house and players alike. These double standards are born of basic discrimination, so basic that they are ingrained into the very genetics of humanity; Women are always going to be "weak, delicate victims" that need "protecting", and likewise because men are always going to be "stronger" and "wiser", they are obligated to "protect" the "lesser sex". Double standards are a double-edged sword, however, because both men and women suffer as a result. What if a man in a relationship is being abused, physically, mentally or even sexually? "Don't be absurd, women can't hurt men, they're too weak and dainty. He's probably just making the whole thing up to cover up his own domestic abuse, so let's go ahead and arrest him to be on the safe side." Let's flip it around; What if a man is a loving father and househusband, and genuinely enjoys fillings both roles? "What nonsense is this? A man acting as a woman's slave? You should be out there, bringing home the bacon, like a real man. Good we were here to show you the error of your ways." These are very limited and polar examples, but hopefully I've made my point here. Forcing arbitrary virtues on an entire gender or sex is just as damaging as forcing any other sort of restriction on them. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Unfortunately, there's no real way to litigate that without allowing for the possibility of loophole abuse. This is something that is up to the individual to enforce. "Be the change you want to see" and all that. (Again, this is a personal bias, and I'll understand if it's taken with a grain of salt.)

And dispensing with the spectre of neutrality, I patently disagree with your stance on marriage contracts. They are still very affective, so much so that when the destined 50% of the married populous decides to end it in divorce, the resulting financial fallout fairly destroys the man in the equation, and any steps to defend the poor sod are met with cries of misogyny. Divorce courts will usually side in favor of the woman, the woman will receive alimony payments from the man whether she needs them or not. And if there was a kid by the marriage? Hoo boy. Now the man has to pay child support, may only get to see the kid on the weekends, and remember how I said the child itself is often pressured into taking a side? I'm not just making this up, either; I come from a broken home, and I was made very familiar with the workings of divorce and child custody, whether I wanted it or not. Bringing up children does, however, loop me back around to my next topic, one brought up by those who have replied already, personal responsibility.

To start off, yes, abstinence is in fact the only 100% foolproof method of birth control, so yes, it is an option. However, telling a man to abstain from sex due to personal responsibility, while at the same time telling a woman that she is free to explore and celebrate her sexuality in any manner she sees fit does not strike me as breaking down the lopsided sexual moors of old so much as simply reversing them so that a different sex is being oppressed. The solution? Take personal responsibility, men. Take it and use it to enjoy yourself safely. Choose your partners carefully; if you don't want to see this woman and yourself dealing with all the child-related drama previously mentioned, choose again. And assuming you do find someone, and the two of you are both mature consenting blah blah blah, buy your own damn protection. Be a little paranoid; If you can't afford a kid, you can't afford to be completely trusting with this woman. If you use condoms, buy them that night and check the expiration date to make sure that they won't break or that the spermicide is still effective. Granted "condoms break" is like saying "sharks attack," but you wouldn't go snorkeling in a wetsuit made out of ham, so you shouldn't take any chances with your end of the birth control.

And if the woman tells you that she's on the pill, or it's an "off day", (whatever the hell those are) or that there's no way she could get pregnant, so why don't you trust her? HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHAT I SAID ABOUT BEING PARANOID?! Word of advice from my dad; "Accidents cause people." Buy the damn condoms. If you don't wanna because you "won't feel anything", imagine if you'll feel the financial burden of supporting another human being for 18+ years, coupled with the very real possibility of slogging it out in courts with that malignant harpy of a baby momma you've stuck yourself with, because I guarantee you'll feel that. Now, is the onus of responsibility solely the domain of men? Of course not. However, that does not exclude men from taking charge of their own health and financial well-being, and in case somebody's thinking it, I didn't even touch on the possibility that one of you fine breeders might have a disease, or some other gift that keeps on giving. Having common sense is the obligation of any person that dares call themselves an adult, but not being alone in that obligation is no excuse to shuck it off entirely.

Ah yes, one final bit of opinionated natter to round out this horrid wall of text I've inadvertently summoned from the hateful bowels of Hell. Vasectomies. I consider this to be the other end of the birth-control spectrum, just as extreme as abstinence. (Again, my opinion.) And like abstinence, it is an option, one that a comedian named Doug Stanhope has apparently taken and had some success with. Having it demanded of a man that they are required to get one is frankly just as drastic and unfair as telling a woman that she has to get an abortion.

...

*reads post*

GODDAMN WHY DID I WRITE ALL THAT

Okay, to balance that offensively serious diatribe out a bit, how about I give you a picture I found of some frolicking kitties?

Here you go, friends:

 

littlealicewhite

New member
Jul 18, 2010
232
0
0
Ya know, someone made a list of 'rape supporting' behavior, and this kind of behavior was on it. The idea that a woman should be legally obligated to go through nine months of pregnacy and childbirth even though she doesn't want to just because the man does is morally objectionable and can be comperable to rape. You sir, are a sick, cruel man.
 

SillyBear

New member
May 10, 2011
762
0
0
Flare Phoenix said:
Oh sure, if a woman gets raped the guy has absolutely no right to voice his opinion on any child that may have been conceived. The issue here is that if a woman should fall pregnant, the male is usually seen as a scumbag and should "pay for his actions" while the woman is seen as a delicate little flower that needs protecting - despite the fact it is insanely easy for a woman to trick a man into impregnating her.
Your problem here is that you are basing your whole argument around this premise, and it is an anecdotal premise at best. I can honestly say I have never encountered the kind of rhetoric you are expressing in my whole life. If anything, I see more of the opposite, where the pregnant woman (especially if she is young) is called the "slut" and most people don't even think about the male.

You need something more concrete to base your argument on than this.

Flare Phoenix said:
Really, if someone doesn't want to raise a child they should have to pay child support, and it should work both ways.
It does already work both ways.

Flare Phoenix said:
For example, if a single mother is insanely rich and the father is living from paycheck to paycheck, I don't believe he should be required to pay child support as she really doesn't need it in that scenario.
They do take that into account the best they can. There are thousands of legal means to challenge and change the way you pay your child support. If the Father for example is short on money, he can simply go down to a family solicitor and arrange something. The legal system is as flexible as they can be with it.

--

Bottom line is that it is up to the female whether or not she desires to listen to what the Father says. In a perfect world, they all would, but this world isn't perfect and some don't. And that's a good thing because the alternative is so much worse. The alternative is Father's have the power to abort babies they don't want - which would be forced abortion and a breach in human rights. Another alternative is the Father makes the female keep a baby she doesn't want - which would result in lackluster parenting and a bad childhood.

So let's just keep it the way it is. No need to change it.
 

Heartcafe

New member
Feb 28, 2011
308
0
0
If you don't want a child: men wear condoms, women use the pills. Simple.
It takes two to tango.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Heartcafe said:
If you don't want a child: men wear condoms, women use the pills. Simple.
It takes two to tango.
It takes two to tango, but only one to abort. And only one can abort.

Hence the issue.
 

Kakashi on crack

New member
Aug 5, 2009
983
0
0
William MacKay said:
they cant force women to have abortions, but a law that stops the man having to pay child support if the two parents arent in a relationship would be better.
I'll explain why I quoted this in a second.

I see what your trying to portray here Wolas, but your failing to do so in a logical manner. That's why I am undecided on this issue.

Now, why I quoted this: My problem is when the two have sex obviously for pleasure and not in some kind of relationship. When the woman refuses to get an abortion even though the male wants it, then fine, don't try and force her to get an abortion, but by gods don't force the guy to pay child support if it was agreed upon that it was purely out of pleasure and such and the child was an accidental side-effect.


I keep seeing a lot of arguements and I'd like to comment on them:

Visectomy: why should a man have to mutilate himself because of a fear of accidentally knocking someone up?

Condoms: Have a standard deviation between 2% and 6% of them are faulty and will break. Doesn't seem like a high percentage, but then look at the number of condoms produced/used and you quickly realize that what is maybe 6 out of a hundred condoms quickly becomes 60 out of a thousand condoms, 600 out of ten thousand condoms. If we assume that even half the people in the U.S. used condoms, (155,850,856) and then notice how the average person has about 3 partners, (467,552,568) and then look at the percentage of faulty condoms in comparison to this, that means that (divided by 100, times by 2 and again by 6) at least 9,351,051.36 condoms will be faulty, and a maximum of 28,053,154.1 condoms will be faulty assuming they only have sex ONCE with each partner, and ignoring if they are using outdated condoms and the like. Obviously half the U.S. population ISN'T having sex, but at the same time, those who are having sex typically have sex more than once, and with more than 3 partners in a life time. That 2 to 6% quickly adds up and is not as small of a chance of the condom breaking as one might think. (going to turn this into its own thread now)

Not Having Sex: Don't talk the talk unless you've walked the fucking walk. I don't want to hear the "Keep it in your pants" arguement unless you've personally managed to do so on more than one occasion.

That is all
 

MasterChief892039

New member
Jun 28, 2010
631
0
0
Ideally both parties are in agreement about whether or not they want to conceive, but obviously that's not possible in all situations. The "conception contract" sounds like a good idea in theory, but in reality it would be pretty barbaric. What happens when you have a happily pregnant woman and a man who doesn't want children - what are you going to do exactly? Strap her down and cut it out against her will?

The only real solution; if you're female, don't have sex unless you're prepared to conceive. If you're male, don't have sex unless you're prepared to pay child support.

Kakashi on crack said:
Visectomy: why should a man have to mutilate himself because of a fear of accidentally knocking someone up?
A vasectomy is hardly mutilation. It's a pretty much harmless, reversible procedure which is much safer than the female equivalent surgery (tubal ligation). If the man is worried about accidental pregnancies it's a responsible thing to do, particularly if he doesn't trust condoms and isn't interested in abstinence (and who is?).
 

Astoria

New member
Oct 25, 2010
1,887
0
0
Ok while I see your point I have to say that's a bad idea. The fact remains that it is the womans body and therefore she has the final say on what happens. Both people should talk it through of course but having the man get the final say is just wrong in my eyes. He isn't the one who has to get the abortion, the woman is. If he doesn't want the child no one is forcing him to be a full time dad, it's his choice on how much time he spends with the kid.
 

Zorg Machine

New member
Jul 28, 2008
1,304
0
0
I think that when abortions are completely risk free a system should be put in where men don't have to pay alimony if the woman keeps the child without consent.

Until then, use a condom or get a vasectomy.
 

ryo02

New member
Oct 8, 2007
819
0
0
MasochisticMuse said:
Ideally both parties are in agreement about whether or not they want to conceive, but obviously that's not possible in all situations. The "conception contract" sounds like a good idea in theory, but in reality it would be pretty barbaric. What happens when you have a happily pregnant woman and a man who doesn't want children - what are you going to do exactly? Strap her down and cut it out against her will?

The only real solution; if you're female, don't have sex unless you're prepared to conceive. If you're male, don't have sex unless you're prepared to pay child support.
what if you want the child but she doesnt? she is allowed to kill your child and you get no say and have to rely on her allowing you to have some say!.
 

MasterChief892039

New member
Jun 28, 2010
631
0
0
ryo02 said:
MasochisticMuse said:
Ideally both parties are in agreement about whether or not they want to conceive, but obviously that's not possible in all situations. The "conception contract" sounds like a good idea in theory, but in reality it would be pretty barbaric. What happens when you have a happily pregnant woman and a man who doesn't want children - what are you going to do exactly? Strap her down and cut it out against her will?

The only real solution; if you're female, don't have sex unless you're prepared to conceive. If you're male, don't have sex unless you're prepared to pay child support.
what if you want the child but she doesnt? she is allowed to kill your child and you get no say and have to rely on her allowing you to have some say!.
That's a much better case. I imagine it would be pretty tragic to see a woman abort a child you wanted - but again, what are you going to do? Force her to carry a child she resents in her body for 9 months? Also pretty horrific.
 

Jarvaelison

New member
Mar 30, 2010
38
0
0
A man makes a choice to gamble with his genetic material when he has unprotected sex. If you don't want to have a child, wear a condom. If a man is having sex with someone who tricks him into believing it's 'safe' then it's the man's fault for 1) having sex with someone of that nature and 2) not wearing a condom.

All in all birthing contracts are unnecessary because there are cheap alternatives to preventing an unplanned pregnancy.

If you don't trust your partner to stay on track with birth-control or the rythym method then wear a condom. Men have many options before sex to prevent pregnancy - use them.
 

BlumiereBleck

New member
Dec 11, 2008
5,402
0
0
Divine Miss Bee said:
it's not atrocious to not kill your baby, kid. ever. and there are women in this world who embrace an accidental pregnancy and be the best mothers they can be even without the help of a scared man-child father (who absolutely deserves the shame society puts on him), and those who choose to carry a pregnancy to full term and allow another couple who don't/can't have kids to adopt the baby in question. if you're the sort of man who would force a woman to have an abortion because of a mistake in the bedroom (statistically, your mistake. most accidental pregnancies come from condom application errors on the part of the man), you deserve to die a virgin.
I love you Bee......