Poll: Male reproductive rights

[wolas3214]

Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.

What the fuck? How is that a double standard? Fathers don't have to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus childbirth.

She brought it upon herself if she didnt abort it or use her pill. If she WANTS to keep it then by all means just dont force the father to be invovled if he doesnt want to.

The father makes the choice by having sex. Don't want the responsibility of being a father? Be more responsible in the first place. Problem solved.

The woman makes the choice to have sex too. otherwise its called rape.

Yes, so if make that choice, be ready to take on the responsibility. You already sign up for it by 'doing the act' so to speak.

And if the man were to make it clear that he didn't want the child should it ever arise then she shouldnt be able to force him to pay child support.

Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.

What the fuck? How is that a double standard? Fathers don't have to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus childbirth.

She brought it upon herself if she didnt abort it or use her pill. If she WANTS to keep it then by all means just dont force the father to be invovled if he doesnt want to.

What? That's the exact opposite of your original point. We're talking about women who DON'T want to have the child even though the father wants to have it.

Read the entirety. Thats a part of it yes the other part is an actual birth cotnract detailing whether or not the man should have to support or even have a child before the act.

The rest of your post is just as ridiculous. The father has no right to tell the mother what to do with her own body.

A law saying the father may opt out of raising the child if he makes it clear in advance that he wants an abortion makes a bit more theoretical sense, but making it straight-up illegal is retarded.

Maybe that was a bit too harsh but assumign he didnt want that child he should not be forced to pay for it.

 

[BonsaiK]

Whats your opinion?

It's an interesting idea, and it has its merits, but there's one really obvious problem: what happens when there's a disagreement about what should happen with the unborn child? When (for whatever reason) one party wants the child and (for whatever reason) the other party does not? A consent form is useless when there's no consent. What do you propose as an acceptable solution that doesn't violate anybody's human rights?

Also, consent forms alone probably won't solve anything. As a music industry worker I can assure you that contracts are only as good as their ability to be enforced, and how do you enforce the type of contract that you are proposing, without enacting police-state type measures?

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

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.

To the "men's rights" crowd: So men should get final authority over what a woman does with her body?

 

[TheIronRuler]

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?

Hey.
Legally in Israel, whenever you finish the sexual act inside of your spouse, you "Give" her your genetic material (Your Sperm) as a gift. You no longer have any rights over it and she may do whatever the fuck she wants.
I'm fine with that, if you don't trust your spouse then just don't go to bed, try wear a condom and use other protective measures to kill the sperm. Or alternitevly don't reach an orgasm.
The problem with the law here is that even if you didn't intend for your genetic material to be inside of her (Using a condom), she may take it illegally, insert it into herself and bear your child. This is not consideed theft (Cases of women actually taking genetic material from used condoms after intercourse) and has the same legal standing as the previous event.
...
I disagree with your view, becasue abortions aren't easy or free. They are brutal and they caue harm to the uterus. After each abortion or the use of a "Morning after" type of pill the chance for having a child successfully decreases.
Unless you find a way to make a synthetic uterus and grow your child in it with a donation of an egg from a female doner, this won't happen.

 

[Togs]

Just one hop, skip and a jump to eugenics- not a good idea.

 

[OpticalJunction]

scenario A:
Man wants kid. Woman says no. Woman gets abortion. Man gets pissed.

scenario B:
Woman wants kid, man says no. Woman has it anyway. Man stuck paying child support for 18 years.

It does seem rather unfair to the dude. But, realistically, women pay a heavier price for choosing to have children. They have to endure pregnancy, childbirth (which can be life threatening), take time off work during the first few months to breastfeed, get more emotionally attached to the baby, etc. In contrast, mens' lives don't necessarily have to change that much.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sorry there are other ways to have sexual interaction without sticking it in. If you don't want to get a DUI, don't drink and drive. If you don't want to get fired, don't not do your job. If you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

People today want want want, and don't want to accept consequences of their actions.

Exactly. Yes, any power the mother has to decide is power the father doesn't have to decide (and vice versa), but there is a very simple way for people to avoid the issue (no pun intended).

 

[razer17]

Errmmm. A man has the option of not having unprotected sex.

An abortion I would think is a fairly traumatic thing, and is not a decision the man should be allowed to make.

If you get someone pregnant, deal with it. You have the option of not having sex, or having protected sex. The only time you should be allowed to have a child and yet have nothing to do with it, is if that's what you and the woman agree to, OR if she tricks you, I.E tells you that she is on the pill, but isn't.

Problem is, without signing a contract it's impossible to prove either of those, so I guess your stuck back with the condom thing.

To be honest, I think you're either a troll, or a guy who would prefer to go "bareback", and so think you should be able to dictate to woman what they can and can't do with their body.

Edit - Looking at your forum health meter I'm going to say he's a troll.

 

[dyre]

Maybe that was a bit too harsh but assumign he didnt want that child he should not be forced to pay for it.

Actually, I somewhat agree with you on that count, though for different reasons, and with a slight edit.

The fact of the matter is, douchebag fathers will leave the mother anyway, even if this doesn't have legal backup. What I'd like to see is a legally binding contract in advance (before sex) putting it all in the open, as in whether or not the father will help raise a potential child.

This would promote a whole lot more responsibility in terms of accidental pregnancies, because the wife would no longer be under some illusion that the husband will support her, while in reality he'll just run away and let us taxpayers do the work.

But that's not what your post said, so I still stand by my "hell no" vote.

 

[Epicspoon]

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.

so basically what you're saying is that no matter what people say you won't seriously consider their argument unless they agree with you?

honestly though I find this entire post offensive.

Nope. if anyone can dismantle the original post with logic then i'd be happy to listen. My bottom line a birth contract would be much easier on many children, men and women.

Okay fine lets say a condom breaks right? this isn't the womans fault even still she may or may not want to keep the child. assuming she does then how is it okay to force her to have an abortion when
1. abortions can potentially damage a womans ability to reproduce permanently
2.having an abortion can have very negative effects on your body in the future. I know this because my mother went through this. she almost died. multiple times.

so yes the man used a condom because he clearly didn't want a child and he want's to have control over his dna correct? what about the woman? her dna is also a part of this. what if she doesn't want her own biological material removed from her body? furthermore what if she doesn't want to be opened up at all? and finally is it not usually the man that purchases the condom? so should he not be the one responsible if it were to break?
let's say something falls out of your trunk on the highway. does that give you the right to stop traffic so that you can retrieve said object? no because it's your car and therefore your responsibility. not the responsibility of others to stop what they're doing in order for you to retrieve your property. even i it is the woman who provides the condom the man is still consenting to the use of said condom. something of yours falls out of a friends car? well it's there because you allowed it to be and you still don't have the right to stop traffic. if somebody finds it later after it blows away or the road is clear and decides to keep it? tough it's theirs now and there is nothing you can do about it. happy?

 

[wolas3214]

Whats your opinion?

It's an interesting idea, and it has its merits, but there's one really obvious problem: what happens when there's a disagreement about what should happen with the unborn child? When (for whatever reason) one party wants the child and (for whatever reason) the other party does not? A consent form is useless when there's no consent. What do you propose as an acceptable solution that doesn't violate anybody's human rights?

Also, consent forms alone probably won't solve anything. As a music industry worker I can assure you that contracts are only as good as their ability to be enforced, and how do you enforce the type of contract that you are proposing, without enacting police-state type measures?

assuming that my idea was in effect if you disagree and you engage in intercourse without said contract what happens is your responsiblity(like it is now)however should you sign it then its the same as any contract with set rules and criteria.

And your probably right along the consent forms. I'd reccomend jail considering your mesing with someones life in a big way but jail itself is an entirely different problem

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.

To the "men's rights" crowd: So men should get final authority over what a woman does with her body?

Again maybe forced abortion was to harsh. But the man should not be forced responsibility if he didnt want the child but the mother does.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

The entire point of your argument is that the child needs a loving mother and father to be acceptable, and said mother and father should have to stay together regardless of their personal feelings in the matter. You even go as far as to suggest a binding contract should be enforced to prevent the mother and father from seperating. Yeah... because nothing says a happy home like two people forced to be together because of a child. Trust me, having parents who constantly fight isn't fun.

Really I'm wondering what the point of your post is. It is pretty insane to suggest other people should be able to decide what a woman does with her body (really it's one step away from rape), and your post really jut insults Christians (not all Christians share the same views) and single parents.

 

[Angerwing]

Your misogyny is quite disturbing.

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.

I assure you, most single mothers I've met aren't like this.

You may have gotten agreement from the unwashed masses over at /b/ (yeah, I saw your thread), but people aren't so overtly misogynistic here.

Your points would go over a lot better if you weren't so narrowminded about it. Keep in mind that women vote as well, and you're proposing a very one-sided system.

 

[Steve Butts]

It's only Tuesday and you've already set a high bar for most insane post of the week. The community is really going to have to bring it if they want to top this one.

In essence, you want men to be allowed to force women to have abortions against their will. Your attempts to secure the civil rights of one group come directly at the expense of the rights of another, which is, in my opinion, about as hypocritical as you can get.

Your views on marriage, sex, religion, and single-parenting are far too narrow to support any of your claims. You suggest we rely on contracts to enforce responsibility on both parties without ever considering how those contracts could be turned towards an irresponsible end by manipulative partners. You even suggest that the very act of sex require us to file some sort of paperwork, which presumably requires some sort of bureaucratic oversight. You suggest we abandon the term "marriage" because of its religious overtones, but surely those overtones are the entire point of marriage for a large number of people, who, despite what you think, most definitely engage in sex for pleasure.

 

[Vnonymous]

Something needs to change, obviously. The way the current system works, if a man wants to have a kid after sex and the woman doesn't, then the woman's rights are completely over-ridden, she is forced to carry the baby to term and in the event that she didn't want the kid, is forced to pay a large portion of her wages to the father on pain of a lengthy prison sentence.

Now you may have noticed that I swapped the genders there(well not really, equality under the law is mandated so it should be the same either way). A child is created by two people, and if either of the two people wishes to back out and not raise the child, then they should be entirely capable of doing just that. If a man wishes to have the child and the woman does not, she can simply "walk away" so to speak, or have an abortion. If the man does not want to have the child and the woman does, he can get fucked.

Forcing the woman to have an abortion if the father doesn't approve is dumb, yes. Forcing the father to financially contribute even if he doesn't want to have the child or is even allowed to have access to the child is just as bad, if not worse. In the end, the responsibility should belong to the woman - women have many more methods of contraception available to them than men(condoms and vasectomies are the current totality of male birth control methods), and they are the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a child is brought to term.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Also, the child has the right to be supported by the two people who created him/her. End of story.

I disagree. A person should have the right to not raise a child if they so choose. I'm not going to get into the issue of child support, because that's an entirely different issue. What about sperm donors? Should they have to raise the child created by their sperm just because a completely random woman used their sperm to become pregnant? What about adopted kids? Should they have the right to demand their biological parents tracked down and forced to raise them?