Poll: Male reproductive rights

[Legendairy314]

Had some time to think on the issue. As people have said, forcing a woman into surgery because a guy got drunk and made a bad decision won't happen. But if the man decides he doesn't want to be a part of the duel parenthood then there should be some way for him to get out of it without losing a large sum of money for 18 years. Kind of gets into the grey area after that as how a child would be raised (defeating the population thing I stated earlier but, like I said, not that simple) and how it would mean the single parent would essentially get screwed over. Raising kids is expensive and if a girl who is pro life gets knocked up and dumped then a single person's beliefs shouldn't constitute a miserable life for another.

The system we have now works but isn't completely fair. Though with so many scumbags just looking for a one-night stands and getting more than they bargained for it's still dealing out decent sized doses of karma.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Facepalm. Every man and every woman should know about safe sex procedures. Don't want to follow them? You have no say after that because you are unfit to make any decisions.

Tough love *****. Quit your whining.

Yet fit enough to be a responsible, loving parent?

 

[Rainforce]

It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father.

stop RIGHT THERE.
first: giving birth is only very limited in its optionality.
second: SOME fathers don't tend to hang around for too long and are therefore JUST NOT THERE to fill in a signed consent.
THIRD: "Male Reproductive Rights" IS THE BEST FUCKING FORUM TITLE I'VE EVER SEEN XD

love all "dont wanna baby, dont have s**" responses

people who most likely havent been so drunk they woke up the next day wondering who that is next to them, how they got where they are and what the hell happened.

-do you think someone in that state has made an informed decision to bring a life into the world?

the concept of responsibility must be alien to you.

 

[Baneat]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

 

[Brother-Link]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

Dad doesn't have to carry it in his body for 9 months. It's her body, she has every right to do what she wants. If he wants a child so bad, he can find a willing female participant, or have a test tube baby.

 

[Nielserik]

Wow, this has turned into a monster of a thread!

I guess most of my feelings on this subject have already been said by the posters before me, however I just want to say that maybe we should have a different kind of contract. One that prevents people from having children when they are in no position to support them.

On the subject at hand, I agree that men should have some kind of control over whether or not they have to become fathers. On the other hand - unprotected sex is kinda like signing the contract that says "I do". So I even though I voted yes, I'm not quite sure it should be done like that. It's just too complex, and you can't put all of life's problems on a piece of paper, and make people sign them.

A hard subject to speak about without offending people, so that's my two cents.

 

[Pontus Hashis]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

No, then it's a question of her body, and she is needed for the baby to survive.
But when it's the other way around, he isn't needed but still held responsible.

 

[Baneat]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

Dad doesn't have to carry it in his body for 9 months. It's her body, she has every right to do what she wants. If he wants a child so bad, he can find a willing female participant, or have a test tube baby.

True, I had not considered that. No problem with my "Additional question" then!

 

[Chefodeath]

What a looney idea, I don't think China or Nazi Germany would be deranged enough to try this. So we're just going to go around giving mandatory abortions? Wasn't the entire point of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a right to her body. Doesn't forcing her to get an abortion sound like a greater invasion on her than preventing her from it?

I do think however that, given that its a woman's body and a woman's choice, it should be fully a woman's problem. Men shouldn't have to pay child support.

 

[Sampler]

I admit I haven't read the masses of responses but just want to add I feel very sorry for the original poster if they truly believe what they have written and glad you're not in position to force your views on others.

 

[katsumoto03]

Dude, that's what oral sex is for. No condoms but no babies.

Don't have unprotected sex if you don't want kids.

 

[Baneat]

I admit I haven't read the masses of responses but just want to add I feel very sorry for the original poster if they truly believe what they have written and glad you're not in position to force your views on others.

You disagree. Wow. Lovely. Explain why instead of a single ad hominem response. He has, I believe, come to a poor conclusion from good observations.

 

[Sampler]

I admit I haven't read the masses of responses but just want to add I feel very sorry for the original poster if they truly believe what they have written and glad you're not in position to force your views on others.

You disagree. Wow. Lovely. Explain why instead of a single ad hominem response. He has, I believe, come to a poor conclusion from good observations.

You read the original post and require an explanation - I thought it was self evident..

 

[Baneat]

I admit I haven't read the masses of responses but just want to add I feel very sorry for the original poster if they truly believe what they have written and glad you're not in position to force your views on others.

You disagree. Wow. Lovely. Explain why instead of a single ad hominem response. He has, I believe, come to a poor conclusion from good observations.

You read the original post and require an explanation - I thought it was self evident..

Nothing is self evident (Perhaps maybe the cogito? dunno)

You can't just dismiss people without reasoning and expect your post to contain value.

 

[Gweneth Knaff]

Agreed with all the sensible people pointing out that if men *really* don't want a child, abstinence is always an option. I'm going to ignore most of the misogynistic piffle in the OP's rant to point out how right Arasardet is, in all particulars:

Force a woman to have an abortion? No way. Her body.

Allow a man to renounce all his rights as a father/boyfriend/husband, for ever, and have a lifelong restraining order keeping him away from both mother and child, in exchange for not having to pay alimony? Yes, I could get behind that. But only if he's legally forced to never go near the child or mother again - otherwise, abuse and loopholes could arise.

Go near the child? As in confront them or restraining order of 'not allowed to be within 100 feet of them?'

Whichever works best to make sure deadbeat dads don't skip out for the first five years then show up on the woman's doorstep demanding to be a part of the child's life.

I'm a woman, and the thought of some forcing me into a medical procedure is really frightening. Seriously, wolas3214, are you suggesting that if I get pregnant, and the father doesn't want a kid, I be dragged into some clinic (kicking and screaming) strapped down to a bed (crying and begging), and subjected to the risks of surgery without my consent? And assuming there are no complications, to wake up with a pain in my gut, red-eyed and scared, in a world where I cannot control what people do to me? And I should do this because some dude wasn't willing to take on the risk of having a kid? He wasn't prepared for me to get pregnant, but he was prepared to force me to abort. He would rather hurt a woman than face up to his actions? I don't know what kind of people you've been hanging out with, but I think better of men.

 

[electric_warrior]

So... men bring it on themselves and thus lose all right to a choice by not wearing protection? Of course, she has no responsibility for protection! She couldn't get an IUD or be on the pill or insist he wear a condom or, heck, not sleep with him in the first place! She has just as much control over the matter as he does, yet he seems to get all the blame.

The responsibility works both ways, if there is an allowance for women who don't want their kids there should be one for men.

Force a woman to have an abortion? No way. Her body.

Allow a man to renounce all his rights as a father/boyfriend/husband, for ever, and have a lifelong restraining order keeping him away from both mother and child, in exchange for not having to pay alimony? Yes, I could get behind that. But only if he's legally forced to never go near the child or mother again - otherwise, abuse and loopholes could arise.

This basically sums it up. You shouldn't be able to force someone to have an abortion, but neither should, if she has the option of not having the child, you force a man to have a child that he doesn't want.

 

[aba1]

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.

If a woman walked out on a guy and left him with the kids she would have to pay support money just like a guy would I don't really see where you are getting your facts from?

 

[Jonabob87]

If you posed this argument to me in real life I'd have two words for you.

"Fuck off."

I'm sure you can guess what I said in the poll.

 

[Not Good]

Wrong. Just stick it in her pooper. It's ancient abstinence, people!

As far as laws go, I would be more comfortable with less of a bias towards women in court.