He should stop dicking around, and if he can't do that, remember to use condoms. They were made for a reason you know...
Poll: Male reproductive rights
- Thread starter wolas3214
- Start date
In general, I would oppose this. We're talking about the government ordering an abortion. The Patriot Act has already given them undue powers over the citizenry, and now you want to let them order abortions?
I would favor a system wherein, if a woman sabotages the birth control, or does what the chick in Boston Legal did, the man can ask a court to order an abortion, but only if the court can be satisfied that it was the result of some psycho woman. Alternatively let the man make a motion in court to not have to pay child support.
I would favor a system wherein, if a woman sabotages the birth control, or does what the chick in Boston Legal did, the man can ask a court to order an abortion, but only if the court can be satisfied that it was the result of some psycho woman. Alternatively let the man make a motion in court to not have to pay child support.
I'm actually not sure about the answer to this question so I will ask in the hopes that someone who knows the correct answer will enlighten me: If you do not want to have a baby but the woman who is pregnant refuses to give it up, are you still required (by law) to support it any any way financially or otherwise?
If the answer to my question is no then I think that is fair enough. If she wants the child and is willing to raise it entirely on her own or with willing support from others close to her I wouldn't mind. But if she expected the man's support despite the fact that he didn't actually want the child to begin with I would find that a bit unfair.
If the answer to my question is no then I think that is fair enough. If she wants the child and is willing to raise it entirely on her own or with willing support from others close to her I wouldn't mind. But if she expected the man's support despite the fact that he didn't actually want the child to begin with I would find that a bit unfair.
I fully agree with you, you know why? Because the male rights in this points are small and there's too much bullshit this thread saying "well don't stick your dick into a woman if you are going for unprotected sex" fuck you mates, just because a man have unprotected sex and suddenly get stuck with a bastard child it doesn't mean he need to have any reason to take care of the child if he don't want to and if the woman wanna keep the child, fine but don't except anything from the male in that situation. And about the male wanting to keep the child but not the woman is a bigger question... if the man could do/make/give a compensation for the 9 months I guess it would be alright.
Yeah I know but still not a bad idea if it existed a good and fair way, right?Pontus Hashis said:
Even if it's stolen? >.>Sober Thal said:Answer: You are responsible. You should pay for the child you bring into the world.Bigfootmech said:I tried this, and it didn't really work out.Sober Thal said:
I know OP is kinda forcing too much here, but I always use a condom - then what happens if it breaks or is sabotaged? Do I still have a legal obligation to support what happens?
What happens if a woman actually manages to run off with a used condom?
I need answers
Nope, in that situation the man would usually have to give support to the woman for the costs of raising the child. Personally, that doesn't seem right to me either, the man should have the option of having nothing to do with the child in my opinion.A Free Man said:
I would also love it if there were a way, if the man wanted to keep the child but the woman didn't, for it to still be born but given into the custody of the father, but that isn't really going to happen considering it is the woman's body that the baby grows in, and the woman who has to go through the actual pregnancy and birth and everything.
I would say that in an (semi-)ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad idea, but with crime, finance issues, accidental pregnancies and a vast slew of other problems that virtually assault society, this idea would just be abused. Tell ya' what, if you get society functioning to a point where there is no poverty, financial trouble or crime, I'd be happy to welcome this law, as long as society hasn't changed too much since then. Good concept, bad application.
You're right, condoms can break. That's one of the risks you have when having sex. If you feel the woman should be on the pill so you don't have to worry about wearing a rubber than you've abdicated your share of reasonable precaution and must accept any results that come. Besides the pill has no protection over STD/STI's.wolas3214 said:
It's basically what my parents told me growing up: "If you're not willing to be a parent, don't have sex."
What seems to be the case here to me, is that most people who post here assume that men only engage in one-night stands. Guys, if you're in a serious relationship, you're going to have sex. A whole lot, probably. It's natural for a relationship. What is not natural is having a child early on in a relationship, or if you're still very young.
What if, for example, it's the case of two 16-year olds. The woman doesn't want to have an abortion (for various reasons), and she is willing to take the consequences of having a child when she's that young. But the teenage boy can't take the responsibility without sacrificing his education and his entire future. Should the boy still take responsibility despite it possibly ruining any possible future for him and render him poor and jobless?
I'm not one to advocate that men (or anyone for that matter) force abortion upon women. It's their body and all that jazz. And yes, if you have unprotected sex, you should take your responsibility. But if you in fact did use a condom or take the pill, means that are made for avoiding this kind of thing, it's not the man's fault, not the woman's either.
Of course, the problem here is: Who will take responsibility when clearly nobody's in the wrong? You can't sue the manufacturers, cause they have already stated that condoms for example only have a 97% (not sure of number) chance of working.
Somebody on the first page proposed vasectomy. It might be something to think about, but I'm not sure. It could be something to ponder, given that we live in an age where people usually have sex most for pleasure.
Honestly, I don't know what to think of this. If you really don't want to take any responsibility, cut the cord on your balls and ice your offspring.
What if, for example, it's the case of two 16-year olds. The woman doesn't want to have an abortion (for various reasons), and she is willing to take the consequences of having a child when she's that young. But the teenage boy can't take the responsibility without sacrificing his education and his entire future. Should the boy still take responsibility despite it possibly ruining any possible future for him and render him poor and jobless?
I'm not one to advocate that men (or anyone for that matter) force abortion upon women. It's their body and all that jazz. And yes, if you have unprotected sex, you should take your responsibility. But if you in fact did use a condom or take the pill, means that are made for avoiding this kind of thing, it's not the man's fault, not the woman's either.
Of course, the problem here is: Who will take responsibility when clearly nobody's in the wrong? You can't sue the manufacturers, cause they have already stated that condoms for example only have a 97% (not sure of number) chance of working.
Somebody on the first page proposed vasectomy. It might be something to think about, but I'm not sure. It could be something to ponder, given that we live in an age where people usually have sex most for pleasure.
Honestly, I don't know what to think of this. If you really don't want to take any responsibility, cut the cord on your balls and ice your offspring.
Friend of mine got his girlfriend of two years pregnant and was incredibly excited to be a father, thought she was happy too. Then she got an abortion without telling him beforehand, and for the past five months he's been so depressed he's gotten borderline suicidal. Sounds fair right?
Obviously not everything in the OP is a good thing, but quite frankly the people saying it's just a trust issue are being incredibly naive. Saying that my friend shouldn't have trusted her is asinine, he had known her for a long time and she had said she wanted children. It's called deception, changing your mind, or just reacting poorly to a stressful situation. Men get completely screwed in both directions, so even some options absolving one side or the other of legal responsibility after the child is born would be nice.
Obviously not everything in the OP is a good thing, but quite frankly the people saying it's just a trust issue are being incredibly naive. Saying that my friend shouldn't have trusted her is asinine, he had known her for a long time and she had said she wanted children. It's called deception, changing your mind, or just reacting poorly to a stressful situation. Men get completely screwed in both directions, so even some options absolving one side or the other of legal responsibility after the child is born would be nice.
Just pointing out that even if she's on the pill and he uses a condom pregnancy is still a risk. The only contraceptive that works 100% is abstenance, which is no fun.katsumoto03 said:
To answer your question, regardless of the males position in the matter if the female can prove it's yours and wants child support from you you legally have to pay it until it's 16/18 (I forget) and finnished with full time education.A Free Man said:
Even if you take precautions, she takes precautions, you have no relationship (presuming a 1 night thing) and have no interest in being in the childs life, you are responsible for it.
(which i think is a little unfair personally)
Captcha: strategies tenywar
I would hardly say that it is even a little unfair for the father to be responsible for it - even in the situation your described.Sgt. Dante said:
Child birth is a direct consequence of sex. It's like you said, there is not 100% gurantee that a child will not result from sex unless you simply don't have sex.
If both parties decide to decide to have sex, then both are equally responsible for the child that could result. I have never seen current laws about child support and whatnot as being unfair. In fact, I see the current system as a way of ensuring that both parties are responsible (at least to some degree) for the well-being of the child - even if one party did not want it.
That, and thread should have ended there. A birthing contract would just get a ton more legal issues, women getting pregnant just to sue because the man wouldn't sign it, and other shit that would bring the world into an even worse state...Sober Thal said:
The concept of litigating a bodily function is dicey at the best of times. I could see an argument towards lack of responsibilities inherent without consent, but outright illegality without a contractual agreement is fairly monstrous.wolas3214 said: