Poll: Male reproductive rights

[Grell Sutcliff]

Spoiler: Does a man have a choice not to have sex, or is he a slave to his desires?

I don't want to argue what this video means in this thread, I just wanted to post it.

Cheers!

off topic: why does Ryan let you kill him
on topic: why don't people just go anal if they don't want to risk pregnancy

 

[Sgt. Dante]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I only speak from experience in that if the mother decides she doesn't want the child she gets to say no, she gets to choose to abort, or to leave the child with the dad and never pay any child support (my mother never paid anything to my dad).

The dad doesn't have these options. He gets stuck with the mothers desicion. He doesn't get a say, or a choice, or an opinion (if the mother doesn't want to hear it).

I find that unfair.

 

[Marmooset]

(See the many paragraphs above.)

In the long line of sectors of humanity having their rights abused, guys getting their rocks off comes in at around 967th.
I seriously hope this post is a troll, as the amount of breast beating over a perceived wrong in this case puts whiners complaining about black history month to shame.

 

[Therumancer]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but I sort of agree with the OP to an extent. I think the legal system favors women too much in these matters. All things being equal, a woman has the abillity to engage in birth control just as much as a guy does via "The Pill" (both normal, and the morning after pills). What's more there are plenty of issues with women claiming to be using birth control, who aren't, specifically to have kids for a meal ticket. It's common enough to be morning talk show fodder and so on.

Given the situation with overpopulation and child rearing, I'm one of those guys who takes things further than the OP, albiet for differant reasons, and have argued that we should reversibly sterlize everyone on the planet, and require parents to get permission to reproduce and prove the abillity and resources to raise a child... with the intention being to actually REDUCE the population overall to a dramatic degree due to far, far, less
children being born in a general sense. This is differant from what the OP thinks, both in implementation and logic, but understand that as someone who takes overpopulation seriously to begin with what he's saying is not anathema to me. To me, anything that reduces the number of babies without stopping them entirely is a good thing.

At any rate, IMO, if a woman tells a guy "don't worry honey, I'm on the pill" and gets knocked up during recreational sex, I don't think the guy should have to take responsibility for that. Of course this creates the question of proof, and gets down to the entire birthing contract thing. It doesn't strike me as being fundementally unreasonable.

To be honest, just as you can say "the guy makes a desician when he has sex", the same arguement can be made about women the same way. It's just not politic the same way to say that she should take responsibility when she decides to spread her legs to a man, especially without knowing if he's willing to become a father.

My basic opinion is one of shared responsibility, ideally both partners should be using birth control for sexual intercourse intended just for fun, HOWEVER in cases where it doesn't happen or there is a failure. the pregnancy should be aborted. I tend to agree that in the case of such an accident, if the father doesn't want to be a father, but the mother wants to be a mother, she should be able to do that, but should understand that she takes all responsibility.... assuming of course there was no plans to have a kid to begin with. In cases where a guy and a girl intend to start a family, and the guy walks off (failed marriage, or whatever) that's when he deserves to have the book thrown at him.

I'm hardly a prude, but my basic attitude is that gender equality means equal responsibility. The girl who goes trolling to pick up guys is just as responsible as the
dude who picks up girls. Ideally people should control themselves better here and be more responsible... and that includes BOTH genders, but that isn't going to happen.


I'll also say that while the common image is of some abandoned girl left to care for a child without resources, that's not always the case, and that's why I don't think the laws can make an assumption about that. I think people need to control their emotions here and be a little more rational. Remember we live in a world of "whose the baby's daddy" being a sideshow event on daytime television because of women who have unprotected sex with so many guys that they don't know for sure (and might have like 10 kids and support checks... making a career out of it). Not to mention the whole "celebrity honey trap" gimmick, where some groupie intentionally gets herself knocked up by a rock star, movie star, or whatever else in order to get a piece of his action... sometimes even going so far as to sabotage birth control like poking holes in condoms and the like. This is how you wind up with so much tabloid fodder, and even situations where a celebrity who is happily married turns out to have other kids somewhere, perhaps even that their spouse knows about.

Like it or not, it's a messed up world, and that means sometimes you need equally messed up laws. Anyone who thinks women are perpetually victims, especially when it comes to sex, is naive.

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

Okay, time for systematic post dissection.

Spoiler: We all know the drill, original text is normal, bolded text is my response.

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.

Wow. That's a little bit of a massive sweeping generalization, isn't it? First of all, the man can obviously choose to own up to being too stupid to wear a condom and raise the kid whether he originally wanted it or not. Second, even if the dad decides to "go out for a pack of cigarettes" and vanish, a child can still be raised in a loving home with one parent. I'm willing to grant that that's not necessarily financially stable, but it's certainly a reasonable option.

This behavior has created endless problems in our society.

Such as? Cite examples, please.

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.

1)You're skipping rather rapidly from point to point here. There's not a whole lot of flow to your line of logic.
2)Again with the sweeping generalizations. "Christians" is a really huge group with a lot of different individuals, and I've yet to meet one of these individuals who don't understand the concept of sex for pleasure.

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 double standard I've noticed you give no solution to. Logically, if a father should be allowed to force abortion on a woman, shouldn't he also be able to stop a woman from having an abortion if he wants the child? You don't seem to adress this at all.

A simple consent form accompanied with genetic samples can be used to ascertain the validity of a birth."Validity"? What do you mean by that? 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

This is simply not how relationships work. Two people can't simply say that they'll remain together forever and then have it magically be so. They can dream about it and try as hard as they can to stay with each other as much as they like, but they can't guarantee anything. Besides which fact, what if the biological father isn't in a relationship with the mother? What if he just donated sperm to help out an infertile man and his wife, or a lesbian couple?

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.

Blatantly false. Marriage contracts are still upheld in every court which I'm aware of. And why does the word "marriage" automatically have religious overtones? It's simply a word describing a commitment between two people to love each other. Are emotions a religious thing now?

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'm having a hard time dignifying this paragraph with a response. What possible reason could there be to "blame" either the mother or the father for a child's birth? Why should a single mother automatically have to get an abortion? Why is allowing her child to live "atrocious behavior"? Why do you think every home without 1 mother and 1 father is automatically an abusive one? Why are foster kids "a burden on society"? Why, why, a thousand freaking times, WHY?

...

Sorry. That got out of hand.

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

YES. You see, a man basically already signs a consent form when he chooses to stick his dick into a woman without protection. If the woman chooses to keep the resulting bastard child, I for one think the man can just grow a pair and accept the consequences of his stupidity. Or shove off, whatever. What he most certainly cannot do is force a woman to abort her child when she wants to keep it.

Whats your opinion?

 

[Chris Sandford]

It seems to be lost in this thread that woman generally consent to have the "unwrapped dick" put in them. Its not just the man's responsibility to use protection, its both (or all, in the case of an orgy) partners. A woman has every chance to stop a man and make him use a condom (or to the cheaper croud, saran wrap and a rubber band).

If a woman doesnt want a kid, they too should "keep it in their pants". Men are not the sole cause of pregnancy. (I have never seen a Gay couple get pregnant, nor for that matter any man.) If it is all our fault, then yes, we should have the right to say what happens to our kid. If anyone on this thread believes that a woman getting pregnant is a man's fault (minus rape) then you are as misguided as OT.

Should woman be forced to get the father's permission to have an abortion?
No, but it would be nice for them to inform said father.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Meh. I see where you're coming from, and you make some valid points, emphasis on 'some.' Women have rather disproportionate control in the area of reproduction and child-raising, some of which decidedly is unfair. Alimony pretty much never paid from female to male, a single fathers are generally looked on with pity (at best), while single mothers are empowered and whatnot. It's too often assumed that a single father is a widower, and a single mother is the victim of a deadbeat father. And for all the talk of 'maternal instincts,' if one of the parents is going to snap and drown their kids in the bathtub, it's not usually the father.

That being said...again, meh. Not many fixes for this. If you're this worried about it...fuck, I really don't know. Hide morning-after pills in her food?

 

[Farther than stars]

You can't eliminate a double standard when only one gender gives birth.

Yes you can, let's not forget that the most important legal opt out women have that men do not have is granted by the government. Either the government makes that option illegal or it makes available an option for men to have a legal opt out. The government is also the driving force behind child support.

The government creates problems and it can solve them either by backing off or by making another law that makes things more equal.

Yes, but the government also has a responsibility to remain constitutional and democratic. And as I explained in my rather long-winded post: it's against civil liberties to place the body of a woman under the constraints of the government, especially when forced abortions like these would also border on emotion torture from the woman's point of view.

Abortion was not legal until 1973 (I think), it isn't a constitutional issue and many states are moving to limit it. However, I am not in favor of taking away abortion or forcing abortion, the other option is to give men a legal opt-out. That is what I favor.

Did you know that child support has been ruled unconstitutional in some states because it treats fathers living in the home differently than fathers living outside the home?

Just to make it clear, I wasn't talking about abortion per se. I meant it's unconstitutional to give the government (or any human being for that matter) claim over any part of the female body. Allowing men to chose what happens to their "genetic material", as the OP put it, is therefore unconstitutional.
Should you however attack this from a different angle, as you seem to be doing, then suggest ingthat a man would want to negate his responsibility as a father through legal process would only enforce the broken family image that the OP appears to be trying to fix?
Either way, this doesn't look like a viable solution, and, as I explained before, gain very little (recognised) political support.

 

[trooper6]

Gays and lesbians never even crossed my mind.

And i'm just saying that some people who did actually try to enjoy sex with protection shouldn't be PUNISHED for it.

Of course is didn't cross your mind..

This whole thread is so full of misogyny and heterosexism that I just don't even know what to say.

The topic here is reproduction, gays and lesbians cannot reproduce and are therefor not included. That is why it is full of heterosexism. Or is there something about gays and lesbians you feel we should add here? If you have something to say, say it.

I've said it over and over. If a fellow is really worried about evil women out to steal their sperm and make them pay child support there are ways to have sex that don't involve putting a penis in a vagina. Ways that still allow couples to have intimacy, show love, get orgasms, and have all that sexy time without the risk of pregnancy. Gays and lesbians engage in these acts all the time...and straight people in places that have no access to condoms or The Pill.

When a person says, "if you are so worried don't put your penis in her vagina" I'm not saying don't ever have sex. It is heterosexist it equate love and intimacy and sex only with putting a penis in a vagina.

(And also sidenote: gays and lesbians aren't sterile, they can be part of the reproduction process. In the 2000 U.S. Census, for example, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home.)

 

[trooper6]

I
If a woman doesnt want a kid, they too should "keep it in their pants". Men are not the sole cause of pregnancy. (I have never seen a Gay couple get pregnant, nor for that matter any man.) If it is all our fault, then yes, we should have the right to say what happens to our kid. If anyone on this thread believes that a woman getting pregnant is a man's fault (minus rape) then you are as misguided as OT.

If a woman doesn't want a kid, of course they should keep it in their pants, or engage in many of the sex acts that won't lead to pregnancy. But this thread isn't about women who don't want to get pregnant. This is about the paranoid fear of the OP that all women are evil harpies who all want to have kids with poor innocent guys who don't want them. These women like about being on the Pill and then the poor man is forced to pay child support for 18 years all unfairly! So the guy should be able to force the woman to have an abortion!

That is what the OP is about.

Many of the people are saying if you are a man and you don't want to have kids and you don't trust those evil women to not lie about being on the pill, wear a condom.
If you are afraid the evil woman will put a hole in the condom, bring your own and don't let here near them.
If you are still afraid of condom failure, don't put your penis in her vagina. Do other sexy-time things instead.
Or don't have sex with people you don't trust.

If this post were by some woman complaining about how terrible men are because they keep trying to get her pregnant by putting holes in condoms or not putting them on properly, I'd say the same thing: Get on the Pill, Us a female condom, don't engage in sex acts where you can get pregnant, don't have sex with guys you can't trust.

 

[Verlander]

Gotta love a bunch of upset middle class white teenagers throwing their toys out of the pram because they are obviously discriminated against by everyone and everything. This idea is ridiculous and unreasonable, and no human should have a contract over another humans physical or psychological life. That's what we in the industry refer to as slavery.

So does your rule here apply to men and their court ordered labor as slavery?

What court ordered labour? If they don't like having kids, they can leave. Hell, my old man moved to the other side of the world, I've never had a penny from him.

Frankly, they have a responsibility, but they don't have to take it.

You do know that courts order child support, don't you? You do know that men have to work for that money don't you?

Court ordered labor. Can't believe I had to explain that.

I can't believe that you think that men can't, or don't get around that. I can't believe that you are arguing when I gave you a specific example of how to do so. I can't believe that the men you know can't find better lawyers

 

[Jazzeki]

alowing a man to simply abandon a woman and child to their own devices because he does nopt want the responisbilty is not a perfect solution i agree.
but if you think alowing a woman to kill a mans unborn child because she does not want the responsibilty is anything but an imperfect solution then i don't belive you have any place in this discusion.
we ain't gonna find the perfect way to solve this problem so it's only fair that if the woman is give the entirety of the choice (which is fair, her body) then she too has to take the entirety of the responisbility.

 

[Brother-Link]

I love how people respond to the vasectomy solution like it's going to mutilate their penis. It doesn't stop your body from producing sperm, just ejaculating it in their semen. And fyi there are reversible vasectomy procedures out there.

So for those guys who still whine about not wanting to abstain, and all those evil women out there that will sabotage their contraceptives like lie about the pill and poke holes in their condoms. Two words: 'snip snip'.

 

[Epona]

Gotta love a bunch of upset middle class white teenagers throwing their toys out of the pram because they are obviously discriminated against by everyone and everything. This idea is ridiculous and unreasonable, and no human should have a contract over another humans physical or psychological life. That's what we in the industry refer to as slavery.

So does your rule here apply to men and their court ordered labor as slavery?

What court ordered labour? If they don't like having kids, they can leave. Hell, my old man moved to the other side of the world, I've never had a penny from him.

Frankly, they have a responsibility, but they don't have to take it.

You do know that courts order child support, don't you? You do know that men have to work for that money don't you?

Court ordered labor. Can't believe I had to explain that.

I can't believe that you think that men can't, or don't get around that. I can't believe that you are arguing when I gave you a specific example of how to do so. I can't believe that the men you know can't find better lawyers

There is no legal way around child support unless you can prove (at your expense) that the child is not yours and there is a time limit on that.

If you are suggesting illegal activity, that is outside the scope of the discussion. Most men aren't willing to become criminals so they follow the law (if they can afford to) whether they agree with it or not.

 

[katsumoto03]

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

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.

That's what mouths are for! xD

 

[funguy2121]

This is a question for Dwangela.

Seriously, though, it's a ridiculous idea and will never happen in Western society. The man doesn't have to put his own health at risk and carry a human being inside of him for 9 months, and there are plenty of barren/gay parents out there who want to adopt a child. It's the woman's decision, case closed.

You know, one of the reasons that men die sooner is because they work more. So, all the extra hours he puts in to pay for a child he didn't want IS putting his health at risk.

Because raising a child isn't hard work? And you live in a society wherein women don't work, and work hard? Why do women have more medical problems per capita than us?

Also, men don't work hard for children they don't want. Deadbeat dads are deadbeat dads. And if an Escapist makes me invoke the law of identity one more time...

(1)I've been a stay at home dad and went out to work and I'll take the stay at home dad anytime. (2)Women work less hours and that they have more medical problems is true but (2)are you blaming that on men or babies or why are you bringing it up.

(4)Not wanting a child =/= deadbeat dad. Many dads didn't want a child but (5)slave away to stay out of legal trouble. You need to wake up to reality.

(1) I disagree that the 18 years of raising a child is less work/preferable work than/to doing the 9 to 5.
(2) Women only work less hours when they're on maternity leave. If you have an issue with maternity leave, I submit that your perspective might change if you were to carry a child for 9 months.
(3) I brought it up because you brought it up. I was addressing the health issues you brought up. How is that not clear? And I couldn't be less concerned with blame.
(4) I agree but...
(5)...earning money JUST to stay out of legal trouble = deadbeat dad.

Gloving up is the shared responsibility of both partners. It is unreasonable to expect that a fling, or anyone with whom you're not prepared to raise a child, will have the exact same principals as you regarding the unborn. Accidental pregnancies are exponentially reduced by using protection. I'm pro-choice, but giving the man sovereignty over a woman's body is equivalent to coercive abortion. You're unlikely to find that a popular idea, even if you ask Gloria Steinem.

 

[brainslurper]

Women are the ones having the baby, if the man doesn't want the baby he can leave.

you are truly stupid if you think that. ever heard of child support?

Oh yeah.

 

[Verlander]

Gotta love a bunch of upset middle class white teenagers throwing their toys out of the pram because they are obviously discriminated against by everyone and everything. This idea is ridiculous and unreasonable, and no human should have a contract over another humans physical or psychological life. That's what we in the industry refer to as slavery.

So does your rule here apply to men and their court ordered labor as slavery?

What court ordered labour? If they don't like having kids, they can leave. Hell, my old man moved to the other side of the world, I've never had a penny from him.

Frankly, they have a responsibility, but they don't have to take it.

You do know that courts order child support, don't you? You do know that men have to work for that money don't you?

Court ordered labor. Can't believe I had to explain that.

I can't believe that you think that men can't, or don't get around that. I can't believe that you are arguing when I gave you a specific example of how to do so. I can't believe that the men you know can't find better lawyers

There is no legal way around child support unless you can prove (at your expense) that the child is not yours and there is a time limit on that.

If you are suggesting illegal activity, that is outside the scope of the discussion. Most men aren't willing to become criminals so they follow the law (if they can afford to) whether they agree with it or not.

Moving to somewhere under a different judicial system isn't illegal. Child support isn't always mandatory

 

[Epona]

Gotta love a bunch of upset middle class white teenagers throwing their toys out of the pram because they are obviously discriminated against by everyone and everything. This idea is ridiculous and unreasonable, and no human should have a contract over another humans physical or psychological life. That's what we in the industry refer to as slavery.

So does your rule here apply to men and their court ordered labor as slavery?

What court ordered labour? If they don't like having kids, they can leave. Hell, my old man moved to the other side of the world, I've never had a penny from him.

Frankly, they have a responsibility, but they don't have to take it.

You do know that courts order child support, don't you? You do know that men have to work for that money don't you?

Court ordered labor. Can't believe I had to explain that.

I can't believe that you think that men can't, or don't get around that. I can't believe that you are arguing when I gave you a specific example of how to do so. I can't believe that the men you know can't find better lawyers

There is no legal way around child support unless you can prove (at your expense) that the child is not yours and there is a time limit on that.

If you are suggesting illegal activity, that is outside the scope of the discussion. Most men aren't willing to become criminals so they follow the law (if they can afford to) whether they agree with it or not.

Moving to somewhere under a different judicial system isn't illegal. Child support isn't always mandatory

Well, it is if they have already suspended your passport (which they do now). Obviously they do that to prevent people from moving out of their jurisdiction.

The system is broken and finding ways around it is fine but the system won't be changed by people running from it, they will just keep making it worse for those who don't run.