Poll: Male reproductive rights

[Meggiepants]

Their is also the issue of condoms breaking. And their are crazy women out there who have practically raped men over an obsession to get impregnated, or purposefully break condoms without their partner knowing.

Ummm.... I don't think this happens as much as you do. If you have found evidence of such things happening (other than in tele-dramas) with any regularity other than the weird story Nancy Grace or Judge Judy picks up, then please, by all means, share this with us. I'm sure it would be enlightening.

Otherwise, the scenarios you envision are kind of like lightning striking the same condom twice. Besides, a woman doesn't really need to rape a man to get pregnant. In case you haven't noticed, there is no dearth of men willing to stick their dick in anything, no questions asked. It's not really all that difficult to get pregnant barring general fertility issues, in which case, raping a man ain't gonna fix bum ovaries.

I think what you may be trying to get at is women trying to get financial support, which is an entirely different issue and one far to complicated for laws to really fix all that well.

Is it still unrealistic to expect someone to get an abortion if they impregnated themselves forcefully or without the partners consent?

It's always unrealistic to expect the courts to ever force a woman to have an abortion. It's unrealistic to expect the courts to force anyone to undergo any elective surgery.

 

[awesomeClaw]

No, not what you suggested. But I have another solution!

Man wants baby, woman wants baby = Awesome! Good luck with that!
Man doesn´t want baby, woman doesn´t want baby = Still awesome! Abort that shit, sis!

Here comes the complicated parts:

Man wants baby, woman doesn´t = Can´t think of a solution that isn´t terrible and fucked up. Anyone wanna give it a go? My brain wheels are spinning here.

Woman wants baby, man doesn´t = The man signs a contract that relieves him of having to pay child support, but he in return has no right to visit his child or communicate with it at all. Also, if the father requests it, the baby can be removed from his record, and the child is not allowed to take contact with the father.

That´s a pretty decent proposition, I believe. Anyone got a better idea, I´d love to hear it.

BONUS DISCUSSION: What if the man was raped(As in, dragged into an alley, pumped full of viagra, rape)? Should he be able to have full control over the baby and therefor the woman´s body? No? Yes? Only in certain cases?

 

[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?

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.

So two people disagree about a pregnancy, therefore one or both of them refuse to sign a contract, and then we're back where we started. Don't see the point.

 

[gbemery]

Spoiler

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?

Im sorry but it seems all your argument can be summed up by, making sure you are with a girl who just wants to have sex too and not a child. Its called getting to know the person before you have sex. Besides how the hell would that not interrupt the mood and moment?

Girl: Oh I want you so bad!
Guy: Oh baby your so gorgeous I can't wait I need you now!
Girl: Yeah, take me now!
Guy: Umm just real quick baby. I need you to read this, initial here, here and sign and date here.
Girl: ...umm what is this?
Guy: Just your standard non birthing agreement.
Girl: ....seriously...

 

[Epicspoon]

No, not what you suggested. But I have another solution!

Man wants baby, woman wants baby = Awesome! Good luck with that!
Man doesn´t want baby, woman doesn´t want baby = Still awesome! Abort that shit, sis!

Here comes the complicated parts:

Man wants baby, woman doesn´t = Can´t think of a solution that isn´t terrible and fucked up. Anyone wanna give it a go? My brain wheels are spinning here.

Woman wants baby, man doesn´t = The man signs a contract that relieves him of having to pay child support, but he in return has no right to visit his child or communicate with it at all. Also, if the father requests it, the baby can be removed from his record, and the child is not allowed to take contact with the father.

That´s a pretty decent proposition, I believe. Anyone got a better idea, I´d love to hear it.

BONUS DISCUSSION: What if the man was raped(As in, dragged into an alley, pumped full of viagra, rape)? Should he be able to have full control over the baby and therefor the woman´s body? No? Yes? Only in certain cases?

in that one case and in that one case only. yes he should have the right to force an abortion.

 

[wolas3214]

I read the first two sentences...

A man makes that choice when he has unprotected sex.

Don't want a kid? Keep it in your pants.

And if a woman doesn't want a child, she should take a course of pills and have her brain ****ed out by whoever?
*Edit* Sorry, left a bit out. A woman only claiming to be on the pill is not unheard of. While you may be talking about one-nighters, the problem is that a married woman can force the conception, without consent from the male.

I'd support this. Right now, everything can and is blamed on the man.

Everything is blamed on the man, who if it is a one night stand is probably long gone.

Did you know that Nazi's also wanted this to happen.

While i dont agree with the nazi's on all their counts its all perspective, as yahtzee oce said when were overpopulated e'll look back on the whole thing differently.

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

that may be true but often times it wont happen that way.

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.

From what i've seen many women agree. Maybe not to the letter but that seems to be what msot people are saying. I may have been a little impassioned with my views typign it up but there are plenty of valid points in the OP

 

[Colour Scientist]

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.

Seriously? So a couple break up and the woman is left to raise a child and cover the cost of everything without any support from the father?
Does that not sound ridiculous to you? What about if the women left? Would a similar law be put in place that if they break up the father would be the sole carer of the child or would it only work one way because obviously women only get pregnant outside of marriage to get money from poor, unsuspecting, horny men.


I agree that men should have more rights with regards to child rearing than they do now but forced medical procedures (terminations) and the ability to abandon any responsibility or repercussions at a whim is ridiculous.

It's insane how some people even get a whiff of a double standard that doesn't go in their favour (be it racial, gender related, etc...) and they cry bloody murder about equal rights.

 

[Worgen]

well a man doesnt have what is essentualy a parasite growing in him for 9 months that kind of takes over so his needs are pretty much secondary

but really I think there should be a test you have to take to have kids and if you cant pass it then the abortion bot shows up in the night and takes care of things

 

[evenest]

The woman alone should have control over what happens in and to her body. If a man wants to keep from producing children, he can practice abstinence.

 

[sinsfire]

This is pretty ridiculous. You can't force someone to get an abortion, nor should you be able to. This is like the exact opposite of hardcore right wing politics, but its just as oppressive. If you can't or haven't sat down and had a rational conversation about pregnancy and child birth then perhaps you shouldn't be having sex with that person.

As for your other arguments I think others have pointed out the flaws. But in reality all you need to do is sit down and discuss these things with your partner prior to the consequences occurring. If you are looking for a one night stand then you should make that clear as well. No strings attached is fine as long as both parties are willing to cut the strings when all is said and done.

Other then that I won't campaign to stop you from doing whatever you want in your relationship, provided you aren't intimidating or coercing your partner into the same.

 

[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.

So two people disagree about a pregnancy, therefore one or both of them refuse to sign a contract, and then we're back where we started. Don't see the point.

well its hard to enforce something without a contract. I suggested the idea so that men OR women who dont want the father involved(should he come back demanding to see his child) dont have to or cant be involved in the childs life.

 

[Cynicalgamer]

Why does this feel like the entire view on this would change some if the actual definitions of the contract were discussed here?

Everyone seems to be assuming that the contract has to say something along the lines of "If my man says he doesn't want a child, I have to get an abortion".

Why can't this contract be something along the lines of both parties signing the form give mutual consent FOR having a kid, or NOT having a kid.

That way both parties know what they're getting themselves into for the future. And addendums can be made later if they have a change of opinion.

Hell, they can even set a specific amount of time that the contract is good for, even so much as granting ways to opt out, if BOTH parties sign THAT particular form. That way the other person isn't left in the dark if their partner randomly decides they changed their mind and doesn't tell them. Think of it as a legal way of prevent of birth control sabotage, and to absolve the other person of any responsiblity, legal or otherwise, if that occurs.

This doesn't have to be about a man controlling what a woman does with her body.

And how about this? If the couple have differing and entirely irreconcilable opinions on what to do about kids? BREAK UP! Quit wasting each other's time.

There, now its fair for both people in the relationship.

Can we all stop being offended now? The original concept, while ethically shaky, does have some interesting points to it.

Not that this is anything more than crazy distopian baloney anyway... You'd have to have people sign legal contracts before they're allowed to bump uglies.

...Man, this'd make for a really interesting book.

 

[Ashendarei]

You know, to all the people reccomending that the guy "be more choosy" about whom he sleeps with, it's not like women wear a sign that says "I'm FU%^ING CRAZY!". I think the OP is VERY wrong on several points, but men DO get a raw deal, and have almost NO say in the matter, and it's rarely easy to determine if you're sticking your dick into crazy before it's FAR too late.

 

[wolas3214]

snip.

Well this was essentially my original idea but when a writer gets passionate well... it tends to veer off course.

 

[Kathinka]

what we really need is some form of hormonal anticonception for men. problem solved.^^
unfortunately that's probably still years away.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Forcing someone into surgery is an obvious no-no, but an irrefutable legal contract severing all ties to an unborn child should be considered.

I stress irrefutable because such contracts haven't worked out in the past (contracts not to be responsible for sperm bank babies), legal systems are still very biased against men.

Because right now it's a huge landmine situation for men, if you get a girl who is a bit wacked and sabotages contraception you are completely fucked, there is no legal way to get yourself out of that shit.
Happened to one of my old school buddies, he was sleeping around and his GF decided to tie him down with a pleasant baby surprise... :S

 

[BringBackBuck]

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

It is a pretty massive change to society. People fuck all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and have done this forever. They don't sit down and negotiate contracts first

Exactly what point in the courtship process should our proposed contract negotiations take place? Right before sex, when hormones are raging and you will say almost anything to get things done at this point, or at the start of the night when you first meet someone? "Hi I'm Bob, nice to meet you, here is a pre-prepared contract I would like you to peruse before this encounter proceeds any further."

Actually there is a funny scene from the awful 80s sci-fi movie "Cherry 2000" which looks like the type of society you are proposing.

I'll see if I can find the clip.

Edit: Here you go. It is in the first few seconds of the trailer - (and I just realised the nightclub lawyer is played by Laurence Fishburne).

 

[sinsfire]

Why does this feel like the entire view on this would change some if the actual definitions of the contract were discussed here?

Everyone seems to be assuming that the contract has to say something along the lines of "If my man says he doesn't want a child, I have to get an abortion".

Why can't this contract be something along the lines of both parties signing the form give mutual consent FOR having a kid, or NOT having a kid.

That way both parties know what they're getting themselves into for the future. And addendums can be made later if they have a change of opinion.

Hell, they can even set a specific amount of time that the contract is good for, even so much as granting ways to opt out, if BOTH parties sign THAT particular form. That way the other person isn't left in the dark if their partner randomly decides they changed their mind and doesn't tell them. Think of it as a legal way of prevent of birth control sabotage, and to absolve the other person of any responsiblity, legal or otherwise, if that occurs.

The only real problem with this is that lives change and people change. Maybe one person doesn't want kids so they sign the contract. Then years go by and they now want kids and the partner tries to hold them to the contract. It is simply one more thing that would eventually lead to tensions. All you need to do is be open and honest with your partner or partners at all stages of the relationship.

You don't need a piece of paper to do that for you. And if you argue that the contract can be changed, then really what was the point to begin with.