Poll: Male reproductive rights

[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?

 

[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.