Poll: Male reproductive rights

[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.

 

[trooper6]

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.

Don't have sex with untrustworthy women.

This whole thread is about men who distrust women...over and over again the premise of the predatory woman who wants to steal your sperm is being brought up.

If you don't trust women, if you think they are all out to force you into fatherhood by lying about using birth control or putting pinpricks in condoms--don't have vaginal/penile sex with them.

Now let's break down some other elements here:

"The woman might be lying about being on the pill" -- If you don't trust her, don't have sex with her. Also, the pill doesn't protect her or you from STDs, so use a condom.

"Pinpricks in condoms"--If you don't trust her, don't have sex with her. Also buy your own condoms and bring them to the date yourself.

"Condoms can break." They can. But breakage rates are at most 2%--which is better than the Pill, by the way. The Pill has an average failure rate of 5%. And the Pill doesn't protect against STDs. Most condom problems are due to the fact the fellow doesn't know how to use them properly. Here's a quote from condomman.com

Breakage is not the primary cause of condom failure; in fact, many studies say that the breakage rate for condoms is 2% at most. The main problem instead is how consistently and correctly people use condoms. Most unwanted pregnancies stemming from condom failure are due to people either not using condoms every single time and/or not using them correctly. (For more information about how to use a condom correctly, please visit our page How to Put on a Condom.) When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year.

Use spermicidal lube in addition to your condom.

Freezing sperm and vasectomies is an option if you are really, really paranoid.

Lastly, there are many sexual things you can do with these women you don't respect or trust (or it seems really like) if you must have sex with them that don't involve putting your penis in her vagina. Oral Sex is awesome...but be reciprocal. Mutual masterbation is an option. Humping other body parts.

But, I would hope, you would practice abstinence. Not because I think abstinence in general is so awesome, but mainly because I would hate to think of some poor woman who is fooled into thinking you are an okay person and consenting to have sex with you only to find out about all the issues you have with women later.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

the best option i think would be a legal waiver;

if a woman has lied about the pill, an accident has happened or the couple just wanted to hump regardless of conciquence, its the womans body n she should never be forced to abort.

if a guy wants nothing to do with the child, and the woman refuses to abort, he can sign away all rights and must legally have no contact with the child.

if a guy doesnt want the child, why the hell would the mother want him in the childs life, as he'd most likely be resenting his son/daughter.

also it takes two to tango, both him and her had consented to the humping, but he doesnt consent to the birth and she does, he should be absolved of finantial and legal responsibility as it wouldnt be fair for him to have the control over her body to force her but parenthood in turn should not be forced on him.

its about as equal an answer i can think of, and the reason i went for the unsure option.

ideally i think the whole world should be neutered in a reversable way, that once a couple have been together for a few years, have been interviewed and deemed some level of stable should they be allowed to breed.
a family born of a quickie is, in my opinion, not gonna be a stable one and this planet is getting pretty highly populated at the moment

 

[Griffolion]

I'm not the best at looking at each of those points logically, so I'll let someone else do that. But I disagree with a lot of what was originally put. It all feels incredibly heartless to put the fate of an unborn child in the hands of a contract. It also really feels like all single mothers are being demonised here. Just to let you know, my parents split when I was 18 months old and my mum practically single-handedly raised me from there on. And yes, my dad did/does have a lot to answer for, and yes my mum should be applauded because she actually owns her own business and is incredibly successful while at the same time raising me in a very emotionally and economically stable home. So because my parents split when I was 18 months old, did that mean that breach of contract meant I should be killed on the spot or something?

PS - I know quite a few Christian married couples who are pretty much the opposite of what was said about Christians in the original post.

 

[Triskadancer]

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 a woman should be forced to mutilate her body just because a man is too untrustworthy to put on a condom correctly?

The argument goes both ways. It's wrong to force anyone to do anything to themselves. Everyone is in control of their own body. Men can choose to get a vasectomy or not, and can choose to use birth control or not, and can choose who they have sex with (hint; you should choose people who are not crazy and will not try to force you into marriage via unplanned babies). Women can choose all of this as well, except replace vasectomy with hysterectomy (I guess) and add in abortions as a last-minute measure.


If you don't want a baby, there are ways to prevent that shit from happening. Talk to your partner ahead of time. Decide what your plan will be if an accident happens together. You know, communicate. Like a normal human being. There's no need for insane contracts.

 

[Palantas]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Thumper17]

Seems like a start of something. I would not be opposed to needing consent of both parties before the child is allowed to be kept by weither parent, if not, then the kid should go somewhere where he/she can be taken care of by two parents who actually want the kid and aren't keeping it because you feel abortion is wrong or whatever. I dont think the kid should just be aborted, (depending how far along it is.) as that would just seem wrong.

 

[Meggiepants]

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.

1. And the Abstinence crowd? Are we ignoring that particular argument because it's the gaping hole in your assertion?

2. Mutilate your body? And forcing a woman to have an abortion is... what now?

3. Yes, condoms break. When you buy a condom, you should know this. And, knowing that, take responsibility if your choice for birth control is just a condom. I recommend a condom and a spermicidal lubricant minimally. But that's beside the point. You should really treat your sperm like the trash you put on the curb. Don't toss anything out that you don't want anyone to get a hold of.

Just because you have auto insurance and you drive recklessly and get into an accident and hit somebody, that doesn't mean it wasn't your fault. You can't stand up in court and say, "But I have the right to drive recklessly. I have insurance." A condom is just insurance.

4. Finally, there is just the issue of common sense. Don't stick your dick in somebody that you don't know and trust. For goodness sake, people, if you are having trouble with women who have babies with your sperm when you don't want them to, then you are screwing the wrong women.

Just stop. Put. The dick. Down. We all know it's loaded. Keep it in your pants and you'll be fine. No one is forcing you to have sex with these kinds of women.

 

[djs.specs]

Don't want to be a babydaddy? Only have sex with other dudes.

 

[Vault101]

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?

yes, yes it is

and besides these things happen by accident, I mean some people have problems with abortion that arnt religious in the least...once it gets past a certain stage wehat can you do?

 

[Zhukov]

I... I don't even know where to begin. Wait, actually, yes I do:

No.

No no no no no.

You're saying that a prospective father should be able to either legally force a pregnant women to carry their kid to term or legally force her to abort the pregancy.

I mean... really, what the fuck?

Is the current system a bit unbalanced? Well... yeah. But there's a reason for that. In case you hadn't noticed, it's the woman's body that has the baby in it. Mate, you can start complaining when there's a foetus chilling out in your abdomen.

 

[live2laugh]

What if the father wants the baby but the mother does not then? are you saying that this woman would have to go through 9 months of pregancy then? the system is biased and although it maybe too biased both parties don't have an equal role in the pregnancy stage.