Poll: Male reproductive rights

[RachaelIsaacHill]

No I dont think giving men the right to decide whether a pregnancy occurs or not would be healthy for society as a whole. Birth rate would fall too low. Who would enforce these abortions? The courts and the police? Slippery slope I think.

Well, we've got a loooong way to go before we have to start worrying about birth rate. Human population as a whole is growing at a terrifying rate, the planet could definitely stand to have a few million less of us born each year. Also, I don't think allowing males to chose what happens in the case of a pregnancy won't have as large of an impact as people are thinking it will. Lots of males as well as females aren't comfortable with abortion, and the scenario when a woman wants to bring to term and the male forces an abortion is worst-case, at best. People are generally reasonable with each other, particularly ones they've had sex with. Usually. The people who aren't I'm thinking don't need to procreate in the first place, so we're kind-of in a win-win here.

My father got his ass absolutely handed to him regarding child support when him and my mom split. My mom took all the money he was giving her that was supposed to be for me and used it to pay her won bills. Now here I am at 20 with no money to go to college because dad's savings were taken. Unfortunately this is not a rare case - men do tend to get shafted regarding parental rights by the courts. Women get shafted too sometimes. What we need here is better laws set up in general to protect the rights of both parents, and honestly in the case of unwanted children, we all need to man up and look at all our options. Keeping the right to chose to bear a child cannot be simply exclusive to the mother, because it is not only the mother's life which is affected here.

 

[Skratt]

Sorry, It's the woman's body. Don't want (to pay for) kids? Man up and use some goddamn discretion. You have to use everything else in this world responsibly: cars, tools, guns, toothpaste; your penis is no exception.

Of course it's not 100% the man's fault, it takes two to tango, but when the woman is left raising the kid, she is of course going to be pissed that you didn't stick around to bear your half of the responsibility. If she blames the man 100%, she is just deluding herself, but that doesn't give you rights over her body.

 

[Colour Scientist]

In that instance, they would have to declare their wish not to have a child pre-birth.
but you do make a good point.

Even still, what about countries where abortions aren't legal? Is that just the woman's tough then? Even where they are, some people here are acting like it's the same as going for a routine check-up. It's a serious procedure that should never be taken lightly.



OP: Some opinions on this thread a truly baffling and guaranteed most of the obscene ones come from young 'uns who have been sheltered by Mommy and Daddy their entire lives and the concept of real responsibility for their actions frightens them so much that they feel the need to create a legal wall to protect themselves.

Guess what? Not all women are out to get you.
I was raised in a single parent family and it was HARD, even with child support from my father. Some people seem to believe that once you get pregnant and secure child support your life is a cake-walk and you never have to work or do anything arduous ever again but that's so far from the truth. At one point, we were living in a one room apartment (not a one bedroom apartment, the apartment itself was one room). My mom worked her ass off to raise me by herself and keep a full-time job, not exactly the menacing plan the OP seems to envision.

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

it's not atrocious to not kill your baby, kid. ever. and there are women in this world who embrace an accidental pregnancy and be the best mothers they can be even without the help of a scared man-child father (who absolutely deserves the shame society puts on him), and those who choose to carry a pregnancy to full term and allow another couple who don't/can't have kids to adopt the baby in question. if you're the sort of man who would force a woman to have an abortion because of a mistake in the bedroom (statistically, your mistake. most accidental pregnancies come from condom application errors on the part of the man), you deserve to die a virgin.

 

[Madara XIII]

To OP:

Well, I used to say "Keep it in your pants if you want to avoid such things" but your well-thought-out and rational argument has con.....

Oh.

Well, Noob Saibot has spoken and I'm not about to go against that. Sorry OP but you're going to have to keep it in your pants.

Hehehe all aboard the Noob Train XD.

 

[Xanadu84]

From an evolutionary perspective, the ability of mate selection is pretty much the one balancing factor that women have. Barring rape, they can control the pregnancy. They may be slow and handicapped for months, and could be abandoned by a male who sees a better genetic option, not to mention they are more reliant on males when they are taking care of the child, but they can at least decide when having a kid is desirable for them. Should there be this kind of birth contract, you leave the woman with nothing but exploitable disadvantages. Though not as openly traumatic, it takes control away from women on a level comparable to rape.

The role in reproduction between the sexes is not the same, and people will naturally exploit any situation they can to their advantage. You can't force the respective sexes to be the same, so you have to make a sustainable, balanced system: Think of it kind of like designing a game with 2 warring factions. They can be very different, they just have to be equal in power. Women get mate selection. Men get...pretty much everything else.

Also, if Men could force a sexual partner to have an abortion, then women should be allowed to give on-site, unwanted vasectomies. Fairs fair. And since I sure as hell wouldn't want that, I wouldn't force a women into having an abortion. Can't take responsibility for a child? Either agree that the woman would have an abortion before having sex (and if she went back on her word, you would have the right to not have to support the child), or don't put your dick in her.

 

[DaMan1500]

I agree with one aspect of your post (men should be able to prevent their children from being aborted), but everything else your saying is pretty...wow. I mean, if a dad truely doesn't want to be in the kid's life, then I guess there's not much you can do there, outside of making him to pay child support, but you can't seriously be saying that men should be able to force women to get abortions?

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

Guess what? Not all women are out to get you.
I was raised in a single parent family and it was HARD, even with child support from my father. Some people seem to believe that once you get pregnant and secure child support your life is a cake-walk and you never have to work or do anything arduous ever again but that's so far from the truth. At one point, we were living in a one room apartment (not a one bedroom apartment, the apartment itself was one room). My mom worked her ass off to raise me by herself and keep a full-time job, not exactly the menacing plan the OP seems to envision.

Same story here. I'm bitter at my mom, though, because she got re-married, had three more kids, is wonderfully financially stable now, and pretty much sucked my dad dry even after she didn't really need the money anymore. My dad's been struggling to get by for years at this point. I was so happy when I turned 19, because it meant dad no longer had to pay child support for me. I would have gone to court to settle things sooner than that, but was honestly afraid to.

I think the craziness of some of the ideas bouncing around here is getting a lot of people caught up on the wrong stuff. We all (myself included) need to take a deep breath and start bringing reasonable things to the table. While I maintain mandatory sterilizations are a great idea (I'm a stupid-people racist, what can you do), it's not at all feasible in the real world. Neither, however, is allowing the male to just decide to force the female into an abortion if they are not comfortable with it. Honestly that's about as societaly and mentally damaging as my idea.

However the plain facts are thus; we need to allow greater control between both parties involved as far as reproductive rights are concerned. Both of their lives are too involved with this to assume one gets more control than the other. The simple abstinence idea works just about as well in real-life as it did in your old health classes - which is to say, not at all. People aren't just not going to have sex, and you can't blame them when they do and something goes wrong. Protection isn't 100% infallible. (Now blame away for unprotected sex, because that is just dumb)

 

[Dr. Crawver]

forcing a woman to have an abortion is the cruelest thing you can do if she's attached to it already (which a lot are). I am for abortion, I'm not religious, and am pro choice, but there are two sides to everything, and many women who choose to have one a scarred for life. When a woman gets pregnant, hormones are released through their body preparing them for becoming a mother, and one part of that is the mental attachment to their unborn child. I live in England where we have worryingly large numbers of teenage pregnancy, and our rapidly falling average IQ is somewhat of a concern, but we can't force these things on it even if it is for the "greater good" or any other justification, and to force women to lose their children will absolutely destroy societies. What you propose in those terms are draconian, and very VERY male oriented without any concern to for the women. Yes, there are double standards, but guess what, when it comes to sex and reproduction, we are different. It's the one thing there should be double standards in.

 

[The Lesbian Flower]

Okay, I believe that ultimately it is a woman's choice. However, if a man wants his baby and a the woman does not, he should be allowed to keep the child. Besides, you can always sign over parental rights even if you are the mother or father so I don't see what the big deal is. You can always legally disown your spawn and not have to pay a dime on said spawn.

 

[Epona]

Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.

What the fuck? How is that a double standard? Fathers don't have to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus childbirth.

Fathers have to endure 18 years of wage slavery.

If women who don't want to be a mother can abort, then men who don't want to be a father should be able to legally opt out (a paperwork abortion). If the woman decides to have the baby, she does so knowing that she will do it alone. That is the only fair way.

You cannot force or deny an abortion based on the wishes of the father.

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

There shouldn't be laws to protect us guys from our own inability to control our urges.

Hear, hear. Laws that protect people from the stupidity of others, fine and necessary. Laws that protect people from themselves, Darwin is crying.

 

[trooper6]

Guess what? Not all women are out to get you.
I was raised in a single parent family and it was HARD, even with child support from my father. Some people seem to believe that once you get pregnant and secure child support your life is a cake-walk and you never have to work or do anything arduous ever again but that's so far from the truth. At one point, we were living in a one room apartment (not a one bedroom apartment, the apartment itself was one room). My mom worked her ass off to raise me by herself and keep a full-time job, not exactly the menacing plan the OP seems to envision.

Indeed. And also? Children aren't raised by money. My sister and brother-in-law have two kids aged 2 and 4. She is a stay at home mom (because child care is *really* expensive) and my brother-in-law works at a company. It seems like many of the guys on this thread are imagining that she is doing nothing. That she is hanging out living the high life that he isn't. That he is somehow being treated unfairly because he's paying all the money. You know what my sister has to do? Spend *every* waking moment giving energy to those two little boys. He gets to play hockey with this buddies and have drinks after work...she is always at home with the kids. She is working *all* the time. She doesn't get a lot of sleep. She doesn't have a lot of time to take showers or relax or do anything for herself. She has to raise these kids.

I spent two weeks at their place last month, and the amount of work she does is staggering. When I got tired, I could lock myself in the guest room and escape. When my brother-in-law got tired, he'd lock himself in his office or go out with friends. My sister doesn't have that option. And my brother-in-law is a really good guy and a good father.

Now, let's imagine the father of these two kids is the OP or one of the many dudes in this thread. What would they be doing? Not being married to my sister. Off being a deadbeat dad, probably not paying child support because it is "punishment" and just enjoying life footloose and fancy free. My sister, on the otherhand, will have to give all that energy to raise those two boys, and also work to pay for rent and food. If they guy did pay some childsupport, it might be enought that would enable her to work parttime so she can spend more energy on her full time job--raising the child that she and OP had.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

also, the argument that the man should be able to stop a woman from getting an abortion is also wrong, because for the most part it's easier for him than it is for her. He doesn't have to bear it inside of him for 9 months, go through the intensely painful process of giving birth, or have quite the intense mental connection. It's unfortunate if you want a child but your girlfriend/wife doesn't, but if she's not ready, you shouldn't force her as it's her who bears the worst of it, and if she doesn't want kids at all and they're that important to you, then you're with the wrong woman

 

[BlackNoel]

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.

I just want to point out that real Christians have never said anything to the contrary.
On topic, however, as great as this sounds in theory I'm not sure there'd be any practical way of ensuring universal acceptance of birth contracts.

 

[Littlee300]

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.

EDIT: Okay, I read the rest... you can't be serious here.

You Say: Marriage contracts have become legally meaningless as there are no longer any courts which uphold them.

I say: There are specific courts that only deal with Marriage contracts. You think marriage contracts are legally meaningless? You are mistaken.

You Say: 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.

I say: Whoever is telling you these things is wrong. It takes two to tango (unless we are talking about rape) and since when (and where) is abortion free?

EDIT: It's sad that so far over 85 people think this is a good idea. Just don't have sex in a way that can lead to pregnancy if you don't want to deal with the chance of having to be a responsible adult.Think about it. Be creative. The internet is full of ideas in this regard.

Think about it this way. Do you really want someone stupid enough to knock up a girl and realize he doesn't want to a kid to spread his genes?

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.

What the fuck? How is that a double standard? Fathers don't have to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus childbirth.

Fathers have to endure 18 years of wage slavery.

If women who don't want to be a mother can abort, then men who don't want to be a father should be able to legally opt out (a paperwork abortion). If the woman decides to have the baby, she does so knowing that she will do it alone. That is the only fair way.

You cannot force or deny an abortion based on the wishes of the father.

that's because 1)If the father didn't want a child, he shouldn't have had sex in the first place. He bore the risk when he got his dick out.
2)While yes, it's a financial drain on him, it's far worse for the mother, who has to look after the child as well as buy food and other such stuff for it
3)The father doesn't go through the biological and mental changes the woman does, and that is the important point men arguing what you are miss. To force a woman into an abortion has destroyed women mentally, and even those who agree to them can be scarred for life, because her body and mind have changed due to the hormones

 

[trooper6]

Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.

What the fuck? How is that a double standard? Fathers don't have to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus childbirth.

Fathers have to endure 18 years of wage slavery.

If women who don't want to be a mother can abort, then men who don't want to be a father should be able to legally opt out (a paperwork abortion). If the woman decides to have the baby, she does so knowing that she will do it alone. That is the only fair way.

You cannot force or deny an abortion based on the wishes of the father.

1) Abortion is not legal in all places.
2) Father are not enduring 18 years of wage slavery, they are taking care of their children--a human being that needs food and shelter and attention and care. What is wrong with you?
3) Writing out a check every month is getting off way easier than actually having to rear that child.

You know, back in the 19th Century and earlier, children were considered property of the father. So unwanted children lived in the father's home not the mothers. Let's see how all these dudes here would deal with that.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

I agree to some of your opinions, men should have at least SOME rights when it comes to their hypothetical children. We know enough about male and female sexuality now-a-days, so we know women are just as interrested in sex as men, not just lust-less creatures who trade it for other goods (if you see at some of the laws, it seems like we still think like that), and the sole blame for a child isn't at the male side (we do give out birth control pills in free clinics now).
but these parts I have some objections to:

It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father.
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

the idea of a cntract isn't a inheritly bad idea, but it shouldn't be like this, not at all.
first of all, to refuse a woman to give birth, or force her to get a abortion is a human rights violation.
no-one can rule over your own body but you!

and the way a contract like this should be used, is if one of the parties in a long term relationship don't want a child (it goes without saying that this contract should be made BEFORE the female party get pregnant), they draw up a contract where the other party isn't finacially or leagaly obligated to help with the child.

And for the record, forcing two people who don't want to be together to stay with each other is going to be alot more harmful to the child then if it's raised by a single parent (or one parent and his/her new significant other).

 

[Prince Regent]

Massive blackmail potential here. Among tons of already mentioned reasons why this is a bad idea. (AKA forcing an abortion.)