Poll: Male reproductive rights
- Thread starter wolas3214
- Start date
No it would not be a good idea for the simple fact that bastard rape children like myself would cease to exist I mean yeah there are some positives to that but you are taking the chance that one of those bastard children could be the next Einstein or the next President just because the parents make the mistake don't damn the child. I mean take me for example my father raped my mother and nine months later I was born, the black sheep of the family at age six getting stares from my own mother and family members for something I had no control over then two years later I go to summer camp for pop warner football, I come home two weeks later to find my house abandoned with a letter in the mailbox adressed to me telling me how my mother and stepfather could not stand to look at me anymore and could not take what I represented leaving a defenseless 9 year old alone in the world, but now I am 18 and working towards getting my degree in philosophy and political science and trying to make the world a better place.
In which universe is a vasectomy worse than an abortion procedure? Disregarding the mentally traumatic experience of the female having to deal with the removal of a life form from her body, how is a man getting 'fixed' in any way comparable to abortion?wolas3214 said:
A vasectomy is reversible, sperm can be preserved, of course there are risks during surgery, but an abortion can cause a hundred different problems, and there is no 'going back' when you abort.
Just keep it in your damn pants. I honestly can't wrap my head around how you're unable to see the hypocrisy in your statement.
Why should someone have to compromise their religious views because the guy they where with didn't pull out or could just wait and not have sex untill he was ready for the responsibility of a child?
Is there a reason why everything is the guys fault or responsibility? Why does no one say, she should have kept her pants up or used birth control?Titan Buttons said:
People act like women are children and can't be held accountable for their own actions while men have to be accountable for not only their own actions, but the actions and decisions of women. Isn't it kinda sexist to view women that way?
No I agree with that completely, I do say "Why doesn't she just raise the child herself, she doesn't need a man to do that", though I do believe that it is more difficult for an only parent to raise children, but plenty of men and women have done this.Crono1973 said:
I was only questioning the ridiculous concept that a man can control if a woman can or can't be able to use her reproductive system.
Yeah it's a silly idea, the OP's idea and most people on this thread don't support it.Titan Buttons said:
It's funny, when women complain to me about how the father of their child is a deadbeat and how easy he has it only having to pay I always say "Why not switch roles with the father, let him raise the child and you pay child support". Most women are completely opposed to this. It's just funny though that they say that paying child support is so easy but they wouldn't want to switch places because raising the child has it's rewards while simply paying for it is a thankless position to be in.
If we're going to operate under the law that you should require a license to partake in a complex or dangerous task that could have negative consequences, it would make sense for people to be required by law to be proven relatively financially stable, and emotionally and mentally stable, as well as both parties confirming their consent, before having a child.
This is a nice idea IN THEORY. In practice, like all laws, it's subject to a great deal of corruption.
Are we assuming that the governments idea of financial and mental stability is correct?, the same government allows children to be medicated for psychological diseases they don't have, and has provided consent for torture, lobotomies, and electric shock therapy?.
And remember how finance works, there are many poor parents that would be far more loving parents then rich ones(It's also worth noting that lack of wealth does not equate a lack of happiness or mental health). Not everyone is born into financial stability.
Which leads me to my other point, giving the government control over reproduction opens a lot of doors. What if the government decides that you have to be of a certain background, or a certain career. It's giving them to much power.
In the real world, not all people are created equal. Some are born into privileged families, some are born in gutters. Some are born stronger, healthier, or smarter, some are born with crippling diseases, some are born dead.
This is inescapable. Survival of the fittest, however tragic, is very real. What qualifies as "Fittest" may vary from society to society, but there will always be a ruling class, people who were born into more power, or just got lucky. And none of them are guaranteed to be kind, caring, or responsible.
Humanity's been trading one flawed society for another since the beginning, not by chance, it's our nature to strive, even if it's impossible to succeed, it's what drives us to survive. What reason do we have to believe it will change?
Every law will be exploited eventually, this would be no different. The world will never be perfect, we can't change that, all we can do is survive.
This is a nice idea IN THEORY. In practice, like all laws, it's subject to a great deal of corruption.
Are we assuming that the governments idea of financial and mental stability is correct?, the same government allows children to be medicated for psychological diseases they don't have, and has provided consent for torture, lobotomies, and electric shock therapy?.
And remember how finance works, there are many poor parents that would be far more loving parents then rich ones(It's also worth noting that lack of wealth does not equate a lack of happiness or mental health). Not everyone is born into financial stability.
Which leads me to my other point, giving the government control over reproduction opens a lot of doors. What if the government decides that you have to be of a certain background, or a certain career. It's giving them to much power.
In the real world, not all people are created equal. Some are born into privileged families, some are born in gutters. Some are born stronger, healthier, or smarter, some are born with crippling diseases, some are born dead.
This is inescapable. Survival of the fittest, however tragic, is very real. What qualifies as "Fittest" may vary from society to society, but there will always be a ruling class, people who were born into more power, or just got lucky. And none of them are guaranteed to be kind, caring, or responsible.
Humanity's been trading one flawed society for another since the beginning, not by chance, it's our nature to strive, even if it's impossible to succeed, it's what drives us to survive. What reason do we have to believe it will change?
Every law will be exploited eventually, this would be no different. The world will never be perfect, we can't change that, all we can do is survive.
This is not a double standard. This is the embodiment of the rule "Your body, your rules". If your sperm is a part of your body then you should really have that checked out, the fact is that you don't own your genetic material. That is patented a long time ago, or at least most of your genes are, your introns are your own, but as good as none of your genes actually belong to you. If men could give birth we would be able to decide to keep it or not.wolas3214 said:
Yes, the ceremony called marriage today is very religious. The most common form in the western world is the Christian marriage, so the English word marriage is connected to that. However the tradition and execution has its roots in Christianity, never mind the fact that marriage is older than any of our current religions. Stop calling it marriage changes nothing. We can stop calling a light bulb a light bulb to protest against Edison, but it will still be a variety of the same invention. Changing the name of marriage is pointless. Saying the contracts of marriage should be changed because it is pointless would be against this. Human rights let us get divorce. Christianity tells us that the only way out is death. Islam got its system where the husband has to write a contract where he promises to give his wife certain things if the marriage fails because of him. So basically you want to remove the religion from the word, but let religion govern our married lives.
I hope you can cite a source that claims this does in fact happen and don't base this off something you see either on TV or yourself. I can cite my book in social anthropology that says that the modern family is one mom and 1-3 kids raising them by herself. The rates of adoptions aren't so big as you seem to think they are.
And yes, this change is too much to ask for. It's taken centuries to change it this way. Back when feminists could still be considered to be fighting for a reason they fought for these parts of the society. As a person who wants freedom and less bureaucracy I say what you want is stupid.
If a woman gets raped by a stranger and wants to keep the baby will she need to find her rapist in order to be allowed to keep her baby?
If she has sex with some random guy on a party and wants to keep the baby and don't know who he is or he gave her a fake name, will she be forced to have an abortion?
What you're asking for is to go back a few hundred years in time. We could go back even further and burn witches and use alcohol as sedation in surgery, outlaw homosexuality (punished by death) and remove all technology that's come since. What do you think? Sounds great to you?