Poll: Male reproductive rights

[MorgulMan]

Wow, that's about the most vile thing I've read today.

The sex act is a reproductive act. All the surgeries and drugs and barriers in the world may try to rob it of its essence, but biology will not be gainsaid. Do people have sex intending merely physical pleasure? Sure. But their intent does not change the nature of the act any more than, for instance, if I ate an entire half gallon of ice cream. I may have done it merely as a means of physical pleasure, enjoying its savory sweetness. But that doesn't change the fact that eating is a biological act with the end of digestion, and the nutritional content of my "meal" will have an effect on my body.

Murder is not a solution to a guy not being able to keep it in his pants.

 

[Dr.Nick]

You do realize that having the whole point of sex is to have offspring? If you want to have sex then you need to take responsibility and acknowledge the fact that there is a risk that the female will get pregnant. You need to take responsibility and say, "Ok, I want to have sex and I know there's a risk of her getting pregnant and if she does I will do my duty as a parent." That child has as much right to live as anyone once it is conceived. You can't have sex and not take responsibility. Too many people just treat sex like an act that has no consequence and place only blame when someone gets pregnant. If you don't want to risk having a baby then don't have vaginal sex (or whatever the term is). There's plenty of other ways you can get off with your partner.

And no condoms aren't a good work around because there's still a chance they will break.

So you are against abortion then?

Yes.

 

[Orinon]

Well, prepare for a wall o' text...

First of all gents, it IS the woman's body, you can't force anything on her. HOWEVER, the option is there to abort, if she chooses not to take it and he does not want responsibility we should not be stuck paying. I'll explain why by going over the main points I have seen here.

A: Birth control: Condoms do fail, I'm sorry but it isn't the solve all to this argument. In the case of any birth control failure the man should not be held accountable if the woman decides to keep the child. That being said you are a moron if you have sex without protection if you do not want a child.

B: Sterilization: Also not a good solution. Understand that when going through the process doctors tell the patient to assume it will NOT be reversible. Roughly 80% of the time it is, but 20% is a lot to ask for a failure rate. We may not want children yet, but perhaps later. Frozen sperm also have an expiration date...

C: Abstinence: Let's be honest, this isn't a viable option for any normal man. Women will disagree because their "switch" isn't on all the time. Granted it is there, and it is extremely powerful when it is, but it isn't an all consuming thought. In 4 seconds men produce as many sex cells as women will have in their entire life. Testosterone production also always runs at a steady level for men, which is why we are ready to go at the drop of a hat. Women have a steady buildup of estrogen as they get closer to ovulation, which is why they seem ready to pounce you about 3-4 days from their period. This makes it extremely deadly for men, because oftentimes the horniest of women are also the most fertile. So, either all those men out there hypocritically saying "keep it in your pants" have either A: never been set upon by a woman in heat (a fun and scary experience at the same time, trust me I know) or B: are already in a steady relationship later in life with a steady supply of sex.
Sorry ladies, but sex is kind of a biological need for us men, studies show that men who have regular sex have much lower instances of prostate cancer, much lower levels of stress, increased testosterone production for a longer period of time as we age and an increased longevity, by as much as 10 years.
On a side note, remember abstinence is only 99.999% effective, remember jesus?

In essence, it is absolutely the woman's choice on abortion, however it is the father's in involvement. Simply because the woman decides to keep it does not make it the man's responsibility to have to care for it, particularly in instances where birth control was used.

Oh hello OP I almost didn't recognize you with your new profile.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Gays and lesbians never even crossed my mind.

And i'm just saying that some people who did actually try to enjoy sex with protection shouldn't be PUNISHED for it.

Of course is didn't cross your mind..

This whole thread is so full of misogyny and heterosexism that I just don't even know what to say.

The topic here is reproduction, gays and lesbians cannot reproduce and are therefor not included. That is why it is full of heterosexism. Or is there something about gays and lesbians you feel we should add here? If you have something to say, say it.

 

[GraveeKing]

Brilliant idea, worried feminists will have a go at this thread though, and barrage it with hate on how 'it's the women baring the child' etc.
But yeah, I think it's a great idea, although leave off us Christians - we don't do anything wrong .... most of us.... usually

 

[Da Chi]

Facepalm. Every man and every woman should know about safe sex procedures. Don't want to follow them? You have no say after that because you are unfit to make any decisions.

Tough love *****. Quit your whining.

 

[Tdc2182]

I'm nowhere near anything considered to be a feminist but... Good God no

No way in hell. This is one step forward and about 50 steps back.

I have no problem with abortion. I think it's a perfectly healthy back up plan. But to make it so that a woman would be forced to have an abortion just because some drunken fratboy asshole couldn't keep it in his pants?

That's as close to murder as you're going to get in terms of abortion.

Now I do understand that society nowadays has become incredibly sexist in absolutely every way in modern day society, but this is where we would draw the line.

It's pretty hard for a guy to get raped. We have the best birth control of all. It's pretty simple

Just avoid putting your dick in things with receptive ovums.

Edited a little bit, hope you don't mind.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

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.

No one said you can have sex and be 100% sure that the woman wouldn't become pregnant, even if its 95% its still a risk dude.

 

[MrStab]

Sits quietly and hopes for OP to be banned for being a complete fucking mungaloid.

Are you serious or is this a really inventive troll? You can't force abortions on people. I'm a male and I don't go around sticking my dick inside every single woman I see so I don't see it as being a problem for me personally.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

love all "dont wanna baby, dont have s**" responses

people who most likely havent been so drunk they woke up the next day wondering who that is next to them, how they got where they are and what the hell happened.

-do you think someone in that state has made an informed decision to bring a life into the world?

also

-do you think enforcing a child on someone because they are responsible for the conception is healthy for the child? ie do you think that an unwilling person, regardless whether they should have thought of the consequenses, would make a good parent if forced?

 

[Legendairy314]

Had some time to think on the issue. As people have said, forcing a woman into surgery because a guy got drunk and made a bad decision won't happen. But if the man decides he doesn't want to be a part of the duel parenthood then there should be some way for him to get out of it without losing a large sum of money for 18 years. Kind of gets into the grey area after that as how a child would be raised (defeating the population thing I stated earlier but, like I said, not that simple) and how it would mean the single parent would essentially get screwed over. Raising kids is expensive and if a girl who is pro life gets knocked up and dumped then a single person's beliefs shouldn't constitute a miserable life for another.

The system we have now works but isn't completely fair. Though with so many scumbags just looking for a one-night stands and getting more than they bargained for it's still dealing out decent sized doses of karma.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Facepalm. Every man and every woman should know about safe sex procedures. Don't want to follow them? You have no say after that because you are unfit to make any decisions.

Tough love *****. Quit your whining.

Yet fit enough to be a responsible, loving parent?

 

[Rainforce]

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

stop RIGHT THERE.
first: giving birth is only very limited in its optionality.
second: SOME fathers don't tend to hang around for too long and are therefore JUST NOT THERE to fill in a signed consent.
THIRD: "Male Reproductive Rights" IS THE BEST FUCKING FORUM TITLE I'VE EVER SEEN XD

love all "dont wanna baby, dont have s**" responses

people who most likely havent been so drunk they woke up the next day wondering who that is next to them, how they got where they are and what the hell happened.

-do you think someone in that state has made an informed decision to bring a life into the world?

the concept of responsibility must be alien to you.

 

[Baneat]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

 

[Brother-Link]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

Dad doesn't have to carry it in his body for 9 months. It's her body, she has every right to do what she wants. If he wants a child so bad, he can find a willing female participant, or have a test tube baby.

 

[Nielserik]

Wow, this has turned into a monster of a thread!

I guess most of my feelings on this subject have already been said by the posters before me, however I just want to say that maybe we should have a different kind of contract. One that prevents people from having children when they are in no position to support them.

On the subject at hand, I agree that men should have some kind of control over whether or not they have to become fathers. On the other hand - unprotected sex is kinda like signing the contract that says "I do". So I even though I voted yes, I'm not quite sure it should be done like that. It's just too complex, and you can't put all of life's problems on a piece of paper, and make people sign them.

A hard subject to speak about without offending people, so that's my two cents.

 

[Pontus Hashis]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

No, then it's a question of her body, and she is needed for the baby to survive.
But when it's the other way around, he isn't needed but still held responsible.

 

[Baneat]

Other -

The man reserves the right to back out of the child's childhood and sign a contract as such. He can't come back and be a part of the child's life, or even communicate. Why? It'd be the same as an abortion, the child doesn't exist therefore the dad can't speak to them. My reasoning for such is that it's perfectly fair since the mother holds a trump card in a currently inequal scenario (Ultimately she chooses whether or not to abort, and the father is stuck with the child even if he doesn't want to be) - Despite accidental conception being an equal responsibility.

Now, it gets muddied in a new question:

What if the Dad wants the child, the mother wants to abort and wash her hands of the entire thing? Her right to have an abortion seems to clash with the Dad's right to raise his child. Ideas?

Dad doesn't have to carry it in his body for 9 months. It's her body, she has every right to do what she wants. If he wants a child so bad, he can find a willing female participant, or have a test tube baby.

True, I had not considered that. No problem with my "Additional question" then!

 

[Chefodeath]

What a looney idea, I don't think China or Nazi Germany would be deranged enough to try this. So we're just going to go around giving mandatory abortions? Wasn't the entire point of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a right to her body. Doesn't forcing her to get an abortion sound like a greater invasion on her than preventing her from it?

I do think however that, given that its a woman's body and a woman's choice, it should be fully a woman's problem. Men shouldn't have to pay child support.

 

[Sampler]

I admit I haven't read the masses of responses but just want to add I feel very sorry for the original poster if they truly believe what they have written and glad you're not in position to force your views on others.