Poll: Male reproductive rights
- Thread starter wolas3214
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, here's my two penneth:
I can see what you're getting at OP, but... No. Certainly not by contract. Society (and western civilisation in general) has way too much legal/lawyering bullshit as it is and the last thing we need to do is add to that. Yes, the problems of single parents, deadbeat dads, etc. are real and yes they need to be dealt with, but by the stars, can we sort this out without resorting to the bloody lawyers yet again?
Just wear a condom if you don't absolutely trust her (if you do, then still wear one unless she's on the pill or implanted or whatever), and if it fails, you really should have known how to put one on properly (or I suppose used one with spermicidal lube or was just a decent quality one... When I got to uni, the fresher's welcome packs included Wilkinsons Swords branded condoms, and I don't think a single one was actually used as a condom. Novelty balloons or masturbation aids perhaps, but...). If you do trust her that much, then chances are that you and her are pretty damn close, so if contraception fails then between you you'll work out what to do to the satisfaction of all.
I can see what you're getting at OP, but... No. Certainly not by contract. Society (and western civilisation in general) has way too much legal/lawyering bullshit as it is and the last thing we need to do is add to that. Yes, the problems of single parents, deadbeat dads, etc. are real and yes they need to be dealt with, but by the stars, can we sort this out without resorting to the bloody lawyers yet again?
Just wear a condom if you don't absolutely trust her (if you do, then still wear one unless she's on the pill or implanted or whatever), and if it fails, you really should have known how to put one on properly (or I suppose used one with spermicidal lube or was just a decent quality one... When I got to uni, the fresher's welcome packs included Wilkinsons Swords branded condoms, and I don't think a single one was actually used as a condom. Novelty balloons or masturbation aids perhaps, but...). If you do trust her that much, then chances are that you and her are pretty damn close, so if contraception fails then between you you'll work out what to do to the satisfaction of all.
Better that a woman must beg the father's permission on what to do with her body and weather or not she should have to carry the pregnancy to term.NickCooley said:
Except not since I'm not a sociopath.
Or maybe they shouldn't be engaging in sex unless both parties are prepared for the possibility of a child, considering that that is the purpose of sex regardless of whether or not you're engaging in it for that purpose.
A man consents to have sex and it isn't the same as consent to having a child. However, it is the woman's choice to allow that pregnancy to gestate and develop. So while you seem to have a large batch of crazy making the rest of us men look insane and fascist, you have a point hidden in there.
Simply put, men need an opt out. Women have the ultimate opt out and I will fight to the death to ensure they keep it. Their body, after all. However, I don't feel their choice should ensnare another. For those saying that he should keep his dick to himself, she should keep her ovum to herself. That isn't what he consented to. It takes two to tango, not one to make the entire decision with what to do with 20 years of his life.
So, give men the opt out and women an undisputed right with their bodies. Everybody wins. Those who wish to decry deadbeat dads and whatnot, what? She should have kept it in her pants if she didn't want a kid, right? That's what you say about men, it equally applies to women.
However, that is beside the point. The OP is a level of crazy that makes pandas infertile. I think I need to go let my wife know that I appreciate her and our boys now. Just wow, dude, wow...
Simply put, men need an opt out. Women have the ultimate opt out and I will fight to the death to ensure they keep it. Their body, after all. However, I don't feel their choice should ensnare another. For those saying that he should keep his dick to himself, she should keep her ovum to herself. That isn't what he consented to. It takes two to tango, not one to make the entire decision with what to do with 20 years of his life.
So, give men the opt out and women an undisputed right with their bodies. Everybody wins. Those who wish to decry deadbeat dads and whatnot, what? She should have kept it in her pants if she didn't want a kid, right? That's what you say about men, it equally applies to women.
However, that is beside the point. The OP is a level of crazy that makes pandas infertile. I think I need to go let my wife know that I appreciate her and our boys now. Just wow, dude, wow...
Not only that, but when the women has the baby and the man is FORCED to support her with money, so for 18 years he can't move up in life because he doesn't have any money for himself, This is also not monitored so the greedy mothers sometimes spend the money on themselves and don't even care about the child.
I think the only time anyone should be able to have a child is when BOTH parents are dedicated to raising it properly.
I think the only time anyone should be able to have a child is when BOTH parents are dedicated to raising it properly.
How is it 50/50 if the woman is forcing the man to pay for a child he didin't want to get? In my case the woman can choose to either take or not take the child, not causing anymore mischief to either one. What I'm trying to say is that the woman has more control over protection than the man, and we still make it solely the mans responsibility.666Chaos said:
Birthing contracts sound insane, but you are right in suggesting that women have more control over their reproductive organs than men. Condoms fail, vasectomies fail, birth control pills fail, while abortions are 100% effective. I don't fully understand why men have to pay child support when abortion is legal, however. If a woman wants to have a child with some random dumbass who doesn't know how to use a condom, that's fine, but it's her responsibility to take care of the kid.
No, this is just. No. I would be all for licensing having kids, but I wouldn't force people who don't have the licence to abort, just put the kid up for adoption.
If you want to opt out of having to care for a child, you already have the means to do so:
Don't have PV intercourse. You can still have sex, even (oral, anal, frottage) and all the intimacy.
But if you put your penis in a vagina, your "contract" is signed.
Don't have PV intercourse. You can still have sex, even (oral, anal, frottage) and all the intimacy.
But if you put your penis in a vagina, your "contract" is signed.
Also feel I should add... Really who has time to get out a bunch of forms when you're horny and just want to do it? >_> Because if it's anything other than a written contract it can be twisted and denied.
The practicality of it... Just no.
I didn't even realise that this was a personal matter rather than some person's ill informed opinion. Now I'm even more horrified. Don't have sex with people you can't trust, this goes for the woman too, if you would keep a kid if for whatever reason it showed up I wouldn't be having sex with douche bags.
No matter what defense you pull, you're still a douche bag if you walk away..
The practicality of it... Just no.
I didn't even realise that this was a personal matter rather than some person's ill informed opinion. Now I'm even more horrified. Don't have sex with people you can't trust, this goes for the woman too, if you would keep a kid if for whatever reason it showed up I wouldn't be having sex with douche bags.
No matter what defense you pull, you're still a douche bag if you walk away..
In that instance, they would have to declare their wish not to have a child pre-birth.Colour-Scientist said:
but you do make a good point.
Gays and lesbians never even crossed my mind.trooper6 said:
And i'm just saying that some people who did actually try to enjoy sex with protection shouldn't be PUNISHED for it.
Personally I think we should just skip to mandatory reproductive inhibiting surgery/drugs for everyone until they have proved themselves to be responsible enough to handle rearing a child. Pill/injection form birth control exists for both males and females, and so do surgeries. Both of these options can be either permanent or temporary (yes, even surgical). There are far too many stupid people in the world as it is, and generally these are the ones who are going to be running around having unprotected sex. It's not a matter of choice in this regard, it's a matter of some people just being too dumb to care/know better.
Unfortunately being safe doesn't always work either, I'm a stalwart example of the 99.9% chance of condoms+birth control = baby. This is always going to have a chance of happening, which we're just going to have to deal with. However in the long run it's going to prevent more babies being brought into the world by people too dumb and/or irresponsible to give the child a good life.
And yes I know this means certain civil rights would have to be stepped on. But really, isn't the raising of children, arguably the most important thing to the survival of the human race, worth it? I think so. Honestly, it takes a test to prove you can drive, pilot other machines, and the like, but anyone with a dick and a vagina can just willy-nilly make a kid? This isn't a terrifying thought?
Unfortunately being safe doesn't always work either, I'm a stalwart example of the 99.9% chance of condoms+birth control = baby. This is always going to have a chance of happening, which we're just going to have to deal with. However in the long run it's going to prevent more babies being brought into the world by people too dumb and/or irresponsible to give the child a good life.
And yes I know this means certain civil rights would have to be stepped on. But really, isn't the raising of children, arguably the most important thing to the survival of the human race, worth it? I think so. Honestly, it takes a test to prove you can drive, pilot other machines, and the like, but anyone with a dick and a vagina can just willy-nilly make a kid? This isn't a terrifying thought?
This is one of the few areas in life where gay men have the advantage. I am a gay male so this isn't an issue for me. If I wanted kids I would donate sperm to a sperm bank.
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.
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.
I almost couldn't even finish reading the OP's post, I'm too offended. No, I do not think abortions should be mandatory unless both consent. Its clear that this is anti-religios nonsense that takes things to far. Abortions shouldn't be treated so casually that they are used as a get out of parent hood free card, It should be a significant choice from mistakes made. Not to mention there are possible health risks to both full term pregnancy and abortions, a very good reason why its the women's choice. Risks come along when when you use sex outside it biological purposes, its just something you have to deal with. You also act like any single mother is going to be a horrible parent or is simply trying to abuse the system, and then you call a single mother refusing to get an abortion as "atrocious". The whole opinion is just far too radical.
Just a few things here:wolas3214 said:
1. Women are allowed to get abortions regardless of whether or not the man wants the child because she is the one having the baby. She is the one who has to live out the 9 months pregnancy, which could affect her work, her health, or her physical well-being (some women suffer back and hip trouble after giving birth, not to mention the extra weight to deal with). With a man, all he has to do is sit around and twiddle his thumbs for 9 months until the baby pops out. So no, there is no double standard, because both sides are not the same. A man's role in a pregnancy and a woman's role cannot be compared against each other. They are not equal. Women should have the monopoly, because they do the most work during pregnancy. They have the most to lose.
2. If he doesn't want the baby that badly, he shouldn't have stuck his reproductive organ into hers. As you said, sexual responsibility. If they get pregnant and he wasn't clear on her opinions of abortion, or she changes her mind, then he should man up and deal with the consequences. She didn't get pregnant on her own. Whether it's because they went without protection or their protection failed, it's his fault as much as hers.
3. I can just see so many douchebags using this "consent" form of yours to force a woman to have a baby just out of pure spite, and then drag his feet later when it comes to child support. Or just sticking it up for adoption as soon as she hands over custody.
3. There are other ways to terminate a pregnancy, apart from the "safe" method. Further regulation will just lead to an increase in these illicit and dangerous abortions.
4. What the hell are you going on about with the marriage contract thing? I mean really, you seem very worked up about it, but I have no idea why. How about some context or examples of what you are talking about?
5. And for your last bit about refusing an abortion and being treated as a hero, I think you are confusing deadbeat moms with ones that actually try. I have a cousin who had a baby out of wedlock, and now she relies on all sorts of free benefits. She hasn't had a job in years, she isn't even remotely looking for employment, and she never took a test that would have completed her two years of higher education. At this point, all she does is party, drink, and mooch off of her family and friends.
On the other hand, I had a teacher who was a single mom. She raised a baby while she was in college full time and working full time. Did she have to use food stamps and government aid for a while? Yeah, but then she pulled herself out of it and now she teaches graphic design and does freelance work. Would it have been easier if she had gotten an abortion? Of course. But she didn't want one, and now she is just fine.
Regardless of their situation or how they got there, jerks who abuse the system will always exist. They use their unfortunate circumstances to legitimize their laziness, just as you said. However, you should never punish everyone who does things right just because a few people are doing it wrong. Doing so only speaks of your own ignorance and refusal to see through the eyes of another.