Poll: Male reproductive rights

[JIst00]

While I do see what you are getting at here, it all boils down to Cause and Consequence.

If a man/woman does not want an unplanned pregnancy there are myriad forms of birth control available on the market, from birth control pills, surgical operations (vasectomy/historectomy, excuse the mispelling) right down to the simple condom. While not all of these measures are 100% reliable 100% of the time, (ever had a condom split? Also, my sister and her fella conceived while she was on the pill) there are options to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion is as dangerous as any other major or minor surgical procedure, and no woman should be forced into that. But niether should a man be forced to pay for a child he did not want. It's cache 22 here, but as I said: Cause and Consequence; if you do not take measures to prevent something happening, dont act all suprised when it happens.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I would just like to point out, that at best, condoms are 99% effective. 1 in 100 chance of failing. How often does somebody in a stable relationship have sex? How many people are in stable relationships? How many people have one night stands and how often? that's a lot of unplanned pregnancies even if people use protection. People are far too judgemental over these things. If I got somebody pregnant because my condom failed, I would certainly want to be able to decide not to have it. I don't however think a man should be able to decide to have it if the woman wants it. Having the baby should be a consensus, not having it should be a right.

just saying: your number is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. condoms, correctly applied, have a pearl index of 2. meaning that out of 100 women who apply condoms correctly for A YEAR, 2 become pregnant.
still, condoms are not the safest bet. hormonal anticonception is preferable.
just wanted to point out that your numbers weren't righ by a longshot.

Fair enough,I didn't bother checking my sources, probably should have.

 

[Alex Gray]

And real, non-Internet women are SO open to trying new things in the bedroom.

Think about it a minute... without turning this thread X rated (any more) you should be able to list at least 4 normal and acceptable ways that any regular couple could...

You know what, never mind. This website isn't the place for this. PM me if you can't figure this out on your own.

Knowing how to do it and being willing to do it aren't even in the same zip code. For example, somebody upthread mentioned mutual oral. Woman-on-man oral... commands a very high price on the open market, I'll put it that way. Man-on-woman oral often requires little more incentive than the awareness that the man will actually get to see and touch the relevant area on the woman.

Men's and women's libidos and general feelings about sex are very, very different. Go on, show me evidence that they're basically similar.

Me. Me, and all the other trans-gender-neutral people out there. Women and men are not as different as people assume.

"I have crossed between the poles, and for me there's no mystery." - "Cinema Show", Genesis

Most people don't have the benefit of your perspective - second-hand perspective just isn't the same.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Really, MOST men who complain about child support will never bother with the child itself? Got evidence to back that up?

Ever heard of PAS? Might wanna look that up while your at it.

My dad raised me better than my mom did, all while paying child support to my mom who used it to pay her own bills. Don't assume men are the ones being dicks here. Women can be selfish too.

If they do actually interact with the child then they are taking responsibilty and have nothing to do with my argument if you read my other posts.

If your mum was defrauding the child support then she should have been arrested, simple as.

So where is that evidence?

She wasn't defrauding, at least as far as I'm aware. Once the money went from my dad to her, it was legally hers to do anything with. It was understood, by the court and by my father, that the money would go to paying for things I needed, not my mom's leftover student loans from before dad and her even met.

Well I don't really know enough to draw judgement. If your mum was using the money to pay an outstanding bill and also caring for you clothing and food wise with other cash then thats just her dealing with her outgoings. I give my mum keep while im between places but she might spend it on different things each week.

If she took the money while you stayed at your dad and he cared for you then that is fraud.

 

[jcallen]

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?

Far too many valid points! MY BRAIN IS GOING TO EXPLODE!

 

[Epona]

yeah but what your seggesting in essence is forced abortions,and thats not something i think our soceity should take part in. and i mean when they put their dick in a women they knew about this consequnces that come with that act. in my opinion.

...and when a woman consented to sex, she knew the consequences (better than a man because she knows if she is REALLY up to date on her BC Pills). Why then should she have post conception options if he doesn't?

Men should have a legal opt-out. If she has the baby anyway, she knows she's in it alone. For the "but she carries the baby" argument, she still comes out ahead because if he wants the baby and she doesn't, she can still have an abortion. In both cases she gets what she wants but it amazes me that while people are quite involved in supporting female reproductive rights, many people could care less if men have any.

 

[Laurie Barnes]

My opinion is probably gonna generate some hate, as I am certain it conflicts with everyone who has already posted.
The OP is absolutely correct, men get the fucking shaft when it comes to this, what the hell ever happened to gender equality? I guess women only like that when it gives them an advantage, also see racial equality and affirmative action.

The whole, don't fuck it if you don't want to make a kid argument is a good one, but only in a perfect world, and this world is far from. Communism is a good argument too, but we all seen how well it works out. Things rarely happen perfectly, and don't pretend a woman has never ever chosen to keep a child for impure reasoning, like girls who get knocked up by rockstars and athletes and keep the child hoping for financial support. Yeah I went there, all haters please form a nice line so that I can address you all in an efficient manner.

Not to mention shit straight up happens, condoms break, the pill is only 96% effective, and even vasectomies have been known to occasionally be performed inadequately. What about these guys who did everything in their power and still end up with a kid the don't want? Don't you dare say they shouldn't have sex, cuz that argument will buy you a nice slap for some sense.

Not only do I think consent for parenthood should be mandatory, I think the parents should also have to get permission from an organization that can determine whether they will make suitable parents, and anyone who breaks this law should get jail time and lose custody of their child.

Flame? Bring it on.

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

And real, non-Internet women are SO open to trying new things in the bedroom.

Think about it a minute... without turning this thread X rated (any more) you should be able to list at least 4 normal and acceptable ways that any regular couple could...

You know what, never mind. This website isn't the place for this. PM me if you can't figure this out on your own.

Knowing how to do it and being willing to do it aren't even in the same zip code. For example, somebody upthread mentioned mutual oral. Woman-on-man oral... commands a very high price on the open market, I'll put it that way. Man-on-woman oral often requires little more incentive than the awareness that the man will actually get to see and touch the relevant area on the woman.

Men's and women's libidos and general feelings about sex are very, very different. Go on, show me evidence that they're basically similar.

Me. Me, and all the other trans-gender-neutral people out there. Women and men are not as different as people assume.

"I have crossed between the poles, and for me there's no mystery." - "Cinema Show", Genesis

Most people don't have the benefit of your perspective - second-hand perspective just isn't the same.

Unfortunately true. I realize that for most people gender is two axes - the one you are, and the one you aren't and therefore don't understand completely. It's easier to understand when thinking about sexual attraction. With homosexuality and bisexuality becoming more and more common and understood, the idea of sexual attraction as being more fluid than rigid makes sense to people. There's an entire spectrum of what attracts people, and no one is 'one or the other' or even 'both', but merely sitting on one point of the whole line of all of them. Gender is the same. Some of us just happen to be in the middle. And arguments like this, that assume there is some inherent difference, confuse the hell out of us lol.

 

[Epona]

So where is that evidence?

I said the exceptions are outside my argument.

In fact why would a guy want a child but not want to support it financially?

What do they think they are a toy and can just come and go as they please?

What are you talking about now?

You said that MOST men who complain about child support don't want anything to do with the child itself (paraphrased). I asked for evidence of that, you provided none and now you are talking about this?

As for this, well, I guess you see fathers as walking cash machines but let me ask you this, what of stay at home mothers? Do you think they view their children as toys since they don't support the child financially?

Here's the reality, when men can't afford to raise their children, they are punished. When women can't afford to raise their children, they are given welfare.

 

[Alex Gray]

You're going to have to cite sources to back that one up, because in my experience "most" women don't mind a bit. I'm willing to go out on a limb and wager that I have a larger sample size than you do, from the number of female friends I've had, all-female sports teams I've been on, and all-female organizations I've been a part of (e.g. Girl Scouts).

Pubescent kids love to talk, especially in environments where they feel safe. It's well-established that adolescents of both genders routinely exaggerate their sexual experience and prowess to impress others.

Honestly, I think you're completely full of it. If a woman is interested in a man (a woman, not an inexperienced teenaged girl) and sexually attracted to him, she'd be more than willing to suck him off. Especially if he's willing to reciprocate. Especially if he's good at said reciprocation.

I am quite a bit older than you and that has not been my experience or the experience of anyone I know (as long as we're citing Unverifiable Personal Gnosis here).

Hah hah I've got no trouble getting laid if that's what you mean ;p But based on my experiences, certainly as a college co-ed, you're exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness what women are and aren't willing to provide for men to whom they're attracted.

I think we may have hit on a significant difference in perspective, then - not only am I quite a bit older than you, but I had the misfortune of being expected to study and get good grades in college, and my social life suffered accordingly (and for the best, I think). My experience mostly occurred after college.

 

[Meggiepants]

If a man doesn't want a child, he should be able to have control over what happens to his genetic material

He kind of does. He just has to avoid putting his dick in things with receptive ovums.

Seriously, guys, if you think this is a big problem, put some sperm on ice and get yourself a vasectomy. This may sound blunt, but you really do ultimately have control over your own sperm. Unrealistic? Maybe. But so is the idea that you are going to be running around forcing women to abort because you got too drunk to put on a condom.

Drunken sex qualifies as rape so if you were too drunk to put a condom on you shouldn't have to take care of the offspring (unless perhaps she was drunk too).

Soooo, drunk drivers should get a pass for killing people? Because being drunk, means you can do whatever the hell you want? Good to know.

This logic. I do not understand it.

So you think drunk people can consent to sex, or business transactions.

Legally drunken sex is rape.

Yes actually. Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your actions at all. There are various levels of being drunk. It hinders your ability to make judgements, not to be judged. Being drunk isn't a "get out of jail free" card. And yes, a man can consent to sex while drunk. As can a woman. It happens all the time. Hell, do you honestly think New Year's Eve is a massive rape festival? You diminish the term rape to say so.

In short, no, not all drunken sex is rape. That is a ridiculous premise. And no, there is no U.S. legal precedent that says so as far as I know. I'd like you to cite the law that specifically says that having sex with someone who is drunk constitutes rape.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Men should be able to opt out of parental rights to an unwanted child (provided he didn't give indications that he was going to provide help/support and then try to back out at the last minute). But in NO WAY should any man have ANY legal authority over what a woman does with her own body.

Women, on the other hand, if we choose to have sex we need to accept accidental pregnancy as a possible outcome and be prepared to face it ourselves.

Yes, it would appear to be a "double standard", but this is one area where women and men actually are physically different in their biological capabilities and thus in their physical relationship to the fetus. One should not have power to control the fate of the other using the fetus like a weapon.

 

[The Heik]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

 

[Arafiro]

Whilst I feel that your idea of the man being able to force an abortion (or indeed legally stop one happening) is frankly ludicrous, I'll always support a law that would essentially state that a father who immediately opts-out of his part in the pregnancy should not have anything to do with the child. So, no financial child support required.

It's then the woman's own fault for not having an abortion if she doesn't want to raise the child alone.

Edit: Just saw this, which summarises my point perfectly:

Men should be able to opt out of parental rights to an unwanted child (provided he didn't give indications that he was going to provide help/support and then try to back out at the last minute). But in NO WAY should any man have ANY legal authority over what a woman does with her own body.

As long as they opt-out early in the pregnancy and do not, as you mentioned, change their minds right before or after the child is born, then they should be able to (bluntly) wash their hands of the issue.

 

[Alex Gray]

Life lesson: Never give oral to person who gets paid to have sex. I don't know how you have never heard this, but I'm telling you this out of concern.

I'm from Chicago, one of the larger cities on the planet.

Thank you for your concern, but anyone with an ounce of predictive reasoning knows that paid-for sex (or anything else that's both extremely illegal and extremely frowned-upon) is nothing but an excellent way to become unemployable in this age of ubiquitous, compact digital cameras. Maybe it's different in Chicago...

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Thaaaaank you. This is exactly what I've been saying. The adoption example is perfect - people need to pass tests to prove they can raise other people's kids, but anyone can have their own without any kind of test to prove they can?

 

[JMeganSnow]

[I'd like you to cite the law that specifically says that having sex with someone who is drunk constitutes rape.

I believe it is illegal to drug someone into insensibility and then have sex with their unconscious (or unable-to-process) body. But if you voluntarily drink to the point where you lose all judgment and *agree* to have sex, you're on your own.

 

[Epona]

snip

Personally, I would like to see a parenting license instituted instead. Put simply, a couple who want to have a baby would have to prove themselves capable of properly caring for the child and ensuring that they are given the best odds of success in life. If you can't pass the combination of tests, quizzes, "dry runs" (effectively babysitting for a week straight) and such, then you're not allowed to have a child (a modern natural selection of sorts).

Not only would it prevent situations like the one you described (both in terms of the cause and result), but it would weed out undesirables and would help with population control (Earth has around 7 billion humans on it, so a drop in those numbers would certainly put less strain on resources and the environment)

And though it does seem a bit of a harsh methodology, it's effectively the same process as applying for adoption (albeit a bit more stringent)

Eugenics again. Oh goody.

 

[Meggiepants]

[I'd like you to cite the law that specifically says that having sex with someone who is drunk constitutes rape.

I believe it is illegal to drug someone into insensibility and then have sex with their unconscious (or unable-to-process) body. But if you voluntarily drink to the point where you lose all judgment and *agree* to have sex, you're on your own.

Yeah, exactly. Two different things entirely.