That goes both ways. Most of the time, the father's rights are upheld--even when those rights have been waived. Here in the US, there have been numerous cases where lesbians have gotten sperm donations and have written explicit contracts with the sperm donor where he waives all parental rights as well as any responsibilities for child support. These guys pay no child support and have no contact with the kids. Then 5+ years later these guys, for whatever reason, decide they want to be fathers and sue for visitation and/or partial custody, and they get it. Even though the kid already has two parents and the father signed a contract saying he waived all parental rights.teebeeohh said:
Poll: Male reproductive rights
- Thread starter wolas3214
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No fucking way.
From a young age, we as men should know where our dicks do and do not go. Where they do not go is in bear traps, in between our the jaws on our zipper, and girls who are against abortions from the get-go.
But seriously, its the woman's body, whether you like it or not, and you cannot force her to have an abortion - that's wrong on several levels. We know the risks. If that came true for you, then tough luck, but there you go.
Just because you shot some of your lads in there one time does not mean you get control over the region.
Now, if you wanted to talk about a man's right to renounce responsibility (I don't know how that works exactly), then that's different.
From a young age, we as men should know where our dicks do and do not go. Where they do not go is in bear traps, in between our the jaws on our zipper, and girls who are against abortions from the get-go.
But seriously, its the woman's body, whether you like it or not, and you cannot force her to have an abortion - that's wrong on several levels. We know the risks. If that came true for you, then tough luck, but there you go.
Just because you shot some of your lads in there one time does not mean you get control over the region.
Now, if you wanted to talk about a man's right to renounce responsibility (I don't know how that works exactly), then that's different.
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.Chairman Miaow said:
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.
men do have a choice in the matter. an (for the man) unwanted pregnancy is a consequence of the choice he made. want to prevent unwanted pregnancy? protect yourself. a woman should do the same thing.
an abortion is a horrible procedure no woman should be forced to go through.
a law like that would give men all the fun without ever having to worry about consequences, which will probably make them less careful and that will mean it's up to women alone to protect themselves so they won't have to be forced to get an abortion. how is that fair?
a woman should be able to decide to get an abortion without the consent of the 'father' because maybe she was drugged, or raped, or who knows what.
an abortion is a horrible procedure no woman should be forced to go through.
a law like that would give men all the fun without ever having to worry about consequences, which will probably make them less careful and that will mean it's up to women alone to protect themselves so they won't have to be forced to get an abortion. how is that fair?
a woman should be able to decide to get an abortion without the consent of the 'father' because maybe she was drugged, or raped, or who knows what.
Whoa, OP - that was hilarious.
Erm.... if Man doesn't want a child he should either wrap it up or stay celibate - it's not difficult.
And of course the Woman has the choice over the abortion, She's the one carrying the baby and putting her life at risk should something go wrong during pregnancey or birth.
A lot of Men really don't understand how easy they have it. It's much more simple for a Man to think "fuck this" and walk away from it all, the Woman is stuck with a child for the next 18+ years. (Fully aware this can go the other way too - more often this way, though.
Erm.... if Man doesn't want a child he should either wrap it up or stay celibate - it's not difficult.
And of course the Woman has the choice over the abortion, She's the one carrying the baby and putting her life at risk should something go wrong during pregnancey or birth.
A lot of Men really don't understand how easy they have it. It's much more simple for a Man to think "fuck this" and walk away from it all, the Woman is stuck with a child for the next 18+ years. (Fully aware this can go the other way too - more often this way, though.
I'd have to look this up to be sure, but I suspect if you were raped, the courts aren't going to force you to financially support the child of your rapist. We have laws already on the books that protect victims of any crime.Dexiro said:
Crime and deception are not equivalent. Deception must rise to the level of criminality. A woman tricking you by claiming she's on the pill is not raping you. In which case, again I fall back on the argument that you shouldn't be having sex with women you don't trust.
A woman who rapes is going to have all other kinds of problems besides finding financial support from her victim. For one thing, her child might very well be taken from her and put into the guardianship of the state while she does her stint in prison for raping, in which case the father would likely have the option to take over guardianship, but I doubt very much he would be forced to.
What the OP suggests is effectively criminalizing pregnancy unless a "contract" has been obtained. Why not take it a step further and just have relationship contracts where you are not even allowed to talk to someone you are sexually interested in until you sign a contract? It could be a contract for instance that sets out what religion you must be, what religion the child will be raised, what political beliefs you will instill in the child.
Obviously that is a ridiculous premise. But so is the idea that the courts should be asked to make the decision about whether or not you can have a child with somebody based on their reproductive beliefs. We, in the U.S. anyway, have traditionally not wanted the government involved in choices regarding whether we have and how to raise a family. This certainly extends to mandating abortions.
If you seriously think the OP has good idea, then we should take this back a step and say people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they have submitted the proper paperwork outlining their intentions. To have sex without submitting the contract would be a crime. Then you never get to the step of requiring an expensive procedure. And, as the OP says, think of the children. I mean, he does say how traumatic such things are for the children involved. With no sex until you have license to do so, there will be no unwanted children to traumatize.
Don't have sex? Sex is an important part of a relationship, so leaving it out is out of the question.Sober Thal said:
Why should the woman have to abort a child that she might want because you were to much of a ***** to take the proper precautions? Oh and guess what, birth control is not 100% effective. Accidents happen, but it's their body, they get to do what they want with it.wolas3214 said:
yeah that is pretty much wrong both way. Fathers in Germany are probably off worse than in the US since courts here rank motherhood pretty much above everything else whenever custody is concerned, until about a year ago fathers who were not married to whoever they had children with could be forced to pay child support without given any visitation rights.trooper6 said:
somebody probably thinks we need to balance out that we didn't allow married women to work unless her husband agreed to till the late 70s.
I'm worried that this poll is predicated on the idea that single women always raise children worse than couples.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
There is a huge point here that keeps being ignored in favour of the responsibility-free attitude to sex. By having sex you have consented to having a child. You are free to take precautions against that, but your consent is already there. If you can't accept that risk, then you aren't ready, please move along.
If you need that risk to be as near zero as possible, get yourself sterilized. Otherwise, live with the risk. I personally have a son whose birth was less-than-planned, but I had accepted the risk of a child in my (long-term, stable) relationship and decided that I was happy with it. Would've preferred maybe another year or two, but as has been pointed out, contraception can fail. Now I have him and I couldn't be happier, but that's due to the stable and happy relationship we're in.
As a friend of mine often says: "You pays your money, you takes your chances."
There is a huge point here that keeps being ignored in favour of the responsibility-free attitude to sex. By having sex you have consented to having a child. You are free to take precautions against that, but your consent is already there. If you can't accept that risk, then you aren't ready, please move along.
If you need that risk to be as near zero as possible, get yourself sterilized. Otherwise, live with the risk. I personally have a son whose birth was less-than-planned, but I had accepted the risk of a child in my (long-term, stable) relationship and decided that I was happy with it. Would've preferred maybe another year or two, but as has been pointed out, contraception can fail. Now I have him and I couldn't be happier, but that's due to the stable and happy relationship we're in.
As a friend of mine often says: "You pays your money, you takes your chances."
I agree here. Abortion should only be used as a desperate last resort. A lesser of two huge evils. It is already performed far to flippantly.Exterminas said:
In an emotional sense, it's just as much the father's choice as the mother's. If he doesn't want to have a son running loose in the world that he's not going to be able, or willing, to care for, then that's his choice.
However, it's also a decision that physically concerns the mother, and, in this case, I would say that that right to do as you see fit with your own body is paramount. If the dad really didn't want a kid, then he could have used a condom.
Now before I get flamed, I know all the fallacies of saying that, but it's such a pretentious moral-high ground thing to say that I couldn't resist.
However, it's also a decision that physically concerns the mother, and, in this case, I would say that that right to do as you see fit with your own body is paramount. If the dad really didn't want a kid, then he could have used a condom.
Now before I get flamed, I know all the fallacies of saying that, but it's such a pretentious moral-high ground thing to say that I couldn't resist.To answer your first question, yes that would be the only fair way. but what i'm saying is that if the father doesnt want to keep the child and the mother does, why should the father have to pay child support. imagine if you and your wife live in a rented house/apartment. you move out because you break up and you hate the house. if it fair for you to keep paying rent?Colour-Scientist said:
Interesting concept but no way, I was an accident and raised by my single mother and I think saying that is irresponsible on her part is disrespectful to both her as well as me considering that she had to work twice as hard at the age of 20 with little help.
My point being I don't like the idea, not one bit.
My point being I don't like the idea, not one bit.
You've got it wrong, mate.
Listen; forcing a woman to abort is abominable. Abortion isn't a quick and easy fix. It is traumatic - to say the least. I say this as a child who helped his mum after she had an abortion. Not pretty on some days.
If a man doesn't want a child, then he should be allowed to say in court that he doesn't want it, and therefore should not legally be responsible for it. That's fair considering forcing him to be a father (or a living ATM) is taking his freedom away (like prison, but with responsibility). But forcing something so mentally and physically straining as an abortion on a woman? You might as well have raped her first!
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-choice, but abortion is a decision that should only be made by the pregnant woman. She's the one who'll live with it for the rest of her life.
Listen; forcing a woman to abort is abominable. Abortion isn't a quick and easy fix. It is traumatic - to say the least. I say this as a child who helped his mum after she had an abortion. Not pretty on some days.
If a man doesn't want a child, then he should be allowed to say in court that he doesn't want it, and therefore should not legally be responsible for it. That's fair considering forcing him to be a father (or a living ATM) is taking his freedom away (like prison, but with responsibility). But forcing something so mentally and physically straining as an abortion on a woman? You might as well have raped her first!
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-choice, but abortion is a decision that should only be made by the pregnant woman. She's the one who'll live with it for the rest of her life.