Poll: Male reproductive rights

[trooper6]

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.

Don't have sex with untrustworthy women.

This whole thread is about men who distrust women...over and over again the premise of the predatory woman who wants to steal your sperm is being brought up.

If you don't trust women, if you think they are all out to force you into fatherhood by lying about using birth control or putting pinpricks in condoms--don't have vaginal/penile sex with them.

Now let's break down some other elements here:

"The woman might be lying about being on the pill" -- If you don't trust her, don't have sex with her. Also, the pill doesn't protect her or you from STDs, so use a condom.

"Pinpricks in condoms"--If you don't trust her, don't have sex with her. Also buy your own condoms and bring them to the date yourself.

"Condoms can break." They can. But breakage rates are at most 2%--which is better than the Pill, by the way. The Pill has an average failure rate of 5%. And the Pill doesn't protect against STDs. Most condom problems are due to the fact the fellow doesn't know how to use them properly. Here's a quote from condomman.com

Breakage is not the primary cause of condom failure; in fact, many studies say that the breakage rate for condoms is 2% at most. The main problem instead is how consistently and correctly people use condoms. Most unwanted pregnancies stemming from condom failure are due to people either not using condoms every single time and/or not using them correctly. (For more information about how to use a condom correctly, please visit our page How to Put on a Condom.) When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year.

Use spermicidal lube in addition to your condom.

Freezing sperm and vasectomies is an option if you are really, really paranoid.

Lastly, there are many sexual things you can do with these women you don't respect or trust (or it seems really like) if you must have sex with them that don't involve putting your penis in her vagina. Oral Sex is awesome...but be reciprocal. Mutual masterbation is an option. Humping other body parts.

But, I would hope, you would practice abstinence. Not because I think abstinence in general is so awesome, but mainly because I would hate to think of some poor woman who is fooled into thinking you are an okay person and consenting to have sex with you only to find out about all the issues you have with women later.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

the best option i think would be a legal waiver;

if a woman has lied about the pill, an accident has happened or the couple just wanted to hump regardless of conciquence, its the womans body n she should never be forced to abort.

if a guy wants nothing to do with the child, and the woman refuses to abort, he can sign away all rights and must legally have no contact with the child.

if a guy doesnt want the child, why the hell would the mother want him in the childs life, as he'd most likely be resenting his son/daughter.

also it takes two to tango, both him and her had consented to the humping, but he doesnt consent to the birth and she does, he should be absolved of finantial and legal responsibility as it wouldnt be fair for him to have the control over her body to force her but parenthood in turn should not be forced on him.

its about as equal an answer i can think of, and the reason i went for the unsure option.

ideally i think the whole world should be neutered in a reversable way, that once a couple have been together for a few years, have been interviewed and deemed some level of stable should they be allowed to breed.
a family born of a quickie is, in my opinion, not gonna be a stable one and this planet is getting pretty highly populated at the moment

 

[Griffolion]

I'm not the best at looking at each of those points logically, so I'll let someone else do that. But I disagree with a lot of what was originally put. It all feels incredibly heartless to put the fate of an unborn child in the hands of a contract. It also really feels like all single mothers are being demonised here. Just to let you know, my parents split when I was 18 months old and my mum practically single-handedly raised me from there on. And yes, my dad did/does have a lot to answer for, and yes my mum should be applauded because she actually owns her own business and is incredibly successful while at the same time raising me in a very emotionally and economically stable home. So because my parents split when I was 18 months old, did that mean that breach of contract meant I should be killed on the spot or something?

PS - I know quite a few Christian married couples who are pretty much the opposite of what was said about Christians in the original post.

 

[Triskadancer]

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.

So a woman should be forced to mutilate her body just because a man is too untrustworthy to put on a condom correctly?

The argument goes both ways. It's wrong to force anyone to do anything to themselves. Everyone is in control of their own body. Men can choose to get a vasectomy or not, and can choose to use birth control or not, and can choose who they have sex with (hint; you should choose people who are not crazy and will not try to force you into marriage via unplanned babies). Women can choose all of this as well, except replace vasectomy with hysterectomy (I guess) and add in abortions as a last-minute measure.


If you don't want a baby, there are ways to prevent that shit from happening. Talk to your partner ahead of time. Decide what your plan will be if an accident happens together. You know, communicate. Like a normal human being. There's no need for insane contracts.

 

[Palantas]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Thumper17]

Seems like a start of something. I would not be opposed to needing consent of both parties before the child is allowed to be kept by weither parent, if not, then the kid should go somewhere where he/she can be taken care of by two parents who actually want the kid and aren't keeping it because you feel abortion is wrong or whatever. I dont think the kid should just be aborted, (depending how far along it is.) as that would just seem wrong.

 

[Meggiepants]

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.

1. And the Abstinence crowd? Are we ignoring that particular argument because it's the gaping hole in your assertion?

2. Mutilate your body? And forcing a woman to have an abortion is... what now?

3. Yes, condoms break. When you buy a condom, you should know this. And, knowing that, take responsibility if your choice for birth control is just a condom. I recommend a condom and a spermicidal lubricant minimally. But that's beside the point. You should really treat your sperm like the trash you put on the curb. Don't toss anything out that you don't want anyone to get a hold of.

Just because you have auto insurance and you drive recklessly and get into an accident and hit somebody, that doesn't mean it wasn't your fault. You can't stand up in court and say, "But I have the right to drive recklessly. I have insurance." A condom is just insurance.

4. Finally, there is just the issue of common sense. Don't stick your dick in somebody that you don't know and trust. For goodness sake, people, if you are having trouble with women who have babies with your sperm when you don't want them to, then you are screwing the wrong women.

Just stop. Put. The dick. Down. We all know it's loaded. Keep it in your pants and you'll be fine. No one is forcing you to have sex with these kinds of women.

 

[djs.specs]

Don't want to be a babydaddy? Only have sex with other dudes.

 

[Vault101]

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?

yes, yes it is

and besides these things happen by accident, I mean some people have problems with abortion that arnt religious in the least...once it gets past a certain stage wehat can you do?

 

[Zhukov]

I... I don't even know where to begin. Wait, actually, yes I do:

No.

No no no no no.

You're saying that a prospective father should be able to either legally force a pregnant women to carry their kid to term or legally force her to abort the pregancy.

I mean... really, what the fuck?

Is the current system a bit unbalanced? Well... yeah. But there's a reason for that. In case you hadn't noticed, it's the woman's body that has the baby in it. Mate, you can start complaining when there's a foetus chilling out in your abdomen.

 

[live2laugh]

What if the father wants the baby but the mother does not then? are you saying that this woman would have to go through 9 months of pregancy then? the system is biased and although it maybe too biased both parties don't have an equal role in the pregnancy stage.

 

[Gigano]

...What's with the endless wish to control what women do with their bodies???

If a woman want a child, and have gotten pregnant, then it's certainly not for the state to force an abortion on her (as little as it's for it to prevent her having one).

The only place the rights of men come into play is the question of whether they should be forced to pay child support to a child they did not want, and which there was ample opportunity to get rid off as a fetus. The women had final say whether it was to be born, and hence her needs cannot justify such a thing. Considering that the child - unlike both the man and the woman - had no say at all in it's birth, then an obligation to pay child support when the child has a need for it is ultimately not unreasonable though.

Also, applying the standards of commercial contract law in the very center of the sphere of privacy is a suggestion so inane as to defy belief.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

If you don't want to support a child, don't have sex. By having sex, you are taking on that responsibility, even if the woman lied about being on the pill or the condom breaks. If you're engaging in sex with such abandon that you don't even care whether or not you trust your partner, that's your own fault and your own downfall. It is the woman's choice what she wants to do with her body. End of story. The sexism and ignorance apparent in the OP is nothing short of shockingly disturbing.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

What? Are you serious?

Everything about your suggestions just make me scratch my head. I can not get your logic here. Marriages do have a lot of legal importance (why else would gays be fighting so hard to get the right to legally marry?), there's a bit of a double standard for men when it comes to pregnancy because it definitely is not an equal affair (the dude releases his sperm and is done, the woman carries the child for 3/4 of an entire year), all just because women can get rid of a potential child without the fathers consent (which I'm not too sure is true) doesn't mean that men should have the same right (neither gender should be allowed to abort a potential child without the other partner's consent), and single mothers aren't always thought of a heroes (I'm sure there are plenty of people who look down on them because they had a child out of wedlock).

Plus, what are you going to do if the woman wants to give birth but the man doesn't? Abort the fetus?

Seriously, I'm all up for men and women being treated equally for most things. There aren't too many biological differences between the two genders that means they should be treated differently. Except for the few things like this. Women can get pregnant, men cannot. That difference does exist and while it doesn't effect much, we still need to take note of it. For men it's fire and forget, for women it's deal with it constantly for 9 months. I think women should have a weeeee bit more say in what happens to a child considering that.

 

[Vault101]

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.

The pill also does things to your body...not on mutalation level but it messes aroud with stuff

and I hope your not implying "well theres a chance it could break so I'm not going to bother, plus its up to HER to ensure she doesnt get pregnant"

 

[ExodusFlame]

My position is this is its really not the way to do things.

To make anyone get a vasectomy or an abortion because to be honest its really not a realistic thing no man is willing to get a vasectomy things go wrong in relationships and even marriages and if hes in a new relationship in the future and wants a kid should be able to.

Of course same goes for the woman when it comes to abortions physically for a woman your birth chances go down and your body takes a bit of a beating from it in the first place mostly due to mental issues cause by the emotional connection they grow when they are pregnant and its not an easy decision.

But in another scenario i have seen before women get pregnant on purpose to get things like in the UK you can get a council house and stuff from the government also improved benefits and stuff which benefits nobody but the mother if she doesn't want to do anything for those reasons which is fucked up and a terrible environment for the kid....

Its not a case of don't have sex people will do it for pleasure but you should always consider the consequences before doing anything and using protection although yes it is the best protection in the world to just not do it if your a guy its pretty hard to refuse because its a hardwired impulse not a taught one so if you can refuse well good on ya. But always use protection and yes people sometimes use religion as an excuse not to do it like an example is some Catholics say condoms are wrong so don't use them if you don't you open yourself up to all kinds of nasty things not being pregnancy.

I agree that at the beginning if the guy did not want the pregnancy and makes it very clear then by all means they should be able to walk out the same for the woman though its much tougher for the woman to walk out of it which is why they get more say in the matter because they cant walk away so easy. But if the man made it clear and walks away its maybe right you do put something towards the mother every once in a while although maybe not the most ideal but it should not be forced to give something it depends on your morality over the situation when it comes to child support i think those who don't want to pay will try to find a way out of it though by any means necessary.

There should be no contracts involved though its impractical and people will abuse it. all i have to say

 

[Cynicalgamer]

the point of the contract? to cover each other's butts, mostly. Legal rights and whatnot. That way neither party can feel screwed over if the other breaks contract.

I'd like to think there'd be some limits on how soon a contract can be changed. But frankly if that decision to change the contract flip flops that quickly, I'd be concerned about that couple in general.

If you REALLY wanna be able to change the rules on things quickly, then just set the contract length to a month. Write up the new contract before the next ovulation, if the urge to have babies is ever so important.

Sweet jeebus, I'm starting to get a little too detailed on this. Maybe I should write a crazy Distopian novel about this. heh.

 

[Garry Gabriel]

I'm seeing a lot of people assuming it all boils down to communication in a relationship for this whole pregnancy thing, sadly it doesn't. my brother for example was tricked into having a child because his girlfriend assured him she was "on the pill", it's possible she was but at the same time the pill is not 100%. (we only think she tricked him because all she wanted was a child in the first place, she was just that kind of a person.) but it's not my brother fault for any of this and now he has to pay child support and what not because the mother wants nothing to do with him now that she has said child. thus on the whole it's not as easy as "just keeping it in your pants".
obviously you can't force people to get abortions, as per the statement of "why should I mutilate myself?" it goes the same way and an abortion is a VERY invasive procedure. with that said there are methods and options for signing away rights for a child. but it is indeed "tricky" and complicated from a legal standpoint.
as for forcing a mother to carry to term that is also very complicated and an unfair situation, carrying a child is very taxing on the body and in some cases people have abortions because of health related issues, anyone with crohns disease for example have a high possibility of death if they carry to term.

 

[teebeeohh]

while i don't agree with the original idea, something has to be done for the rights of fathers. There was a case in Germany where a friend to a lesbian couple decided to give them sperm so they could have a child and he was involved in the kids life until at some point the women decided to sue him for child support and break of all contact. They won. Even though they agreed that the father would no be liable for anything and even put that down in a contract.