What about male reproductive rights? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 03-13-2006, 09:43 PM

Gilda

I don't disagree with most of what you have to say and frankly feel uncomfortable defending the so called men's rights advocates. People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%.

Until an abortion decision is made the pregnant woman and man are only potential mother and father in most parts of the USA. I guess I'm saying that I see some validity to the argument that the potential father might be given some consideration in deciding whether he wants to be a parent even after the pregnancy.

Where abortion is still legal many women and men probably see it as just another "last chance" method of birth control.

Gilda · 03-13-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Gilda

I don't disagree with most of what you have to say and frankly feel uncomfortable defending the so called men's rights advocates. People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%.

Until an abortion decision is made the pregnant woman and man are only potential mother and father in most parts of the USA. I guess I'm saying that I see some validity to the argument that the potential father might be given some consideration in deciding whether he wants to be a parent even after the pregnancy.

Where abortion is still legal many women and men probably see it as just another "last chance" method of birth control.

I have no problem with the man's opinion being given some consideration. He should certainly have some input, be allowed, even encouraged to make his views known and have the opportunity to discuss them with the mother. The parents should be in communication during the pregnancy about how whether to abort and how parental repsonsibilities will be dealt with, so that they can create the best possible environment for their child to grow up in. Input, consideration, communication, sure, the father deserves that much respect, as do mother and child.

The ultimate decision, however, must lie with the person carrying the child, and a father should not be able to retroactively or preemptively abdicate his responsibilities as a parent.

Gilda

tecoyah · 03-13-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

SNIP-People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%.

Then there is reality.....Air Pollution causes cancer, people should not breath. Sorry but, sex is far to enjoyable to expect the population to become celebate, and to expect such is unrealistic to say the least.

AngelicVampire · 03-14-2006, 02:11 AM

Gilda, if implemented a law would likely require you to note your decision not to have kids before hand and then upon finding out that your spouse is pregnant again make the decision, its likely not an easy out.

The problem I see is that although the man can have a say his speech is basically useless as he actually has no voting rights in this. Having sat through many many speeches by parties recently I have noticed that very rarely do they actually sway people's votes, most people have already made up their mind.

Would you be happy if your husband after you got pregnant but within 30days handed the kid over to social services and didn't go back for it? How many men take this option (seeing as its legal)?

Gilda · 03-14-2006, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Gilda, if implemented a law would likely require you to note your decision not to have kids before hand and then upon finding out that your spouse is pregnant again make the decision, its likely not an easy out.

The problem I see is that although the man can have a say his speech is basically useless as he actually has no voting rights in this. Having sat through many many speeches by parties recently I have noticed that very rarely do they actually sway people's votes, most people have already made up their mind.

Would you be happy if your husband after you got pregnant but within 30days handed the kid over to social services and didn't go back for it? How many men take this option (seeing as its legal)?

I'm sterile and gay, and married to another woman so it's not a scenario likely to occur.

How, exactly, does a man, or anybody for that matter, hand the child over to social services during the first 30 days of pregnancy?

Gilda

AngelicVampire · 03-14-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Sub chapter D of this seems to allow the leaving of a child with no penalties

From : This

The Second URL has a section on handing over children within 30days to an emergency worker/hospital and being allowed to leave it there (adoption I assume) with no penalties, you are allowed to return within 14 days to pick it back up if you wish to (seemed to be only the party that left the child though).

As for it being an unlikely scenario... probably true, but you never know, there has been 1 reported case of a virgin birth (wonder who was liable for the child support in that case?)

kutulu · 03-14-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Sub chapter D of this seems to allow the leaving of a child with no penalties

Are you sure you meant D?

Quote:

(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

That section (and subchapter) deal with the state taking custody rights away from you against your will. Based on how serious many of those sound (like subchapter D) I wouldn't assume that there are no other penalties that go with those behaviors.

Did you maybe mean (H)?

Quote:

(H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;

This seems to be a mother's right to take parental rights (and responsibilities) away from a deadbeat dad rather than having the state force wage garnishment for support. Some people do that because they want to ensure that the father cannot have any contact with the child.

The second link you provided is the type of law enacted to prevent people from throwing their babies in trash bins. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.

AngelicVampire · 03-14-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

SUBCHAPTER D. EMERGENCY POSSESSION OF
5-18 CERTAIN ABANDONED CHILDREN

Subchapter D begins at line 5-17.

Its possibly not relevant however it does allow parents to voluntarily remove themselves from the parenthood so it is a precedent for doing so.

flstf · 03-14-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Then there is reality.....Air Pollution causes cancer, people should not breath. Sorry but, sex is far to enjoyable to expect the population to become celebate, and to expect such is unrealistic to say the least.

I agree, and don't expect most people to refrain from this pleasure but men had better be ready to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood unless or until they have some say in the abortion decision.

Ustwo · 03-14-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't disagree with most of what you have to say and frankly feel uncomfortable defending the so called men's rights advocates. People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%.

Birth control methods can be near 100%, and I'd say 100% if the users do it right.

I've been actively having sex for 2 decades, one child, planned.

Seaver · 03-14-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

I agree, and don't expect most people to refrain from this pleasure but men had better be ready to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood unless or until they have some say in the abortion decision.

The problem is the father has no say in the abortion decision. This is the cornerstone of the problem. The woman has a backdoor out of said responsibility with no say of the other, her future is her decision. The man simply has to accept whatever her decision is, his future be damned.

kutulu · 03-14-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The problem is the father has no say in the abortion decision. This is the cornerstone of the problem. The woman has a backdoor out of said responsibility with no say of the other, her future is her decision. The man simply has to accept whatever her decision is, his future be damned.

Yes, because it's HER body. She cannot force a medical procedure on you either.

Hektore · 03-14-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Let's look at the result of giving males this option of deciding once a woman is pregnant that they want to decline fatherhood. This would remove all responsibility at the outset, even before the pregnancy occurs. Men would be free to have as much consequence free sex as they liked, and walk away unburdened by the responsibilities of parenthood. It would remove any incentive for the man to share in the responsibility for contraception or supporting the children they fathered, shifting all of that to the woman.

While I completely agree with you Gilda, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment and take a stab at the legality of this. For the average citizen there can be no protected gender inequalities under the law, which I think is a good thing to have.

Granted the existence of abortion, you need only to switch the gender to see that in terms of *legal responsibility* women can have as much consequence free sex as they want. Not that having to undergo an abortion is not a consequence at all, but it is an out that legally absolves you of all responsibility for the child, thus once a pregnancy has begun, you can still choose to reject motherhood.

There is no such choice out for men, once the pregnancy has begun fatherhood is forced on them at the mother's discretion. Thus an inequality based on gender. This would have to resolved by either getting rid of abortion or granting men an abortion-like right to choose to give up all legal rights and responsibilities that come with children.

As an aside the way I feel about this is what some other people have said, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, if you don't want to deal with pregnancy - don't have sex, this applies to both genders. I don't care that you don't think you should have to, If you decided you wanted to go to a carnival somewhere and shoot your .38 off in every which direction just because it's fun and you have the right to do what you want to do, that doesn't excuse you from responsibility for the people you end up killing. I fail to see how this is any different.

Willravel · 03-14-2006, 12:20 PM

Should a (soon-to-be) father have the right to prevent an abortion, whether in or out of wedlock?

flstf · 03-14-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Should a (soon-to-be) father have the right to prevent an abortion, whether in or out of wedlock?

IMHO even if men are given the right to opt out of parenthood responsibilty they should not have the right to force an abortion or birth. I know this is probably not consistant but the woman should always maintain the right to go it alone if she chooses. This of course assumes the law is changed to allow the man to have any part in the abortion decision, which is probably a long shot at best.

Seaver · 03-14-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Yes, because it's HER body. She cannot force a medical procedure on you either.

That's the problem. If she does not wish to become a mother it's HER body. If a man does not wish to become a father it's HIS responsibility.

Willravel · 03-14-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

IMHO even if men are given the right to opt out of parenthood responsibilty they should not have the right to force an abortion or birth. I know this is probably not consistant but the woman should always maintain the right to go it alone if she chooses. This of course assumes the law is changed to allow the man to have any part in the abortion decision, which is probably a long shot at best.

I don't care about a man's right to force an abortion, I happen to think it;s wrong, actually. What I mean is what if mom want's an abortion, and dad doesn't. Dad has no legal say. That's not fair.

flstf · 03-14-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Birth control methods can be near 100%, and I'd say 100% if the users do it right.

Yes, but not everyone is so careful and accidents do happen. There are probably cases where one sex partner goes out of their way to cause a pregnancy when the other partner is trying to be careful. I'm sure that even with much education there will still be many unwanted pregnancies (at least by one of the participants)

highthief · 03-14-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Should a (soon-to-be) father have the right to prevent an abortion, whether in or out of wedlock?

Yup. Short of there being a health risk to the mother, absolutely. He should have to pick up any bills that result, however.

Of course, I'm not a fan of abortion, period...

joshbaumgartner · 03-14-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The problem is the father has no say in the abortion decision. This is the cornerstone of the problem. The woman has a backdoor out of said responsibility with no say of the other, her future is her decision. The man simply has to accept whatever her decision is, his future be damned.

If a man were allowed to 'abort' his part of the parenthood during the same window the female has the option to do so, would that satisfy this matter?

What I would propose is that during the first portion of the pregnancy, when a woman would normally be free under the law to pursue an 'at will' abortion (i.e. no rape/health/etc. factors), a man would likewise have the option to 'abort' fatherhood in a legal sense, absolving him of future legal liabilities (and privledges) in relation to that child. If a man pursued this and the woman chose to continue the birth, it would be solely her responsibility to raise the child. Naturally, if he did this he would also be declining any rights to future involvement with the kid as well.

This would eliminate the argument that abortion allows a woman an 'out' from responsibilities of parenthood that is not available to a man.

Josh

Coppertop · 03-14-2006, 03:18 PM

It really cannot be stated better than how Gilda posted, several times. And requiring a wife's consent for a vasectomy is fucked up.

Gilda · 03-14-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hektore

While I completely agree with you Gilda, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment and take a stab at the legality of this. For the average citizen there can be no protected gender inequalities under the law, which I think is a good thing to have.

It isn't a gender inequity under the law it's a biological physical difference between being male and being female. There's no law that says a man can't have an abortion, it's just physically impossible given that he can't get pregnant.

Quote:

Granted the existence of abortion, you need only to switch the gender to see that in terms of *legal responsibility* women can have as much consequence free sex as they want.

No. You cannot switch genders in this case because the woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't. Switching genders ignores reality.

Quote:

Not that having to undergo an abortion is not a consequence at all, but it is an out that legally absolves you of all responsibility for the child, thus once a pregnancy has begun, you can still choose to reject motherhood.

And here is where this argument really breaks down completely. A man who aborts his parental responsibilites preemptively has in effect relieved himself of any consequences. This is not possible for the woman because reproduction is fundamentally different for the sexes. Barring a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage, a pregnant woman will have consequences that result from her being pregnant. Abortion is a negative consequence, having to undergo a surgical procedure, albeit a relatively safe one, is a negative consequence. Having to raise a child with no support from the father or give it up for adoption is a negative consequence. Once the pregnancy begins, there is no path that relieves the woman of all consequences.

Quote:

There is no such choice out for men, once the pregnancy has begun fatherhood is forced on them at the mother's discretion. Thus an inequality based on gender.

An inequality based on the reality of biology. See my first response.

Quote:

This would have to resolved by either getting rid of abortion or granting men an abortion-like right to choose to give up all legal rights and responsibilities that come with children.

No, this would have to be resolved by recognizing the reality that women get pregnant and men don't.

Gilda

docbungle · 03-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

The male and female roles during the pregnancy are fundamentally different in that the female does 100% of the work, has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy itself. She should therefore have 100% of the decision making to herself.

Well, sort of. She doesn't have 100% of the responsibility herself, though. If I put it there, then I share that responsibility. Whether she feels that way or not. She can't take it from me. I own it, this responsibility.

Quote:

Before the pregnancy begins, absolutely both partners have an equal responsibility to take proper precautions and preparations. After the child is born, both parents should have equal rights and responsibilities. During the pregnancy itself everything is happening in the woman's body, so the decision making should be all hers.

Disagree. It's our child, not hers, and any decision making needs to work within that understanding. We agreed together to have it, we went ahead and did it, and now it is happening and it is both of ours. She shouldn't get to take any more ownership than me at this point. She is the one carrying the child because, well, that's just how nature works. That in no way should give her the right to decide on an abortion after we've gotten to this point.

Quote:

Where the situations are equivilent, treatment should be the same. There is no male equivilent to pregnancy, so he's not in the same situation as she is. In different circumstances, different treatment is warranted.

Of course there is no male equivilent to pregnancy. But both the man and woman know this already. Her being the one that carries the child should give her just as much responsibility to the man that gave it to her as to the child.

Quote:

No man, short of being raped, can have fatherhood forced on him.

And neither can a woman, short of being raped.

I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.

Of course there will be cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother. I think that should pretty much sum up the types of abortions that should be allowed.

Or give a freebie, just for the sake of argument, to first-timers. Hey, mistakes happen. But if they don't learn from that one, well, then too bad.

I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.

Having said that, I'm not totally against the idea of abortions, I just think the majority of them are BS. And, going hand in hand with that, I think that a woman taking advantage of a pregnancy by claiming "It's inside me so I can do what I want with it," is just about the most irresponsible thing one can do.

joshbaumgartner · 03-14-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.

...snip...

Or give a freebie, just for the sake of argument, to first-timers. Hey, mistakes happen. But if they don't learn from that one, well, then too bad.

I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.

This circular responsibility argument is something I have never understood. It's like saying you shouldn't speed because you'll get a ticket, and you get a ticket because you shouldn't speed. Abortion is the way to get out of the ticket, and so people argue that it is irresponsible because you're not facing the music for speeding/having sex. It may be a statement of fact that speeding is unwise because you could get a ticket, and it may also be true that the reason for tickets is to stop speeding, but it doesn't explain the real reason why they exist.

The reason speeding is illegal is because of the danger to the society (direct and indirect). Tickets are the way to enforce this status. But it isn't illegal because you'll get a ticket.

To ban abortion under the responsibility argument, you are mandating that there is a certain consequence (having to raise a kid) for having sex. Well why are you attaching this consequence. There must necessarily be something else about sex that is bad and therefore warrants assigning consequences.

It may be considered irresponsible to rock climb without all the right gear and training. Do we deny medical care to someone stupid enough to try it without said gear when they fall off a rock? To use the responsibility argument, we should deny that care (regardless of the individual's ability to pay for it) because otherwise we are creating an incentive to be irresponsible, right?

More specifically, to use the responsibility argument as it is used against abortion, we should deny medical treatment to anyone who contracts VD, as it as well is a consequence of 'irresponsible sex'. We certainly should not be spending resources developing treatments for these people should we? Afterall, if you aren't scared of an STD, wouldn't that make it more likely you'd commit an act of 'irresponsible sex'? Actually, this tactic is being followed by some more fanatical anti-sex groups.

hannukah harry · 03-14-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Disagree. It's our child, not hers, and any decision making needs to work within that understanding. We agreed together to have it, we went ahead and did it, and now it is happening and it is both of ours. She shouldn't get to take any more ownership than me at this point. She is the one carrying the child because, well, that's just how nature works. That in no way should give her the right to decide on an abortion after we've gotten to this point.

you're arguing something that isn't really being discussed. how often do you really think a woman purposely aborts a planned pregnancy? i'd bet that it's near zero (not including health reasons). people don't abort planned pregnancies. they abort accidental ones. and if it's an agreement to have it, then it wasn't an accident.

Quote:

And neither can a woman, short of being raped.

a woman can have preganancy forced on her when an accident happens and she can't get an abortion (either abortions is illegal, she can't afford one, ca't afford to get there, is intimidated from getting one, etc).

Quote:

I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.

if you think abortions from people being irresponsible is ridiculous, do you really think that those people are gonna be responsible enough to raise a child?

Quote:

I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.

it sounds like you'd rather have a new larger generation of serfs then people raising children in good homes with hope for a good future. and when you consider how many people who had kids as teenagers end up having children who give birth as teens, i think your reasoning that they'd eventually learn better is misguided at best.

Quote:

And, going hand in hand with that, I think that a woman taking advantage of a pregnancy by claiming "It's inside me so I can do what I want with it," is just about the most irresponsible thing one can do.

and why do you think that? it seems to me that it is in her and therefore she can do what she wants. if she had a tumor, would it be her choice about whether or not to get treatment? how is anything that involves her body, her health, her well-being not going to fall under the catergory of "things that she gets to decide how to handle?"

Gilda · 03-14-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Well, sort of. She doesn't have 100% of the responsibility herself, though. If I put it there, then I share that responsibility. Whether she feels that way or not. She can't take it from me. I own it, this responsibility.

Disagree. It's our child, not hers, and any decision making needs to work within that understanding. We agreed together to have it, we went ahead and did it, and now it is happening and it is both of ours. She shouldn't get to take any more ownership than me at this point. She is the one carrying the child because, well, that's just how nature works. That in no way should give her the right to decide on an abortion after we've gotten to this point.

Of course there is no male equivilent to pregnancy. But both the man and woman know this already. Her being the one that carries the child should give her just as much responsibility to the man that gave it to her as to the child.

And neither can a woman, short of being raped.

I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.

Of course there will be cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother. I think that should pretty much sum up the types of abortions that should be allowed.

Or give a freebie, just for the sake of argument, to first-timers. Hey, mistakes happen. But if they don't learn from that one, well, then too bad.

I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.

Having said that, I'm not totally against the idea of abortions, I just think the majority of them are BS. And, going hand in hand with that, I think that a woman taking advantage of a pregnancy by claiming "It's inside me so I can do what I want with it," is just about the most irresponsible thing one can do.

I can't answer your points because you're arguing a different point based on a different premise.

I wasn't arguing abortion rights, those are a fact of current law, and are used as a given for the current discussion.

The premise and question under debate is this: An unplanned preganancy has occurred. The woman wants the baby, the man doesn't. Given that the woman has the choice of abortion, should the man be permitted to opt out of any responsibility for the child during the pregnancy?

Your argument is based on the opposite premise, that the pregnancy was planned and the man wants the baby, and the woman might not (I'm not clear on that). Given that premise, the whole question becomes moot.

Also, in your eagerness to refute my individual points, you may have missed that we came to the same conclusion: the man should take responsibility for the child he fathered. I'm certainly not going to argue the point I've been making all along.

Gilda

Seaver · 03-14-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

The premise and question under debate is this: An unplanned preganancy has occurred. The woman wants the baby, the man doesn't. Given that the woman has the choice of abortion, should the man be permitted to opt out of any responsibility for the child during the pregnancy?

Right, your argument is the woman has the right to choose because she's a woman, the man has no choice because he's a man.

Makes as much sense as whites can use the good fountain because they're white.

hannukah harry · 03-14-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Right, your argument is the woman has the right to choose because she's a woman, the man has no choice because he's a man.

Makes as much sense as whites can use the good fountain because they're white.

no. the argument is that because she's a woman, and she has to put up with morning sickness, with getting fat (and all of the financial costs associated like clothes, food, etc), possible high blood caused by the pregnancy, not being able to drink or smoke (if she wanted to). because her body is being hijacked (if it's an unwanted pregnancy) by a clump of cells. because her health and well-being may be compromised. because until she gives birth, the pregnancy affects only her.

the man doesn't have the right to choose because he doesn't own the woman, he can't tell her what she should do with her body. he can't tell her not to drink or smoke. he can't tell her to give up nine months of her life because of what he wants.

no, that's not the same as whites can only use the fountain because they're white.

Gilda · 03-14-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Right, your argument is the woman has the right to choose because she's a woman, the man has no choice because he's a man.

No, that is not my argument.

Gilda

docbungle · 03-14-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Also, in your eagerness to refute my individual points, you may have missed that we came to the same conclusion: the man should take responsibility for the child he fathered. I'm certainly not going to argue the point I've been making all along.

And my point is that it is absurd to allow a woman to cancel a (planned) pregnancy without the man's consent. Which is why I replied to your statement that seemed to say as much. The bigger picture and all, you know.

Quote:

you're arguing something that isn't really being discussed. how often do you really think a woman purposely aborts a planned pregnancy? i'd bet that it's near zero (not including health reasons). people don't abort planned pregnancies. they abort accidental ones. and if it's an agreement to have it, then it wasn't an accident.

Well, I felt like discussing it. Lots of things are being discussed here.

Quote:

if you think abortions from people being irresponsible is ridiculous, do you really think that those people are gonna be responsible enough to raise a child?

Not in this crybaby, woe-is-me society. Why take responsibility for your actions when someone else will do it for you?

Look, an abortion is not a speeding ticket. And neither is VD (someone compared them earlier). When you put your penis in someone (or let someone put it in you), then you are opening that door. So do it right or don't do it.

Getting in a car does not cause speeding. Putting your penis in someone does cause pregnancy.

Just sayin'.

Regarding the specific topic of the thread, the OP, this guy should have no say in anything unless it is in support of the child and mother. If he doesn't want to be a father then he shouldn't have become one. There shouldn't be such easy outs for people for something of this magnitude.

Hektore · 03-15-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

It isn't a gender inequity under the law it's a biological physical difference between being male and being female. There's no law that says a man can't have an abortion, it's just physically impossible given that he can't get pregnant.

Correct, but the law provides women a course of action to escape all the legal responsibilities of motherhood. There is no law that provides such a course of action for a man.

I understand that no matter what, there are going to be consequences for a woman once she gets pregnant. I also understand that providing this option for men relieves them of any consequences of pregnancy. But this would be an inequality based on biology, not the law. And the law states there cannot be an inequality between genders because of the law.

roachboy · 03-15-2006, 07:12 AM

i have been reading through this thread from time to time, wondering if there would come a post that would enable me to see the real issue that is being debated--it is pretty clear---it follows the sad logic of the bakke decision and is effectively another curious conservative argument against abortion as a matter of law disguised as an argument about "fairness"....it seems to me that the claim is a straw man--nothing at all precludes discussions between partners prior to a decision being taken to have or not have the procedure....nothing precludes men from having an important role at every step--nothing at all. the only issue seems to be whether it is possible for a conflict situation to extend itself into lawsuits that would enable a man to prevent a woman who is carrying a baby that is also his from having the procedure if she wnats it and he does not.

if that were possible, i would expect slap suits from anti-choice groups being filed against every woman who would choose to have the procedure. this would operate under the figleaf of "protecting male reproductive rights"---if you filed enough suits, getting the procedure would effecitvely become impossible--because, presumably, a court would have to prevent the woman involved from proceeding until the merits--or lack thereof--of each suit was determined. in that scenario, worthless suits would be functional becuase they would delay delay delay.

the issue itself seems to me to be a fraud.

flstf · 03-15-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the only issue seems to be whether it is possible for a conflict situation to extend itself into lawsuits that would enable a man to prevent a woman who is carrying a baby that is also his from having the procedure if she wnats it and he does not.

There have been several men's rights groups spokepersons on the news shows recently. From what I have seen they are asking for the ability of men to opt out of support responsibility if the woman choses to not abort and the man does not want to become a parent. I don't think they are asking for the right to force the woman to not have an abortion if she decides that she does not want to be a parent and he does. It seems like it is all about the money as far as they are concerned.

roachboy · 03-15-2006, 08:07 AM

fistf: interesting. this is what happens when you dont watch tv, i guess. do you remember the names/acronyms of any of these "men's rights" groups? i am interested in checking them out.

btw this moves in quite different direction from much of the debate in the thread, but is interesting nonetheless.

Ustwo · 03-15-2006, 08:26 AM

The surface absurdity of this argument only helps magnify the absurdity of the pro-choice position on the unborn.

If the unborn has no inherent rights or value prior to whatever arbitrary date one assigns such rights and value, then it is not unfair for a man to think he has the right to 'op-out' of a pregnancy. While the woman may claim its her body and she has the right to do whatever she wants for it, for a majority of men child support will take the fruits of his labor to provide, and it is his body which must be used to provide such support. His body, and in many jobs his life, is at risk for providing for this child.

The semantics games played by the pro-abortion forces is what allows this argument to be made. The thought of forcing a woman to have an abortion, or even letting men 'op-out' seems absurd to anyone with a sense of self responsibility or even a shred of decency.

I have no sympathy for such men who would feel this sort of op out is a right of theirs. I have far more sympathy for men who wish to raise the child who have no say in its abortion.

roachboy · 03-15-2006, 08:31 AM

below i alter a quote from ustwo to suit the entire "male reproductive rights" argument against abortion because the logic works just as well that way-better even:

Quote:

The semantics games played by the anti-choice forces is what allows this argument to be made. The thought of forcing abortion law into the specious frame of the right's "extensions" (a reductio ad absurdum in fact) of the notion of equal protection in a way that would prevent a woman from having an abortion on the grounds that it "discriminates against men" or infringes upon "male reproductive rights", seems absurd to anyone with a sense of self responsibility or even a shred of decency

but anyone can play this game.
it's called detournement.
it doesn't get anywhere.
maybe that is so easy will function to exclude this entire register of argument from debate.

pig · 03-15-2006, 09:46 AM

Torestate what I gleen is the primary argument against "male reproductive rights" :
pregnancy is an inherently unequal proposition, from a gender/biological sex standpoint, and this fact is well known beforehand. A woman will carry the fetus to term, the man will not, and thus it is only natural that it is a woman's choice, ultimately, as to the treatment of the developing fetus with respect to the abortion decision.

It seems to me that this could be used as an argument to indicate that the woman, by virtue of this knowledge of the fact that she will be encumbered with the pregnancy, has a larger responsibility not to engage in casual sexual contact that might lead to pregnancy. Therefore, should consensual sexual contact with a man's filthy penis lead to pregnancy, she not only has 100% of the right to make the decision about abortion, but also 100% of the responsbility for any child she might choose to conceive.

Personally, I can not imagine abandoning a child I helped to conceive simply because I might find it inconvenient to my lifestyle. While I theoretically believe that it is not fair towards men, nor do I buy the argument that pregnancy is 100% a feminine phenomena (men do, on seldom occasion, have emotions involving their potential offspring. The emotional / psychological aspects of impending parenthood can't be thrown out of the case entirely, in my opinion.) - I don't see any way to practically make the abortion decision more equitable at this time.

What if a guy got a girl pregnant, knew that she was pregnant the next morning, and wanted her to take the morning after pill? If she refused, could she (or maybe theoretically should she) be more accountable for the child? If a fetus could be removed painlessly and incubated on the laboratory bench, should the male have the right to ask for such a procedure instead of the female having an abortion?

The practical aspects of this topic make me feel icky, because the losers in the scenarios where the men and women involved can't come to consensus are always the kids.

I guess if you're a right to life male, you'd better be damn sure the girl you're with is too.

89transam · 03-15-2006, 11:20 AM

I agree %100 that with our laws the way they are a man should get an equal choice in the matter. The unborn child is a bundle of cells, non-living and easilly disposed of. The woman can have the abortion and simply find another partner who wants a child.

Obiviously there are tons of problems with this, and just goes to show how ass backward our laws on abortion are in the first place.

Himbo · 03-15-2006, 11:32 AM

"Great, we'd have a nation full of deadbeat dad who don't want to pay child support"

Interesting fact. THere are FAR more women who default on child support payments in the US then men.

All I can say is let's get that male birth control pill out. Only then will men have full control over their reproduction. Then it will be women complaining that men are taking away "their right" to have a baby . . . .

male pill . . hurry hurry hurry hurry

flstf · 03-15-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

fistf: interesting. this is what happens when you dont watch tv, i guess. do you remember the names/acronyms of any of these "men's rights" groups? i am interested in checking them out.

Sorry, I don't remember the groups name from those short news interviews. This seemed to be a hot topic on the news shows a few days ago. My wife and I sometimes flip between CNN, MSNBC and Fox at dinner time.

The following group was probably one of those represented:

Quote:

http://www.nas.com/c4m/
Welcome to the
National Center for Men's
Voluntary Fatherhood Project.

We're fostering a dialog about reducing discrimination and out of wedlock births. This site has been quietly visited 805,984 times since 1994.

The laws that protect men and women from being forced into parenthood are highly discriminatory. Women are protected by abortion and abandonment laws. But when men are lied to about birth control or fertility, paternity and child support laws can disrupt their education and force upon them a future of distress associated with the unwanted child, support payments, the stigma of illegitimacy and a gut wrenching anguish that most people can't imagine.

It would be fairer to give men a limited time to irrevocably decide whether or not their case will be treated like those where the father is unknown or dead, like in single parent adoptions.

We also expect that giving men a choice would reduce the out of wedlock birth rate and its associated ills.

Enjoy your visit. Perhaps you'll join our debate about Legalizing Choice for Men.

03-15-2006, 07:12 AM	#112 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have been reading through this thread from time to time, wondering if there would come a post that would enable me to see the real issue that is being debated--it is pretty clear---it follows the sad logic of the bakke decision and is effectively another curious conservative argument against abortion as a matter of law disguised as an argument about "fairness"....it seems to me that the claim is a straw man--nothing at all precludes discussions between partners prior to a decision being taken to have or not have the procedure....nothing precludes men from having an important role at every step--nothing at all. the only issue seems to be whether it is possible for a conflict situation to extend itself into lawsuits that would enable a man to prevent a woman who is carrying a baby that is also his from having the procedure if she wnats it and he does not. if that were possible, i would expect slap suits from anti-choice groups being filed against every woman who would choose to have the procedure. this would operate under the figleaf of "protecting male reproductive rights"---if you filed enough suits, getting the procedure would effecitvely become impossible--because, presumably, a court would have to prevent the woman involved from proceeding until the merits--or lack thereof--of each suit was determined. in that scenario, worthless suits would be functional becuase they would delay delay delay. the issue itself seems to me to be a fraud. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-15-2006, 08:07 AM	#114 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fistf: interesting. this is what happens when you dont watch tv, i guess. do you remember the names/acronyms of any of these "men's rights" groups? i am interested in checking them out. btw this moves in quite different direction from much of the debate in the thread, but is interesting nonetheless. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-15-2006, 08:26 AM	#115 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The surface absurdity of this argument only helps magnify the absurdity of the pro-choice position on the unborn. If the unborn has no inherent rights or value prior to whatever arbitrary date one assigns such rights and value, then it is not unfair for a man to think he has the right to 'op-out' of a pregnancy. While the woman may claim its her body and she has the right to do whatever she wants for it, for a majority of men child support will take the fruits of his labor to provide, and it is his body which must be used to provide such support. His body, and in many jobs his life, is at risk for providing for this child. The semantics games played by the pro-abortion forces is what allows this argument to be made. The thought of forcing a woman to have an abortion, or even letting men 'op-out' seems absurd to anyone with a sense of self responsibility or even a shred of decency. I have no sympathy for such men who would feel this sort of op out is a right of theirs. I have far more sympathy for men who wish to raise the child who have no say in its abortion. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-15-2006, 09:46 AM	#117 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Torestate what I gleen is the primary argument against "male reproductive rights" : pregnancy is an inherently unequal proposition, from a gender/biological sex standpoint, and this fact is well known beforehand. A woman will carry the fetus to term, the man will not, and thus it is only natural that it is a woman's choice, ultimately, as to the treatment of the developing fetus with respect to the abortion decision. It seems to me that this could be used as an argument to indicate that the woman, by virtue of this knowledge of the fact that she will be encumbered with the pregnancy, has a larger responsibility not to engage in casual sexual contact that might lead to pregnancy. Therefore, should consensual sexual contact with a man's filthy penis lead to pregnancy, she not only has 100% of the right to make the decision about abortion, but also 100% of the responsbility for any child she might choose to conceive. Personally, I can not imagine abandoning a child I helped to conceive simply because I might find it inconvenient to my lifestyle. While I theoretically believe that it is not fair towards men, nor do I buy the argument that pregnancy is 100% a feminine phenomena (men do, on seldom occasion, have emotions involving their potential offspring. The emotional / psychological aspects of impending parenthood can't be thrown out of the case entirely, in my opinion.) - I don't see any way to practically make the abortion decision more equitable at this time. What if a guy got a girl pregnant, knew that she was pregnant the next morning, and wanted her to take the morning after pill? If she refused, could she (or maybe theoretically should she) be more accountable for the child? If a fetus could be removed painlessly and incubated on the laboratory bench, should the male have the right to ask for such a procedure instead of the female having an abortion? The practical aspects of this topic make me feel icky, because the losers in the scenarios where the men and women involved can't come to consensus are always the kids. I guess if you're a right to life male, you'd better be damn sure the girl you're with is too. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

03-15-2006, 11:20 AM	#118 (permalink)
89transam Psycho Location: Central California	I agree %100 that with our laws the way they are a man should get an equal choice in the matter. The unborn child is a bundle of cells, non-living and easilly disposed of. The woman can have the abortion and simply find another partner who wants a child. Obiviously there are tons of problems with this, and just goes to show how ass backward our laws on abortion are in the first place. __________________ I'd rather be rich than stupid.

03-13-2006, 09:43 PM	#81 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Gilda I don't disagree with most of what you have to say and frankly feel uncomfortable defending the so called men's rights advocates. People that don't want to become parents should not engage in sex since most birth control methods are not 100%. Until an abortion decision is made the pregnant woman and man are only potential mother and father in most parts of the USA. I guess I'm saying that I see some validity to the argument that the potential father might be given some consideration in deciding whether he wants to be a parent even after the pregnancy. Where abortion is still legal many women and men probably see it as just another "last chance" method of birth control.

03-14-2006, 02:11 AM	#84 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Gilda, if implemented a law would likely require you to note your decision not to have kids before hand and then upon finding out that your spouse is pregnant again make the decision, its likely not an easy out. The problem I see is that although the man can have a say his speech is basically useless as he actually has no voting rights in this. Having sat through many many speeches by parties recently I have noticed that very rarely do they actually sway people's votes, most people have already made up their mind. Would you be happy if your husband after you got pregnant but within 30days handed the kid over to social services and didn't go back for it? How many men take this option (seeing as its legal)?

03-14-2006, 12:20 PM	#94 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Should a (soon-to-be) father have the right to prevent an abortion, whether in or out of wedlock?

03-14-2006, 03:18 PM	#101 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	It really cannot be stated better than how Gilda posted, several times. And requiring a wife's consent for a vasectomy is fucked up.

03-15-2006, 11:32 AM	#119 (permalink)
Himbo Tilted Location: Canada	"Great, we'd have a nation full of deadbeat dad who don't want to pay child support" Interesting fact. THere are FAR more women who default on child support payments in the US then men. All I can say is let's get that male birth control pill out. Only then will men have full control over their reproduction. Then it will be women complaining that men are taking away "their right" to have a baby . . . . male pill . . hurry hurry hurry hurry