What about male reproductive rights?
 

All right, I read the rules and I think this should be OK...

Abortion activists always say that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby, so it should be her choice. But isn't it also the man's baby?

The same activists who embrace abortion also rail against deadbeat dads. If a woman gets to decide whether she wants to have a kid, why doesn't a man? The appearance is that the child is solely the woman's unless she wants it... Then it's both the man's and the woman's.

What gives? If a woman has the "right to choose" whether she will become a parent, why doesn't a man have that same right?

Yes I agree its a doublw standard.

I think the reason you see this with activists is that they grab whatever suits them at the time for an argument. Whether its rational or in line with the rest of their arguments does not bother them. They are pushing their agenda and they are not interested in investigating their own agenda for flaws, since they already believe in it enough to become activists.

One would hope that people only become activists after looking at the issue objectively, although idealism wins the day on that front almost everytime.

A married couple.

Should the wife become pregnant, she can abort without so much as telling the husband. She has no obligations.

Should the man desire a vasectomy, he can not receive the operation without the wife signing a waiver.

I don't like that at all. Now, a lot of times you'll have a wayyyyyy fucked up husband who's abusive, dominating, and crazy, and it's better if he doesn't know what she chooses to do (and for the naysayers who are pro-life except in the cases of rape, yes, husbands can rape wives. It happens).

But I see no reason why I need my wife's sayso if I wanna cut the loop.

And in terms of the baby being the man's too, suing for custody post-birth is all you get, maybe it ought to be opened up for pre-birth custody suits. If you don't want the child aborted in the current legal setup, be a little more picky over who you stick yourself into next time.

Much friendlier responses than I would have expected. Maybe this actually seems as inconsistent to other people as it does to me.

TFP never ceases to impress me. Of course, we're only an hour into this thread...

It is an awful double-standard which needs to be fixed, and a reason that I am largely pro-life.

I got my vasectomy done in another country and did not need a waiver from my wife at all - I was living there at the time. Is this perhaps a thing for some states only though? I would be surprised if it were nationwide.

I believe if a woman wants to abort it is her business BUT she must tell the father and he must sign the waiver.

If the father chooses to he can get a court order her not to abort and raise the child himself.

If I were to get a woman pregnant and she wanted to abort, I would sue to prevent and raise the child myself, even if I had to pay her medical.

However, what is to prevent her from falling downstairs, trying to self abort, telling the court I wasn't the father and refusing invitro DNA testing, etc.?

A woman will find ways to get rid of her baby if she truly has that desire. Trust me women can be totally nuts and very calculating to get what they want, especially if they are told they can't. And there are many ways she can get rid of a child in her, it may not be healthy for her but if she's nutty enough she'll do it.

The problem is this. The woman has to carry the baby for 9 months. Yes, it's all well and dandy that a guy could get custody after the baby is born, but before that... Well, the guy does his thing then just sits around and waits for 9 months. It's the woman who has the burden of pregnancy and child birth.

As far as the vasectomy thing, I had never heard that the wife had to sign off on it too. Doesn't seem quite right. I'd like to see some proof of that.

Yes, there is a huge double standard when it comes to womens reproductive rights. I'm not sure how to fix it, or honestly if it needs to be fixed. It's admirable that there are men out there who are willing to step up and raise a child when the woman does not. But bottom line... The woman is the one going through the pregnancy.

Lets get technology going so men can be pregnant too :thumbsup:

Edit:
I just wanted to say that I don't think that men shouldn't have reproductive rights. It's just such a fuzzy gray area thing.

I've heard the "she has to carry it for 9 months" argument. I don't buy it. Barring health concerns, if the man is going to assume custody afterwards, and the woman will have no obligation toward the child, 9 months is hardly comparable to raising the child for the rest of your life, even if it is inside you for those 9 months.

It just gets into a huge thing, SecretMethod. A guy can come back and say "9 months isn't a big deal, if you're healthy it'll be fine." Then the woman will say "Yeah, tell that to me when you're pregnant for 9 months." And the endless circle continues.

This issue will never be resolved so everyone is happy.

There are two ways to rectify the double standard.

One, allow the man to have equal say in the choice of abortion.

Two, allow all men who help conceive the option of giving up their responsibilities as a parent.

I don't like either option. The first one, from an 'abortion should be legal' perspective doesn't make sense because it's all about what the woman wishes to do about the conditions of her body. The man might've been co-creator, but it's not he who is loaning a part of his body to the birthing process.

Two's the one that makes the most sense, at least internally, because then the woman always has the option of removing a child she can't afford to take care of, and if she doesn't use that option, then she shouldn't be able to force part of the burden on the man who had no say in the choice of abortion. After all, it'd be irresponsible of the woman to not abort the clump of cells and the man would have no way of preventing this irresponsibility.

I'd choose option C, "make illegal all abortions that aren't needed to save the mother's life", but until/unless that happens, B would be the logical choice.

IMO, male reproductive rights is a fine idea but a non-starter. I don't see any groundswell of political power brokering on that side of the single-issue policy movements. It has no chance of overcoming centuries (millenia) of sexist tradition and legal precedent. The political strings that actually call the tune on this one are pulled by women and those who support their position of exclusivity - for whatever reason.

I think its the females choise completely. Listen it's easy to complain that a man should have equal say in the debate to have the abortion, but the fact is the woman has to carry it so its the womans choice. So I think it should be a womans right to get an abortion if she wants, and its up to the couples to work things out among themselves and not bring legality into the equation.

I think that's a terrible idea. If that happens, all a dead-beat dad has to do is excercise that option and never worry about child support or anything.

I think it'll be interesting when we get this "male pill" I've been reading about in recent months.

Sure it'll take a lot for us guys to get over the psychological hook that a little pill is making us less "virile" (whatever the hell that means).

But for those of us who can get over a stone age and legally crippling obsession with potency, it'll be, um....liberating. :thumbsup:

Great, but what do you think about MEN'S reproductive rights??

There was a thread where this was mentioned in Coming Together - there were some good posts. I also don't believe that I should be required to have my wife sign a waiver for a vasectomy (in fact, can someone verify this and show proof?) for two reasons:

She can terminate a pregnancy over my objections and,
I can be forced to pay child support on a child I didn't want if she chooses to have it

There just seems to be some asymmetry here. I do agree with Art though, I can't imagine there ever being enough popular desire to amend these laws.

Fine. And if the man doesn't want the kid, but the woman insists on having it, then the man shouldn't be responsible for the upkeep of the kid. If you're the only one that wants the baby, then you should be the only one to pay for it.

I don't think men should be forced to have a vasectomy, that's make reproductive rights. If you're not smart enough to plan on having a child with a woman that wants a child, I don't think the man should have a say.

Until men can bear children, I don't think any male should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Great, we'd have a nation full of deadbeat dad who don't want to pay child support because the woman didn't want to risk an abortion.

I'm looking forward to it with a great deal of anticipation.

-lucky so far...

pan6467 I agree with your arguments. What could work is that if a man does not want a kid, he could sighn some paper with the mother saying that if she has the baby he will leave her and not have to pay support. However I see that this will leed to many more abortions. I may support abortion rights but I would rather not have people frivously abort their children.

If a man has a baby and doesnt want to be responsible for it he's a terrible, worthless, deadbeat dad.

If a woman has a baby and doesnt want to be responsible for it she's pro choice.

Possible alternatives? dont know anything that would be popular and fair to both sides.

or maybe we'd have a nation full of women who stopped and thought about it for a few minutes before jumping in the sack with the guy.

Look, how many times have couples agreed beforehand that if an "accident" happens, they'd have an abortion, yet when it happened the woman decided that she wanted the kid? That's fine, and if she wants to do that, more power to her, but the man shouldn't be screwed over with it.

I don't like it, either, but it's the closest thing to fair that exists in a land with legalized abortion.

y'know, too many people act like it's all the man's fault for "knocking up" the woman. Frankly, unless she was raped, she's just as responsible for the pregnancy. They both mutually decided to have sex. Whether or not to keep the kid should also be a mutual decision. If they both decide to keep it, then they both deal with it. if they both decide to abort it, then they both pay for that. If the woman decides to keep it even though the man is opposed, then it's no longer a mutual decision. 100% of the decision rests with the woman, therefore 100% of the responsibility should as well.

Look that type of thinking may work ideally, but realistically we have a problem with kids being raised being raised without fathers. The first rule with sex is don't do it if you aren't prepared to face the consequences of your actions. If you are going to make adult decisions, you have to deal with the results like an adult. This is a kid's life you are dealing with, not a puppy. Real men don't run away and say "I don't want to deal with it."

That's a good point, kutulu. So why can women run away from that responsibility if they want to?

And that was my point. Before sex the man and woman agree to abort if a pregnancy results. The man HAS prepared to deal with the results like an adult. If the woman then turns it around on him, saying she refuses to abort, why should he have to pay for it? If the man has absolutely no say in the decision (and as has been correctly pointed out - he doesn't, it's her body, not his) then he should not bear responsiblity for the results of the decision.

Now, if the woman says in advance that if she gets pregnant she's keeping it, and the man ignores that and has sex with her anyway, then he deserves what he gets. He's been given advance notice that they're keeping the kid, and he now has decision making power - namely, to have sex or not to have sex.

In the scenario I describe, the woman has yanked any possibility of decision making power away from the man.

Look at it another way. The man wants a new stereo. The woman does not. The man ignores her wishes and goes out and drops 2 grand on one anyway. Should the woman automatically be forced to give him $1,000?

I'm in the "the woman has to carry the thing for nine months"-camp.

I'm not carrying something I don't want. I'm not giving birth to something I don't want. If you want a baby, you carry it.

Precisely. Art's right in that it's unlikely any change would ever be popular enough to go through, however it is an interesting mental exercise in equality IMO.

Even as a woman myself, I still feel that the man and woman should have equal responsibilities and equal rights. Yeah, so the woman actually carries the baby and delivers it, but then there's a while lifetime to deal with afterwards. There's no reason that a man shouldn't have equal say in regards to a child that he helped create.

there is no way to even the scales here -- nature wasn't fair and until someone comes up with an artificial womb (i'd love to see pro-life groups investing money in this) humanity is stuck. Allowing men to stop a woman from having an abortion (or to force her to have one for that matter) gives men undo power over women's bodies that women never have over men. In a perfect world only men who really care about the outcome of a pregnancy would exercise this right but we don't live in that world -- I see these kind of rights being abused by controlling men as another means to hold power over a woman. One could argue that such things would be worked out in court but an abortion must happen within a fairly small window and I do not trust our court system to make decisions in a timely manner (nor do i relish weighing down the system with thousands of abortion cases).

conclusion: yes, it's unfair that men do not have an official say in the future of their unborn child but it's not near as unfair as the fact that nature has saddled women with the sole responsibility of carrying a child to term. I see no way to realistically even out either of these issues. If you don't want to be caught in a situation where you disagree with your partner on what should happen should an unwanted pregnancy occur then i suggest you talk to them about this before sleeping with them.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it and the results of your decisions.

Abortions are fucked up procedures. It shouldn't be shocking that someone might change their mind about having one when they finally have something living growing inside of them. My wife is pregnant and it goes from an abstract concept to very real very quickly.

Hrrrmmm, the whole issue seems silly to me

I say if you want male reproductive rights, Wear a comdom for god sakes

What if the condom breaks?

What if you're too druck to make a coherant decision?

What if the woman says she's on the pill, or that she's using some other from of protection?

Tough shit, it's the risk you take when you have sex

Being drunk is never an excuse.

See #1

And if a woman wants reproductive rights, would you recommend that she "Get on the pill for god sakes."? Both parties are responsible for birth control. Both parties are responsible for the result of failed birth control. Only the woman has the option to back out after birth control fails. As the consensus seems to agree, that situation is patently unjust.

What is just about telling someone what they can and cannot do with their body? What if someone wanted to force a vasectomy on you? I had a friend whose sister had an abortion, she can't have kids now.

As I said before, its a human life we are talking about, not a puppy. If you opt out, that kid grows up without a father. Take a look at all the fucked up people out there and ask yourself if some of them might be less fucked up if their father had taken an active role in their lives.

We do that all the time. "The right to swing that hammer ends at my nose" and all that. And I for one believe that should apply to abortion as well.

But in the context of the discussion, I agree with you. As long as abortion is to be considered something legally permissible, the man should have no say in it. "The man doesn't have domain over the woman's body just because she's carrying a clump of cells with his DNA" and whatnot. However...

Not good enough. Not good enough justification to acknowledge the reality that motherhood is not finalized with conception, while ignoring the reality that fatherhood is not finalized with concepton.

So the kid's life would be fucked up without a father? Well, then, the mother has an option. It's just a clump of cells afterall. She'll have the option of removing the responsibilities just like the man did.

Re: What about male reproductive rights?
 

Because many people in our country care only about themselves and look for any way they can to further their own lives at the expense of others financially. Happy to explain if this doesn't make sense. Just didn't want to type a novel.