Men's reproductive rights

Originally posted by IAF101
Dont mean to be rude but, if you were a man you wouldnt get laid if you go looking for spermicide and stuff like that.

But that is beside the point

I don't know... I'm pretty good-looking and I think I'd be a hot guy! But I probably could (creatively) convince the girl that it's the best thing all around. And if she didn't want to take all precautions, I don't want to be sleeping with her anyway.

And to be fair, I know the judicial system isn't fair when it comes to support/custody and so on. I hope some day it will be. All the more important for everyone to be extra careful.

You don't need to answer, but were you tricked into having a child?

If it isnt fair in the first place then what claims of injustice can be made by the woman ? Shouldnt it be the case that the man asks for compensation for being forced into being a father and shouldering responsibility ?

Wow! Men aren't being forced into becoming fathers. If a man decides to engage in sex, then it is defacto that he assumes the responsibility for possibly conceiving a child.

I really wish you guys would get it through your thick skulls that the primary goal of sex is procreation. The pleasure part of it is a fringe benefit. Goes back to the whole survival of the species thing. Make sex people want to have sex via the "feel good" factor and chances are more babies will be born.

Men who want to have sex without becoming fathers are obviously in it for the "fun" factor. It is a well known fact that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. If a man has sex, and a child is conceived he shouldn't whine: "No fair! I didn't know sex is how men became fathers!"

Originally posted by IAF1019 months of gestation doesn’t entitle you to inflict 18 years of financial and a lifetime of emotional responsibility.

Being born does.

It's not the MOTHER who inflicts this responsibility.

It's the CHILD.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Wow! Men aren't being forced into becoming fathers. If a man decides to engage in sex, then it is defacto that he assumes the responsibility for possibly conceiving a child.

I have answered this question already, please see my previous posts in this thread where I have responded to the Benevolent Heretic.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by IAF1019 months of gestation doesn’t entitle you to inflict 18 years of financial and a lifetime of emotional responsibility.

Being born does.

True but who has control over if the child is born or aborted ? Certainly not the man.
Please go through my previous posts in this thread where I explain my position fully.

Originally posted by IAF101True but who has control over if the child is born or aborted ? Certainly not the man.
Please go through my previous posts in this thread where I explain my position fully.

I've already been through your previous posts. There are certain inescapable facts, however.

1. A child requires support, and deserves a decent chance in life.

2. It is wrong to force an invasive medical procedure on a woman, especially when that procedure is against her moral or religious convictions (whether or not you or I think those convictions make any sense), just as it is wrong to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her will.

Put those facts together, and you have what you have. The father of a child must contribute to supporting the child, whether or not he intended to be a father. If you find this unfair, and putting unequal power in the hands of a woman, can't help that. Nature is what it is, and for some things there is no legal remedy. Our choices are either to do what we do now, or to allow men to father children irresponsibly. The second choice would be worse.

The only way to have complete equality in reproductive rights and responsibilities would be to redesign the species so that we're all hermaphrodites.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
1. A child requires support, and deserves a decent chance in life.

If you have read my previous posts then you should be well aware that I have no qualms against the fathers responsibility to support the child.

2. It is wrong to force an invasive medical procedure on a woman, especially when that procedure is against her moral or religious convictions (whether or not you or I think those convictions make any sense), just as it is wrong to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her will.

Religious convictions are not above the law nor it doesnt permit one to get away with what ever they want. I am not in support of forcing a mother into any medical procedure that is against her wishes but instead say that if the mother were to have the child disregarding the fathers wishes(i.e deceives the father about her use of contraceptives or lies about her intentions to the male) of not wanting to do so through deceit and other nefarious ways then she should be the sole responsibilty for the childs financial welfare. If a father has responsibility over the child then he "should " also have the rights over the decision of if or not to have a child with a perticular mother once he has deposited his dna into the woman. [ All this already covered with my debate with Benevolent Heretic, I dont see why you want me to reiterate my position !]

If you find this unfair, and putting unequal power in the hands of a woman, can't help that. Nature is what it is, and for some things there is no legal remedy. Our choices are either to do what we do now, or to allow men to father children irresponsibly. The second choice would be worse.

This is fallacious at best. What is to say that nature forces men to take responsibility over the child. Nature poses no such restrictions nor does it have any restrictions on visitation etc. These are the laws of man not nature.
I dont claim that it is mearly I that finds this to be discrimnatory but most men do so too. While a mother has the right to do what she wishes with the mans sperm, ie abort or have a baby the man has no such say in the matter. If you are going to argue that once the man gives his Dna to the woman it is no longer his choice then I would argue that if it ceases to belong to him and he has no control over it then he should have no responsibility over it as well.
As for your assertion that it would be unwise to allow men to father children irresponsibly, what is to say that it is very responsible to have women mother a child individually? Do we not find women leaving their babies in trash cans and dumpsters across the US? What precedence allows them to get away with having children irresponsibly and getting away with it ?

The only way to have complete equality in reproductive rights and responsibilities would be to redesign the species so that we're all hermaphrodites.

That again is fallacious as the hermophrodites cannot or rarely of ever reproduce.
About your statement that it is nature and thats the way the system works, I would like to remind you that this argument didnt stand in the way of equality for women. If that was their biology etc why were they allowed to enter into the rigours of professional life when their biology prevents them from performing as well as men physically? We are not in the stone age and morder science has allowed women to have almost total control over their pregnancy, they cannot claim to be at the mercy of god any longer. Biological conditions are no excuse for inequality in the law. The law should grant equal rights for all sexes and incase of any physical inequality, appropriate priveleges should be allowed so that equity is maintained.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by IAF101]

Originally posted by IAF101
If you have read my previous posts then you should be well aware that I have no qualms against the fathers responsibility to support the child.

Then you have nothing to say on this thread. But it's clear from what you said after this, that this statement is untrue; when the father did not choose to father the child, then you do not believe he should be responsible for its support.

I am not in support of forcing a mother into any medical procedure that is against her wishes but instead say that if the mother were to have the child disregarding the fathers wishes . . . then she should be the sole responsibilty for the childs financial welfare.

That would in effect place a penalty on refusing to abort a child. Since placing a penalty on not doing something is exactly the definition of "forcing" a person to do them, you ARE in support of forcing a mother into a medical procedure against her wishes.

What is to say that nature forces men to take responsibility over the child.

Nature does not; reasonable human response to natural conditions does. It was those natural conditions I was referring to. By the nature of things, a woman has a bigger stake and so, by law, a bigger say in whether a child is born than a man does. That's reality. Can't help it. Our laws shouldn't try to deny it.

As for your assertion that it would be unwise to allow men to father children irresponsibly, what is to say that it is very responsible to have women mother a child individually?

What I'm saying is that the results of requiring fathers to support their children, whether they wanted to father children or not, are less cruel and inhumane than allowing them to deny such responsibility. It is much harder to support a child alone, than to provide a share in child support. And requiring that a person support a child alone, hurts the child. That's wrong, and should not be done.

Do we not find women leaving their babies in trash cans and dumpsters across the US?

And you think that would decrease if you placed sole responsibility for support on the mother? It would not. It would increase. Abortions would also increase, and while I am certainly in favor of abortion rights, anything that increases pressure on pregnant women to actually have an abortion is a bad idea.

About your statement that it is nature and thats the way the system works, I would like to remind you that this argument didnt stand in the way of equality for women.

That's because there is nothing in the biological nature of women that prevents them from being able to vote intelligently, to do "men's work," to hold government office, to serve in the military, to head corporations, etc., etc. But in matters of reproduction, obviously there ARE significant biological differences. And there are a few other areas, too. We generally segregate sports competition, please note.

It's not that there are no biological differences between the sexes, but rather that many inequities existed in society that were in no way justified by those differences.

I want to ask you a personal question here, and I will preface it with an answer as if the question were directed to me. I am paying child support for two children.

Are you paying child support? Is this personal, or is it just theory?

I am astonished at the idea that men 'should' have the right to demand a woman abort her child OR ELSE she forgoes all support of it. Thats disgraceful.. and called emotional blackmail. Actually it's blackmail fullstop and is probably the cause of most abortions. If a man has a problem with what his sperm creates.. he should make sure it avoids all contact with fertile eggs. Got a problem with that? Get a vacectomy.

IAF101 said:

While a mother has the right to do what she wishes with the mans sperm, ie abort or have a baby the man has no such say in the matter. If you are going to argue that once the man gives his Dna to the woman it is no longer his choice then I would argue that if it ceases to belong to him and he has no control over it then he should have no responsibility over it as well.

The sperm belongs to the man, there is no doubt about that. However, he does control where he sperm ends up. He decides whether or not to use a condom. If he chooses not to use a condom, or elects the "strategic withdrawl" method, then shame on him.

The safe sex arguement runs both ways. If he chooses to have unsafe sex, then the burden falls on him to help support any child he may have sired. As I've stated previously, condoms may break and the medications may interfer with the pill. Regardless of any contraceptive cautions that may be taken, there is always a possibility of pregnancy.

If a man has sex, and a child is conceived, he has a financial and ethical responsibility to support that child. Pregnancy is an inherent risk that is assumed when a person chooses to have sex. One cannot acertain the right to sex without assuming the risks and responsibilities that go along with it.

End point: There is no such thing as, "all of the fun, and none of the responsibility."

When I heard this in the news I though that it was a great idea, it may actually open the eyes of women that are after men just to get a monthly child support pay check after getting themselves pregnant.

Yes ladies, I agree with it.

Why/ because I always tell my daughter that she holds the power, a women is the one that can give birth, bring life to this world and make choices.

If a women keep their legs cross she will have not problem with pregnancy.

Is actually the women responsibility to protect herself not to expect her partner to do it for her, she is the one that is the receiver.

Having intercourse without protection is like gambling with life in our society now a days.

The same way I feel that abortion is a women choice and that a man has not said so if she decided to terminate her pregnancy I also feel that a man should not be responsible for a women that decides to bring her child to this world.

Is a price to be pay for liberties Ladies and that will teach many what responsibilities are all about.

You have to give away something in order to get what you want.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
When I heard this in the news I though that it was a great idea, it may actually open the eyes of women that are after men just to get a monthly child support pay check after getting themselves pregnant.

Since there are no such women, I don't see how their eyes can be opened. Or, well, I guess if you look at it another way, this will open 100% of the eyes of such women, zero being 100% of zero.

Really, any woman who thinks she will be better off financially with both the burden of a child and a monthly child support check, than without both, is too stupid to live.

If a women keep their legs cross she will have not problem with pregnancy.

Is actually the women responsibility to protect herself not to expect her partner to do it for her, she is the one that is the receiver.

You can look at it that way, and certainly a woman should have the primary responsibility for staying un-pregnant if that's what she wants. However, we must craft all such laws with a view to taking care of children's needs FIRST, and fairness between the parties SECOND, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Since there are no such women, I don't see how their eyes can be opened. Or, well, I guess if you look at it another way, this will open 100% of the eyes of such women, zero being 100% of zero.

Is about responsibilities and more often than not unwanted pregnancies are the results of sex without protections.

This is not including rape. So my look at it anyway you want but sex without protection unless one of the partners is barren will lead to the possibility of unwanted pregnancy if any of the partners are not planning on it.

Really, any woman who thinks she will be better off financially with both the burden of a child and a monthly child support check, than without both, is too stupid to live.

You said that not me, I live in an area where children are born by women that has not responsibility as who father the children as long as they get their money to raised them.

While they complain about their child support check they are already cooking another bun in the oven, that is not responsibility at all.

If a women keep their legs cross she will have not problem with pregnancy.

I said that because:

Unless rape is the one that get the woman pregnant she is the receiver and the one that will carry the pregnancy so she is the one that needs to take care that if she is going to engage in casual sex she should be prepared.

The town I live in is riddle with HIV, if you have sex without protection now a days for pleasure you are gambling with your life.

So telling our young that sex without protection can kill you also should be a resposible thing to coming from a parent, single parent or whomever now a days raise children that are brought into this world.

However, we must craft all such laws with a view to taking care of children's needs FIRST, and fairness between the parties SECOND, not the other way around.

No, that is not responsibility, if you don't want a pregnancy you should protect yourself.

The child comes after sex unless a woman prefer artificialy means so if you protect yourself a child needs will not be necessary because pregnancy will not happen.

Responsibilities Ladies.

If we want to enjoy freedom and have sex with not ties then is our responsibility as women to protect ourselves not expect a man to do it for us.

Unless we want a child with the man that we are engaging sex with, but do we ask them first?

Responsibilities.

It sounds cruel but men has always been attack about unwanted pregnacies is about time women take also responsibilities.

Marg:

I understand what you are trying to say about responsibility and the lack of it. But what I'm getting at here, is that punishing the children for that lack of responsibility is wrong. However irresponsible the mother is being, her child is innocent. What you are suggesting is that we condemn a child to a life of poverty because you disapprove of the mother's lifestyle.

That's just wrong. And it's equally wrong to condemn the child to poverty because the father had no intention of becoming a father. Lots of thing happen in life that we had no intention of happening. We still have to deal with them. Whether he intended to father a child or not, he DID. The child is HERE. It has to be taken care of and provided for.

That should be our FIRST consideration and priority. Everything else should take a back seat. And that includes correcting irresponsible behavior on the part of mothers OR fathers.

The problem is that most of the woman that are engaging on unprotected sex, are doing it with men that can not support their children anyway.

Their children are brought into a live of poverty anyway and the mother if she is under age is bound to a life of poverty herself.

Because the trend of daughters from mothers that are single mothers and got pregnant while under age seems to point to the same trend for their daughters.

Sad but truth.

The point is that to avoid fighting for a child support from a man that have nothing to help support a child a woman should make sure that the child never happen.

So protection if abortion is not wanted should be the solution.

But we have to many religious right dictating what poor women in our country should do with their lives.

While they promote abstinence women still will engage in sex and become pregnant because most poor women in our country depend on religious base organizations for medications and is becoming very hard to obtain birth control now a days from this organizations base on religious views.

So they are against abortions but when the woman given birth they turn their backs and the compassion is replaced with scorn.

Funny but that is what is going on with the poor in America.

Unless a woman get pregnant by a man with means that I doubt that a man with money will allowed to be taken for his money, the only children that are been born in majority are children that will be brought up into poverty.

I live in the south that is what I see everyday, when I was a teacher working with grade school the amount of children in poverty was overwhelming, even for religious groups to handle with donations and no fathers anywhere in side and sometimes just elderly grandmothers taking care of the child or children because mothers are to busy procreating.

That is life.







[edit on 17-3-2006 by marg6043]

the women has the right to decide weather or not a child, once concieved is born because it is her body that is being used as a host to it! you can not force her to get medical treatment she doesn't agree with (unless of course you can convince a court she's too mentally unstable to decide for herself) anymore than someone can force you to accept a medical proceedure you don't think is appropriate for you!

as far as supporting the child once it is born. it takes two people to have a child, it takes raise it. there are the financial aspects of it, then there is the care and nurturing aspects of it. If you want my opinion, both parents are exually responsible for both parts of raising the child. so what do we have in america today, oh, ya, the man has to write a check every month to pay his share of the financial support. the mother, well, she has not only the responsiblility of coming up with the rest of the financial support, but she also has the equivalent of a full time job, if not more, in the care and nurturing part of it.
so, just who is getting shortchanged here?

my advice to both men and women, married or unmarried, is that unless you are absolutely sure that both you or your partner are ready to have children, that you will indeed remain on civil terms for the next 18 years or so, and that you both want to make the nurturing and the economic commitment necessary to raise that kid, you both use a form of birth control, or few methods...just to be safe, or well, you could opt for the 100% effective method and be 100% positive and just take the abstinence only approach our national leader has selected to promote!

but the idea that well, I wanted her to get an abortion and she chose not to, so I shouldn't have to pay is insane!! well, I wanted him to get himself sterilize, he didn't chose to do that, now the kid is his!! seems like this would also work then, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem is that most of the woman that are engaging on unprotected sex, are doing it with men that can not support their children anyway.

"Most" of them? I seriously doubt that. Can you provide some documentation of this claim?

Those cases where the father is unable to provide support don't have anything to do with this discussion anyway. It's clear as can be that the men agitating about this are perfectly capable of supporting their children, they're just greedy and want to hang onto their money, not give it to some woman that they lusted after once upon a time but no longer like very much.

But we have to many religious right dictating what poor women in our country should do with their lives.

While they promote abstinence women still will engage in sex and become pregnant because most poor women in our country depend on religious base organizations for medications and is becoming very hard to obtain birth control now a days from this organizations base on religious views.

So they are against abortions but when the woman given birth they turn their backs and the compassion is replaced with scorn.

I understand what you're saying, and I have only one problem with it.

Aren't you, yourself, turning your back and replacing compassion with scorn?

I live in the south that is what I see everyday

There are communities where you see all kinds of things every day. That doesn't mean they're the way most people in this country live. A stain on the wall looks God-awful big when your eyes are an inch away from it. But you need to stand back a ways, look at the whole wall, and put it in perspective, to get a good idea of how big it actually is.

Marg, set aside for a moment the people you see from day to day. Recognize that they're not the ones this discussion is about. Recognize that there are plenty of men in this country, the majority of them in fact, who aren't in desperate poverty, and for whom child support wouldn't be an impossible burden, but merely an obligation requiring a few sacrifices.

Do you really think those men ought to be let out of their obligations, merely because you have a low opinion of some poor women under the thumb of the religious right?

I'm seriously confused as to what those two things have to do with each other, frankly.

Just going to say this, if you can not deal with the heat don't get close to the fire.

Our country is to full of political correctness and everybody wants to get into others lives.

I feel not pity for women that are not capable of supporting themselves and yet they still keep procreating with whomever comes next.

The is called irresponsibility.

Like dawnstar said if a women become pregnant and she choses not to have an abortion after the partner said that he wants not part on the child lives.

We women have choices the man have none when it comes to give birth and become pregnat.


Does the man has to be force to pay child support still?

This a sword with two edges and so far in most cases at the end nobody wants the child onces is born.

Poverty in American,

Children in single-parent families are particularly likely to be poor: of children under age 6 living with a single mother, 48.6 percent were in poverty, compared to 9.7 percent of children of the same age in married-couple families.

mchb.hrsa.gov...

Poverty among women is a problem in American the number of single mothers ahs been increasing since the last 30 years.

Women are affected by many issues, divorce, separation has been in the highest in many areas where the poor live in America, single mothers has to deal with pregnancies by men that will not stay around to help support the children. The rates of domestic violence have also increased making our families become single parents

www.ivillage.co.uk...

From 1994, Single mothers by race.

Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2004, 28.4 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 13.5 percent of households headed by single men and 5.5 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty. In 2004, both black and Hispanic female-headed households had poverty rates just under 40 percent.

Overall of children living in poverty

Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the United States; they are 25 percent of the total population, but 35 percent of the poor population. In 2004, 13 million children, or 17.8 percent, were poor. The poverty rate for children also varies substantially by race and Hispanic origin, as shown in the table below[4].

www.npc.umich.edu...

I live in the south so it has not change much.

Marg:

From one of your sources --

In 2004, 28.4 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 13.5 percent of households headed by single men and 5.5 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty. In 2004, both black and Hispanic female-headed households had poverty rates just under 40 percent.

This backs up what I was saying before. The majority of single women heads of households, 86.5% of them to be exact, just over 60% of black and Hispanic female heads of households, do NOT live in poverty as that is currently defined. So -- no, "most" women do NOT do this.

I understand why you feel the way you do about those minority of women who DO irresponsibly bear children into poverty. However, that really has no bearing on the subject under discussion. The men who formed the National Center for Men and are campaigning for "men's reproductive rights," i.e. the right not to pay child support, do not live in poverty, you can be sure. Nor is it likely that many of them have fathered children with women who live in poverty. So they are not the people you are talking about, nor are the women who have borne them children. And so your feelings are displaced and applied to the wrong targets.

" feel not pity for women that are not capable of supporting themselves and yet they still keep procreating with whomever comes next. "

---------------------------------------------------------

marge, most women could support themselves. it's just when you add a kid or two, then well, they can't. but they shouldn't feel bad, not in this day and age, since well, there's many men who couldn't either, not if they are required to re place that "care and nuturing" that the mother usually is responsible to give.....how much is day care now per childl, for an 8 hour shift?

what my solution would be, to make it fair, would be that each parent would be held responsible for 50% or the cost to provide housing, shelter, health insurance, food, heat, ect. ect....and then each of them would also be responsible for 50% of the suprvisory duties of the kids, either by taking charge of these kids for 50% of the time, or by paying the childcare for that 50% of the time.....or at least the childcare for the amount of time that the mother is out there in the world working to come up with her 50% of the financial requirements.

any man out there who can sit down with paper, figure it all out and say's that ya, he's paying more than that, well, ya he might have reason to gripe!
the idea that well, she didn't abort the child, so I shouldn't have to pay, isn't right by no means. that child is his! all he will be doing if he succeeds will be passing off his share of the total support off to the government, and well, what will that do? oh ya, inflate the budget even more...