Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

reply to post by joechip


There is no capacity to argue with a person who poses a question in regards to how to avoid being a man and doesn't like the answer he gets. Which is you simply can't get what your asking for no government can give it, no way it is possible it's not your body.

Far from a redneck i'm actually from NYC originally,but it just demonstrates the kinds of stereotypes you carry

In it's own right this thread is as vile as the anti Gay or racist ones imho and you weren't a total noob you'd be accepting this as an ANSWER to your question which my responses do effectively do.

You DO NOT get to control any ones body, your never going to get a say Ever, there is nothing the Govt can do, there is nothing you can do about it, it's the way it is.

I'm sorry.... it's evolutionary tough luck

don't shoot the messenger

Your asking if men should have legal rights in regards to what a woman does After the screw her, or the right to abandon a child of their own blood...

The answer is simple

it's NO

And please,

Don't paint me as talking about knives and things... I imply nothing personal, just telling you HOW IT IS... again don't shoot the messenger, this is what Used to happen to you when you knocked a woman up and failed to be responsible, get the real picture, you have it easier today than anytime in history

And frankly the basic concept does show a complete lack of morality and human emotion imho

Your legal right to...walk away from producing children, i mean have you really given thought to what your saying?

When we are discussing a woman's right to choose, we are talking about an actual right to choose whether or not to be a parent (at least in the Supreme Court's interpretation.) Just for fun's sake, can anyone cite a right (an actual right, either expressly guaranteed in the Constitution or interpreted as a right by the Supreme Court) that pertains to one gender and denied the other? I should have started this entire thread with this question. This is the main point, for me at least, of this issue. I personally have very little interest in discussions about how "men should step up, and accept their obligations..." Zero interest in having to reaffirm endlessly my support for a woman's right to an abortion. I am somewhat interested in discussing the evolution of sex-roles, but not so much in this thread, as the waters are already muddy enough. But I am very interested in the Constitutional justification for protection of "privacy" in the case of one gender and the blatant invasion of privacy in the other. I sincerely think that there is a serious legal flaw in the basis of a "woman's right to choose" since it is based on privacy guarantees that apply to all citizens. I wonder does anyone have other examples of sex-based rights?

I know the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote, but it actually affirmed that all citizens could vote regardless of gender:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on Account of sex.
The Congress shall have the power by appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article."
So I don't think that counts. If they had left out the words "to vote" I think we'd have an equal rights amendment right there! But I think the spirit of the rights of citizens being equally protected is evidenced throughout our history. And to reiterate, if a right is interpreted to rest upon a part of the Constitution that applies to all citizens, would that right not automatically also apply to all citizens?

Thanks.

edit to add the text of the 19th amendment

[edit on 16-9-2009 by joechip]

reply to post by king9072
IMO and the experience my son, my husband and I have gone through:

The woman not only gets to take half of the wealth but in 80% of divorces she gets the children.

That statement may not mean much to you now. Wait until you hold your first child and look into their eyes and feel with every fiber of your being the deep love and connection this little person will create within you.

Joint custody is a joke. That means usually that you will be allowed to see your baby, your flesh and blood only 48 hours each month on average. You will have little or no influence in their day to day life. Next to nothing of an influence in their day to day thought process.

Men for the most part have no-nil-nada rights in America when it comes to custody and "visitation".

The child/children are considered the property of the "mother".

If you are divoring a real vendictive witch that loves to dish out pain and screw with you and your child/children's heads, good luck you are going to need it.

Be very careful who you give your heart and half your genes too.

Seriously for all you young men out there.

I am the "paternal" grandmother and I haven't seen my grand daughter since Christmas.

My son has been stalked, his personal life messed with and only really gets to see his daughter when his ex-wife decides it is convenient, even against court orders.

Get this, if the woman disobeys court rulings, that is okay. But, YOU as a male better tow that line to the letter or else you will find yourself in jail.

The courts don't care. They won't interview the child/children until they are 12 and by then the damage is done.

The courts our laws are in favor of the women and most women know how to "play the system".

My son's exwife is playing the "Lets alient the baby from the father" game.

I know when you're young, your hormones are raging, but please if I can just save one young man out there.

Learn to think with the head on your shoulders.

Qualities you MUST look for in a mate:

1) Loyality
2) Ability to compromise
3) Kindness, not a vendictive person. Watch how she treats her "enemies".
4) A good decent, human being with ethics and morals on how to treat people.
5) A hard worker, not a spoiled princess.

Looks are so unimportant, looks can be changed - a witchy personality can't.

My grand daughter, the only grandchild I will have cries everytime she has to "go back to mom". She is eight and has begged my son to take her away some place, anyplace.

She bonded with her father during her first year while her mother was in her karaoking at bars stage. My son / us, helped put her through school as well.

My son was the one who changed his daughter's diapers, fed her and held her during her first year, every night after putting in a full workday. He is a good father, stearn but loving. She adores her "Papa" and gets all bent out of shape when she has to go back to her mother. I don't know why, she won't tell us but she trembles, clings to my son and cries each time she has to get ready on Sunday night to go back to mom. That alone sends warning bells, but hey the courts don't care.

One last word of warning. Before you get married, before you get a woman pregnant - make damn sure you have a really good lawyer and NOT IN ILLINOIS, our laws in Illinois are very pro the mother and discriminate against the father.

If you're in Illinois do not use Jeffery M Levine as a Lawyer. He sucked $14,000 from us and my son has crummy custody rights.

Be very careful, having children and marriage are legally binding contracts and if you are a male, you can really get screwed over both financially and physiologically.

My son hands over about 40% of his paycheck to his exwife. When he was let go from his Payroll Job, his exwife wouldn't let him see his daughter until he got another job and she keeps a tab of how much he owes her.

She would have gotten the townhouse but my husband and I were able to prove going to court with our check statements that we paid for their townhouse. She came real close to getting a piece of property I worked and paid for.

A bad marriage affects the whole family, not just the couple but the parents and other siblings as well.

My second son has "sworn off women" after seeing what my first son was put through legally.

And yes men should have equal rights to their child/children. So should the grand parents, family is family.

But, the family is being systematically destroyed by TPTB.

In order to conquer a people you must break down the family unit and the cultural and religious units.

United we stand - divided we fall.

The question everyone should be asking is who is really running the show?

And I don't mean the little puppet people (politicians, Senate, Congress, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governments, etc) Who is really at the very top echelon calling the shots?

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.Sun Tzu Art of War

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. Sun Tzu Art of War

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ofhumandescent]

This thread is completely ridiculous.

Yes, there are unfair settlements and divorce courts, but I personally have seen them fall for the man as often as for the women. It is a crapshoot, and it should be a system we reform, but it is not as biased as you claim.

Regarding custody, there IS a bias against men, and a man who fights for his children should have every right the mother does.

Regarding the idea that a man should be able to choose not to be a father, well, we have that already. It is called not being a moron and using a rubber or just controlling your impulses in the first place. You were 50% of the cause for that baby's existence, and you had better man up and take care of it. If I could have my way, any father not able to provide his child support would receive a vasectomy and be sold into indentured servitude until the child is 18 years old. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Originally posted by Grumble
This thread is completely ridiculous.

If I could have my way, any father not able to provide his child support would receive a vasectomy and be sold into indentured servitude until the child is 18 years old. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

And you speak of ridiculousness? A crime was committed? Excuse me? We approve of "indentured servitude" for men and "parental choice" for women? Why don't you think before you write such nonsense? Perhaps you actually believe that men are to be held to a different standard than women, but can you actually argue that that can be legally justifiable? Doesn't equal protection apply? Are you too vapid and simple to get the basic principle, here? Why don't you just keep your inflammatory remarks to your ignorant self? That would be nice.

edit for punctuation

[edit on 8-3-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by joechip]

reply to post by Grumble


I disagree. You are short sighted and have had limited experience in this matter.

When my sons were growing up I told them and my oldest son said it meant a lot to him, "If you make a baby that baby deserves to be held, cherished and told, I love you and wanted you so much, I am happy you exist and you are mine forever".

I never had a father that put me on his lap and called me, "my little princess, my sweet and precious child". My father, while a good man, was married to someone else back in the early 50's and I was the product of a "love affair", a "bastard'.

I told my sons, History does not have to repeat itself, not if you learn from past mistakes.

Every child, every single child deserves to be loved and cherished, and told many times they were wanted and are loved by BOTH parents.

The reason, I believe we have so many tortured souls is that lack of love, that lack of being cherished.

I also told my son, if you make a baby that baby deserves a mother and a father and you better be prepared to give your very life, your very existence up for that child.

Our children are so very precious, they are our legacy. They all deserve nothing less than the best.

No child should feel unwanted, a "mistake" uncherished.

Our "laws" are run for "profit" not humanitarian reasons.

It's all currently a big machine and each of us is an expendable cog, including our children. Nothing more than slaves. Who is the master, the real master?

Why are we as a species being divided and pit against each other.

Particularly in the realm of male / female relationships?

The bond between a man and woman and a parent with child (the family) is the strongest bond and I maintain these very bonds are being messed with.

But by whom?

Who are the real PTB?

We are being made into single unitities.

The union between man and woman and parent and child are sytematically being destroyed.

This in and of itself is a major conspiracy that most people chose to ignore.

We are being over worked, kept distracted and pressured to relinquish our most important strength, unity.

Love is the answer, everything else is an illusion.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by ofhumandescent]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by ofhumandescent]

Originally posted by ofhumandescent


Every child, every single child deserves to be loved and cherished, and told many times they were wanted and are loved by BOTH parents.

This is a very nice sentiment. Also quite beside the point. Do you, by chance, support "a woman's right to choose?" I shouldn't simply assume you do, but most likely, you at least support a woman's right to give her child up for adoption. (I'm not saying you would LIKE this outcome, clearly not, but support the basic RIGHT is a different question)

Would you argue that the above quotation concerning what a child 'deserves' supercedes (and should take precedent legally) over a parents' (mother's in the current system) right to choose otherwise? And should we force people to parent? And should a man be held to a choice made by a woman. These are the actual questions here. I'd be interested in your take on them.

Originally posted by joechip

Originally posted by Grumble
This thread is completely ridiculous.

If I could have my way, any father not able to provide his child support would receive a vasectomy and be sold into indentured servitude until the child is 18 years old. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

... Excuse me? We approve of "indentured servitude" for men and "parental choice" for women? ...

Women are indentured servants to the child, by nature. And, since you mention it, they should be held to a higher standard of motherhood than they currently are, but that is for another thread.

This entire thread is based on a pathetic level of selfishness. You, sir, are the reason our laws must be as tough on men as they are. For every man who is wronged by our system, a judge sees fifty worthless losers who just want their pussy with no consequences, or worse yet, see nobility in the act of spreading their seed but are too shiftless to support the children.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Grumble]

Okay OP, I think a lot of the problem with the thread was you tried to explain it according to the law and a lot of people did not even bother to try and understand what you were positing. Therefore, I am going to try and explain it, in super layman terms.

First off, this has nothing to do with divorce, contraception, morals or any of the other off topic posts people.

Here it is in a nutshell.

By the decision of the courts, a woman has the right to give up their child with no responsibility. She can do this until the child is one month old. She can give the child up for adoption with no responsibility whatsoever.

Now, the father of a child, has no choice in the matter of being responsible for a child if the mother decides to keep it. The father HAS to provide support.

THAT IS IT!

Now, the question is, do you find this fair first off?

Second, by what you know of law, do you think this is fair under the law?


That is it, do not bring up anything else in your arguments or debate.

I find your off topic crap to be stupid and insulting.



OP, I feel you are absolutely right. Under the law, this should not exist. If anyone put this to the courts and the courts found against them, than the courts are not following the law whatsoever. There is no distinction between male and female in the Constitution or any precendence or anything I can remotely imagine to not find your position to be exactly correct.

I will not even go anywhere near what I believe about the moral issues. That is not what you asked and I will not go there.

Thanks for an awesome OP. This can be used to destroy Roe v Wade. Completely.

Equal under the law!

Originally posted by joechip
Would you argue that the above quotation concerning what a child 'deserves' supercedes (and should take precedent legally) over a parents' (mother's in the current system) right to choose otherwise?

This is such a sticky territory. At the heart of the matter is wither or not a woman should be allowed to make decisions regarding her body, or if it is acceptable that she be stripped of her right to autonomy. Ultimately it should be the woman who maintains control of her reproductive rights as it is her body.

And should we force people to parent? And should a man be held to a choice made by a woman.

No one is being "forced" into parenthood. The fact is that when two people engage in sex there is always the inherent risk of an unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't matter what kind of protection a couple chooses to implement, the only 100% protection against pregnancy is abstinence. A couple cannot engage in sex and not accept the possible consequences that may result.

That said, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur and the woman chooses to keep the child then the man should be held responsible for helping support a child he brought into the world.

No one is being "forced" into parenthood. The fact is that when two people engage in sex there is always the inherent risk of an unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't matter what kind of protection a couple chooses to implement, the only 100% protection against pregnancy is abstinence. A couple cannot engage in sex and not accept the possible consequences that may result.

That said, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur and the woman chooses to keep the child then the man should be held responsible for helping support a child he brought into the world.

you say "a couple" cannot engage in sex and not accept the possible consequences that may result. A "couple" is not a legal unit of any kind. Try this statement to clear it up a bit: A woman may engage in sex and not accept the possible consequences that may result. That is nothing more that a rewording of a "woman's right to choose"

Now this one: A man may not engage in sex and not accept the possible consequences that may result. A simple statement of the current system of paternity.

Think it through. You say that if an unwanted pregnancy occurs (like we can't expect women to be the gatekeepers of their own bodies--things just 'occur') AND the woman 'chooses' (KEY POINT) to keep the child then the man should be 'held responsible" for helping support a child HE brought into the world. Excuse me, but we're either killing beings (in the womb) or her CHOICE brought the child into the world, not his semen. You can't have it both ways. The pregnancy represents legally and actually a POTENTIAL life. Which is then chosen by HER. Or NOT. Her rights, her responsibilities. Or tell me why not.

I think I am going to stay out of this.

It seems to be so far off topic even the OP is getting me confused now.

I had it through most of the discussion but now even the OP is getting me confused with his last couple of comments.

So never mind this comment folks.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by endisnighe]

You, sir, are the reason our laws must be as tough on men as they are.

Me? Really? And how do you figure that? What do you know of me? I think this debate may be above your intellectual pay grade. No offense, but I don't think we can have productive discourse. Thanks anyway.

reply to post by endisnighe

sorry if i confused you. merely trying to point out some fuzzy logic on the part of the forum moderator. It gets stupid, I agree.

reply to post by joechip


What's with all the tap dancing?

If a man and a woman engage in sex that results in pregnancy then they are both equally responsible for supporting that child if a woman chooses to carry it to full-term.

The pregnancy represents legally and actually a POTENTIAL life. Which is then chosen by HER. Or NOT. Her rights, her responsibilities. Or tell me why not.

So by your logic, a man should be free to engage in sexual activity and not take any responsibility for a child he may sire.

Sounds like fuzzy logic to me.

A man does have a choice when it comes reproductive rights. He has the right to engage in sex and accept all the risks and responsibilities that go along with it. Or, he chooses not to engage in sex and not worry about fathering any unwanted children.

There's no such thing as all of the fun without any of the responsibility. It's as simple as that.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by maria_stardust]

reply to post by maria_stardust


Okay, what you said right here about how a man is responsible at conception.

Right, you understand that.

A woman can give up her responsibility until the child is one month old.


DO you see the difference between these two assertions?

There's no such thing as all of the fun without any of the responsibility. It's as simple as that.

Unless you happen to be a woman?
Beyond fuzzy logic I agree. We've entered the realm of throwing logic away completely. Can't you see where you interject a woman's choice in the statement both that both parties are equally responsible IF a woman chooses to keep the baby. God. How unequal its that. How can you not admit this basic inequality. HE has NO choice and she has ALL choice and we can't even admit that that's an inequality? Really? Don't bother. Moderator or not, your arguments aren't really arguments at all. Are off-topic in that they ignore the basic question posed, and are intellectually dishonest on their face. Dont' bother.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by joechip]

reply to post by endisnighe


Of course I see the difference. However, that shouldn't absolve the father of his parental responsibilities if a mother should choose to keep the child. That has no bearing whatsoever on a man's reproductive rights.

reply to post by joechip


My position as a moderator has no bearing upon my personal opinion on any given matter.

And as I have pointed out, a man does have a choice in whether or not he engages in sex that may or may not result in a pregnancy. Make no mistake, there is a choice. The problem seems to be in the hesitancy to accept the responsibilities that go along with engaging in sex.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

Birth Control is in YOUR hands when have sex in the form of a condom after that you have no choice it's no longer in your body.

By the same logic birth control is in the woman's hands as well. You can't have it both ways, as has been pointed out women actually have more ways of avoiding pregnancy then a man could ever hope for(nevermind parenthood).
Perhaps this should convey equal rights and responsibilities to both parties.

and NO you don't have a "choice" after you drop your load in someone, you gave the choice up by your own actions.

By this logic then should abortion not also be illegal? The female makes her choice by accepting seamen into her womb.

See a man can't lie about having his birth control, its easy to tell. Unlike say a pill or a shot.