Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I think we see this similarly. Understand that I am not advocating the abandonment of children. I am, however, advocating the equal rights of your own reproductive system. As long as Roe v Wade gives women the right to opt out of parenthood, it should be extended to men as well.

Otherwise, NEITHER men nor women should engage in reproductive activities if they cannot the consequences of failed contraceptives.

I agree, but that won't happen.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


thus Roe v Wade should be overturned.

Agreed?

and by the way, what is wrong with the rich spending on themselves? Who should they spend on instead?

reply to post by ButterCookie


tHE RICH, everything, you make crazy amounts of money you are the reason America is dying as a nation, you make more than is ever needed you should work with the same country you got rich in, the same country you used the population to get rich with, to help that same population of people.

at the sametime, be a responsible human, I shouldn't have to tell someone with 20 apples to give the other 5 people on the island an apple, before we beat that guy up and take all his apples an possible kill an eat him too for being ignorant.

Stop thinking just because one human got to the top of the mountain that they automatically don't have a obligation to help out their fellow mankind.

If that isn't how you or anyone else thinks, space is everywhere above us, get lost, if you cannot be a productive supporting member of humanity.

That mindset is why we aren't doing well now as a race of beings.

Maybe many have forgotten, but we all worked with one another before it was possible to figure out other ways around working with others. But that is how it was done, people helped out one another, the rich, the poor, it was human nature.

Now all I see if a bunch of selfish idiots, hording their money in a pile like a sad form of gullom.
Yes, you can has your precious, you can have it all by yourself, an you can die alone too.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


If you want rich people to invest in "feel good" projects, then you should also expect that there is a pay off in it for them. Not monetarily, either.

I love my wife. Why? Because it feels good to do so. I get a return on my investment, and it is worthwhile for me. Were it not worthwhile, I wouldn't do it.

Have you ever gone to low income areas? Maybe community centers, etc? Have you ever seen the way they are maintained? Perhaps in other areas it is different, but anywhere I have ever been you are talking about people who tend to destroy.

This isn't a condemnation of the poor, as I don't consider myself far removed from that (great job, low pay). It is an observation.

That observation has driven decisions made in my life as well, relating to your premise. I manage family rental properties for an aging mother (again, she isn't wealthy....those houses were set for demolition and she rebuilt as a retirement plan). When we give breaks on the rent, it is guaranteed that house will be damaged more greatly. This is why we advertise top dollar rental rates, and then allow the individual's references do their job and give us a clue as to what the risk really is. Then the actual rent price is negotiated.

Not all poor people are of that ilk. But it can be stated that more often than not, a poor person ended up poor due to their stability and decision making prowess (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I am not encouraging anyone, men or women, to opt out of parenthood.

The premise of this argument is that WHILE WOMEN ENJOY CONTROL OVER THEIR REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, ALLOW MEN THIS SAME RIGHT.

So the point is to share in the right of opting out, or overturn Roe v Wade.

They have that right they can go get themselves snipped whenever they choose. They don't want to be daddy, they dont have to be that simple.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


And what of women that opt out?

The point of this case was men should share the same rights as women when it comes to opting out of parenthood.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

And what of women that opt out?

The point of this case was men should share the same rights as women when it comes to opting out of parenthood.

We know the point, you are missing our points.

Us guys would be getting vasectomies en masse but then women would somehow relate that to domestic violence and do like this lady:

Woman claims husband's sperm is her property

A British woman is campaigning for the legal right to veto her husband's choice to donate sperm, it has emerged. The unidentified complainant says her partner volunteered samples of his semen to a registered clinic after becoming stressed by the birth of their child, reported MailOnline. Disgruntled, the mother-of-one from Surrey has contacted the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority, arguing that women across the UK should be able to deny their spouse's free will on the matter - because sperm is a 'marital asset'.

As long as men keep opting out of the indentured servitude that is called marriage we should see things start tending back in our favor. Unless you want sperm to be a marital asset along with the car, house, kids, and dog.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

And what of women that opt out?

The point of this case was men should share the same rights as women when it comes to opting out of parenthood.

They do if they dont want children they have means available to ensure they do not have them. I am sorry this issue is a joke and a bad one at that. The fact is Science currently gives women a few more options. Eventually Science may give men a few more options, until then they can only choose from what is currently available. But trying to twist things into this twisted idea of unfairness is wrong, it isn't unfair. And trying to say it is to force anyone into your view of morality is actually kind of sicking. Men have the same rights as women just not as many options.

This needs to be an option for men, hands down. The broken condom happens far too often, and isn't completely foolproof.
Let's say in an alternative universe, my tubes are not snipped, and I am not married (opposites of both apply in reality to me) Let's also say I'm in a relationship with someone who doesn't want kids. My alternate self is ok with that, for whatever reasons. Maybe I don't care for kids, or don't think the relationship is for the long haul. Whatever. Let's also say that I'm on BCP, and he's donning a love glove, and that the glove breaks, and the BCP fails. We wouldn't be the first, nor last, couple to get the crap end of that stick. Maybe I have a change of heart & decide I want to keep the genetic soup a-cooking, but the partner does not. Who loses out on their rights here? Not me, no sirree, I get to keep that growing life if I so choose. My partner who does not want kids, and did try to prevent such a thing didn't have a legal right to walk from that. In a FAIR system considering such a situation, he should be allowed to go on his merry way, people. I'm a women and even I see how unfair & backwards not having an option for males is. Would someone abuse the loophole? Most likely, everyone abuses a system at some point if they can. But that's no excuse to say "Sorry brah, should have tried harder to keep yer swimmers."

reply to post by Nyiah


Thank you.

I am a woman also and have supported this idea since I first heard about it.

Women who oppose this either have their personal emotions wrapped up in it too far to think critically or they actually enjoy the fact that men do not share this Right.

Well this guy has just annonced to the whole planet that he is a weak,spineless,moneygreedy asshat who wants to play-but is too weak of character and avaricious to pay for his play.He had the choice to have himself sterilised if he is too selfcentred to financially at least,care for the children he might conceive-or he could've found a girlfriend who made it clear she would rather not have children-or kept his dick in his pants-or gone to a prostitute for sex,they usually make pretty damn sure to use contraceptives.

But like Roe vs Wade-selfishness,lack of personal responsibility,lack of respect for life and your own flesh and blood-the exact reasons America and the rest of the world is the way it is-THIS is what is wrong with the world,right down at the core-the attitude of ME ME ME-and screw everyone else.And according to piss-poor excuses for men,like this guy-never spend a cent never mind if you conceive a dozen children while you are doing the screwing-and screwing over.

reply to post by Raxoxane


Sterilization for a man means he probably can't have kids again, ever. The only other option for him is a condom and those things can definitely break. Hence the reason why women have vastly more and better options to avoid/terminate pregnancy.

In the event of an unintended pregnancy the woman has all the rights, all the control, and all the legal backing. In the event of unintended pregnancy the man currently has zero rights, I mean ZERO like 0 like none, like go kick rocks loser cause you are screwed.

Not only that but a woman can easily make that unintended part become intended. I can describe like 10 different scenarios off the top of my head where a woman can claim she doesn't want to get pregnant, and promise him all day she won't have a baby and if something unintended happens she will take care of it, only to find out a year later you will be paying up to 3/4 of your earnings towards child support or be thrown in jail with the quickness.

the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that – because of a physical condition – she could not get pregnant.

That is all it takes. Or she could have stopped taking BC or used the semen from a recently used condom to inseminate herself, or the semen from oral sex, or try to claim any sperm he may have donated to a sperm bank, etc...

It isn't about being weak of character or irresponsible, it is about men being taken advantage of when an unplanned pregnancy happens. The fact is women now have all the biological means, legal rights, and community support when it comes to children, not to mention having no social responsibilities for that child if she so chooses, which a man currently can not.

reply to post by djr33222


I totally agree. This is the point that I think many (especially women) on here are not getting past.

Roe v Wade is sexist and unfair unless men also gain the right to opt out of parenthood.

Men physically do not carry babies, so their opt out after an unintended pregnancy is a documented and signed one, whereas a woman must commit murder to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy.

I was looking into why there is no male contraceptive pill and I came across these videos

they are about how things are in the UK and try to make the case that the way things are in regard to male fertility might be a deliberate (or a happy accident) situation being used create a society dependant on big government

reply to post by ButterCookie


Great points. I totally agree.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by Raxoxane

 

Sterilization for a man means he probably can't have kids again, ever. The only other option for him is a condom and those things can definitely break. Hence the reason why women have vastly more and better options to avoid/terminate pregnancy.

In the event of an unintended pregnancy the woman has all the rights, all the control, and all the legal backing. In the event of unintended pregnancy the man currently has zero rights, I mean ZERO like 0 like none, like go kick rocks loser cause you are screwed.

Not only that but a woman can easily make that unintended part become intended. I can describe like 10 different scenarios off the top of my head where a woman can claim she doesn't want to get pregnant, and promise him all day she won't have a baby and if something unintended happens she will take care of it, only to find out a year later you will be paying up to 3/4 of your earnings towards child support or be thrown in jail with the quickness.

the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that – because of a physical condition – she could not get pregnant.

That is all it takes. Or she could have stopped taking BC or used the semen from a recently used condom to inseminate herself, or the semen from oral sex, or try to claim any sperm he may have donated to a sperm bank, etc...

It isn't about being weak of character or irresponsible, it is about men being taken advantage of when an unplanned pregnancy happens. The fact is women now have all the biological means, legal rights, and community support when it comes to children, not to mention having no social responsibilities for that child if she so chooses, which a man currently can not.

edit on 8-8-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

If a man has decided that he never wants children in his lifetime, then he should get himself sterlized. It's as simple as that.

Also, for men, the times are a changing for the better in your options to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The question is will men still play then have to pay, or take the responsibility upon themselves?

In terms of effectiveness, the male pill seems to be the best. In clinical trials, all of the participants' sperm counts dropped to zero, which means that the male pill would be more effective than the condom and even the female pill ...

ca.askmen.com...

"A promising new birth control method for men that's more easily reversible than vasectomy has been developed in India. Called RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance or Vasalgel in the U.S) the method is claimed to be 100 percent effective in trials, doesn't contain controversial hormone therapy and it lasts a minimum of 10 years."

www.gizmag.com...

Your time has come to take control.

reply to post by InTheLight


That new pill is not promising.

The participants have tiny rods implanted under the skin of their arm that deliver a form of progestogen (commonly found in the female birth control pill) to block sperm production.

Ok, a tiny implant is not that bad but how about its side effects...

In order to maintain their sex drive and their "male characteristics," the men receive testosterone replacement therapy injections every four to six weeks

Read: In order for men to even get an erection after taking this pill it is imperative that we inject them with "manhood" every month. Two weeks after his last injection he may periodically feel like sobbing for no reason.

Yeah, sounds very promising.

reply to post by joechip


As a gun owning, porn watching male, I disagree with these idiots. It takes two to tango. Don't want a kid? Don't have sex. At the very least, take precautions. That goes for both men and women. The state the world is in today, the sheer idiocy is mind numbing.