Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

Interesting thread for many reasons.
The main one being that this is the elephant in the room that people choose to either ignore or prefer not to talk about or gets the feminazis panties in a twist.
Glad to see the OP is brave enough to "go there".

I see no reason why men shouldn't have the same options as women when it comes to parenthood.

If a woman falls pregnant to a man who isn't ready for fatherhood and they aren't married , then he should have the right to opt out, legally, of the whole process if he chooses.

He would have the same rights and responsibilities of say, a sperm donor.
NONE.

The woman would then have to make the decision based on whether she wants to raise the child herself with absolutely no chance of financial support from the father.

This after all, isn't the Victorian era.

Men shouldn't be forced into fatherhood against their wishes anymore than a woman should have to bear a mans child with no choice in the matter.

It's definately the last draconian inequity that should be addressed once and for all so the next generation of men know where they stand and can plan their lives like women can.

I might say at this point that I'm female and have no problem with men having a legal right NOT to become fathers if that is what they want.

I might also add that I think forced abortions isn't an option either.

Society had come to the point where we differentiate between those who make the baby and those who are fathers anyway.

It's really just a matter of putting it into legislation and allowing men the legal OPTION of terminating their rights at an early enough stage so a woman can then make an informed practical decision of whether to continue with pregnancy or not as a solo parent with no possibility of ever claiming child support.

It all sounds a little tough, but then it's a tough situation.
I think it's a darn sight more fair and equitable than the current way the legal system handles this.

And as for the children , well adoption, IVF and sperm donors, blended families, step parents etc are common place now.
I think society is ready to give men the freedom and right to choose too.

My 2 cents.

so you think that a mans opinion or wishes are not a factor that the woman should consider when making a decision about weather or not to have children?

I would not presume to tell a woman what factors to consider when making that decision. I don't think I said anything remotely like that. I simply said the first month of pregnancy was not ample time for a man to make that decision as the woman already has much longer to decide. Just looking for fairness in my laws.

If you don't have one, it is probably fair to say its irresponsible to assume your child has a father.

it is probably irresponsible to have sex, what's your point? protection of the child should not require a contract.

My point is that if a woman's decision is based ( or somewhat based) on the idea that her child may or may not have a committed father, she could probably take the clue that she is still unmarried and yet pregnant as a probable negative. I don't think that's too outlandish. And protection of the child is not the primary consideration here. It is instead the choice we are talking about. Nobody is discussing abrogating a woman's right to choose because the child would be better off with it's biological mother than aborted, adopted, or legally abandoned. So it's intellectually dishonest to throw "child protection" into a discussion of male choice.

I would think the whole system was a deliberate NWO plot to destroy the basic building block of society, the family.

the basic building block of society is the individual, "the family" requires mutual respect and love among individuals, not a particular arrangement of husband and wife with their biological children.

the idea of "family values" is an NWO plot to offset the idea of individual identity and responsibility to drive us toward collectivism and deferred responcibility.

An individual is not a social unit at all. The family is the smallest social unit (hence the foundation) of all larger social units, ie. communities, towns, cities, countries, etc. We teach our children, they grow and learn the world within the framework of the family. This is not a NWO plot, this the natural order of things. Our parents pass on the values they have learned and we develop as individuals, not in a vaccum, but in this "family". I'm not saying you can't have a "family" without marriage, and I won't bother to quote the statistics that show a correlation between fatherless "families" and greater rates of crime and other social problems, (This is not the thread for that) but suffice it to say, there is a well proven correlation between the breakdown of the traditional family and a host of social ills.

reply to post by Flighty

I think society is ready to give men the freedom and right to choose too.

I would love to agree with you on this point, (and I must say, I'm impressed with your post in general) but I don't. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me that there are several things working against this view. First, there is the fact that the child support system acts as an incentive (to women, to politicians) to perpetuate the current lack of male choice. Also, there is the unfortunate fact that those most hurt by the current system, and who would be the most likely voice for its reform are generally poor, busy struggling to pay their child support, or imprisoned for nonpayment. And lastly, and most insidiously, there has been a MSM number done on them. A labeling technique, started in the mid-ninties, that many have internalized. I'm talking of course about the dead-beat-dad label. While unready women are encouraged to embrace "choice" as a right, nothing to be ashamed of, even heroic...unready men are told a different narrative altogether. If you don't want children, aren't ready for them, even our current President is liable to berate you as immature, at the very least. I think this is the biggest problem with reform. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Hopefully you can wedge a small crack in my pessimistic view.


I forgot to mention, it is also remarkable how many people say "I never considered that before" when I discuss male choice. This seems to imply the topic is not just off the radar, it's off in outer space as far as society in general is concerned. That doesn't encourage me to think change is coming any time soon.

edit to add the last point.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by joechip]

Yeah... Great topic OP.... Spectacular.

The Discussion of "Male Rights" is NEVER on the radar.

This is the purpose of Feminism, to give women Rights, and to give men Responsibilities.

And this is all you ever hear about....

More rights for women.

More Responsibilities for Men.



When are we going to hear about more Responsibilities for Women, and more RIGHTS for men?


You know... Responsibility... the thing that makes Rights possible.


The truth of the matter?

The State makes money off of it.


Men make more money than women.

So, women are granted custody more often, and the state takes its cut of child support payments.


The woman can chose to kill the child, the man must be chained for life if the woman decides it.


This is not freedom... this is slavery.



"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you, and You sold me"
-George Orwell, 1984

-Edrick

reply to post by joechip


Mens Rights groups need exceptionally level headed young men as representatives who can use logic rather than emotion to highlight the plight of forced fatherhood and it's inequities.
The new generation of men should take up the cause to seek some protection and clarity for their future.

I personally wouldn't mind it being enshrined in law that if a woman continues with a pregnancy of a non censenting male, it could be viewed as an offence. It would send a huge wake up call to the next generation of women to take contraception a lot more seriously than they currently do IF they want to be in sexually active relationships or to rethink how they approach relationships in general.

And for every "dead beat dad" there is a "dead beat mom" who made some bad choices.

reply to post by Flighty

I personally wouldn't mind it being enshrined in law that if a woman continues with a pregnancy of a non censenting male, it could be viewed as an offence.

I think its best to guarantee everyone's rights and have the government interfere as little as possible in people's private decisions, so I'm going to have to come out against this new law. Even if I do appreciate the spirit of it. Imagine a future where such a situation would be viewed as "gene-theft". Quite a turnaround. But seriously, I'm for fewer laws, fewer punishments; fewer times we give the government the practice of policing us, when we have done nothing wrong. I also believe in reproductive choice. If a nice lady were lucky enough to get a hold of my DNA, more power to her and her beautiful children! (LOL) I just think I should be allowed the same choice as she has as far as MY role in the situation if indeed there were a further role. Not really very nice to steal my DNA and then extort money from me for 20 years. It's crazy how you can turn it around. But yeah, let's see how we feel about equal rights and then we have something to work from.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by joechip]

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
when I am old I will not be broke and alone, I will live past this and see, 6 children and hopefully if they listen 36 grand children

And I will have riches and rewards in life in great ways and extend myself past this evil time and into eternity.

There is no success in life without reproduction and continuation of what you are and what you think and feel into multiple generations.

No criticism intended, but you made me chuckle, you echo, almost verbatim, Mayer Rothschild's philosophy of the purpose reproduction and continuity of ideals. Obviously, you and Mayer have a different perception of what 'riches' are, but apart from that 'spooky'.

Originally posted by Flighty
I personally wouldn't mind it being enshrined in law that if a woman continues with a pregnancy of a non censenting male, it could be viewed as an offence. It would send a huge wake up call to the next generation of women to take contraception a lot more seriously than they currently do IF they want to be in sexually active relationships or to rethink how they approach relationships in general.

I don't think that it should be considered an offence, but I do agree that if a woman decides to have a child, that the man should not be financially responsible unless it was a mutual decision, but then I don't think anyone should have a child unless they are willing and able to support it. Just as many men are held financially responsible by women, the state is often seen to be responsible for even more by men and women.

Originally posted by Flighty
And for every "dead beat dad" there is a "dead beat mom" who made some bad choices.

Precisely. The sympathy is often given to the 'Mom's' because they are seen as bearing the responsibility, but not every Mother takes that responsibility seriously. However, I have met many men who are more 'maternal' than women, and many women who were better providers than men. There are no hard and fast rules, each situation is individual.

If either partner wants to ensure no pregnancy then they should both take responsibility for their own protection from that. She said she was on the pill doesn't cover it.

reply to post by joechip

I think its best to guarantee everyone's rights and have the government interfere as little as possible in people's private decisions, so I'm going to have to come out against this new law. Even if I do appreciate the spirit of it.

One thing I've learned with anything legal, is always shoot for more than you want and by the time it's whittled down, you'll get exactly what you were originally after. Which in this pretend scenario, would be a legal document a man could sign to opt out.

Yeah, it sounded a little scary to me too when I read it back....
But I can see the day slowly coming.....



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Flighty]

reply to post by joechip


You are preaching to the choir. I've often said that the system we have now is flawed. If it were me and I have to make the laws for my island kingdom I would state that you must be married first to procreate or adopt. Marriage would be defined as two individuals above the age of twenty-one. There would be sex education in the public schools that talks in plain terms and does not show the internal organs, but a penis and a vagina. They would all be tested afterwards with these questions:

[1) What happens if you put a penis in a vagina?

a) Nothing
b) Pregnancy

2) What happens if you have sex on your period?

a) Nothing
b) Pregnancy

3) What happens if he pulls out?

a) Nothing
b) Pregnancy

4) What happens if you do end up with semen in your vagina and you do not want to have a baby?

a) Do nothing and hope that you don't get pregnant.
b) Go immediately to the clinic for a free prescription of Plan B

5) What happens if you choose not to do this?

a) Nothing
b) You get pregnant

If you answered anything but "b" you've failed and must retake the class. If you realize that pregnancy can happen and is highly probable whenever a penis goes in a vagina then you have passed this course. If you choose to have sex prior to marriage please see the nurse for a shot and a box of condoms. Abstinence is the only sure fire method of birth control and disease prevention.

You are now officially warned, at this point going forward any pregnancy is now "planned" and "by choice". Please sign and initial that you understand this.

When I was in school we had a day of sex education but we weren't tested on anything. Ridiculous.

On my island doctors would instruct those wanting an abortion for any reason other than a medical necessity to bring both parties involved into the office whereupon they will be given the choice of flying to another country where they will perform them or begin to explain the adoption and/or the financial aid process.

If they have been forewarned and forearmed, and birth control has been provided they a) understand the cause and effect of their actions, and b) have been given an alternative to abstinence free of charge. It is now a "planned" event.

Of course, you can only do this if you have public health, and my island nation will have that. It will also treat individuals are reasonable logical adults who understand cause and effect and promote personal accountability.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
You are now officially warned, at this point going forward any pregnancy is now "planned" and "by choice". Please sign and initial that you understand this.

If they have been forewarned and forearmed, and birth control has been provided they a) understand the cause and effect of their actions, and b) have been given an alternative to abstinence free of charge. It is now a "planned" event.

What a brilliant, yet mind-blowingly simple, solution.

If more people were less squeamish about talking about it, we would be able to have much more fun doing it.

reply to post by shamhat


I have yet to understand what's the big deal. Why not treat it like any other subject in school. You spend semesters on any course except sex. You're tested with exams that are a large portion of your grade on any subject except sex.

Quite frankly, I think making kids sign and initial that they understand the ramifications and possibilities will a) be treating them like an adult who just made a major life decision like buying a home, b) ensure that they actually paid attention the first time, and c) if you then offer them various forms of free birth control society benefits and they are now grown-ups who can't blame ignorance and lack of choice for their poor decisions.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Differing moral structures don't help. Often the choice to have sex is seen as a moral choice rather than as a functional, pleasurable or more simply, as a human action. So much ignorance is wrapped up in guilt and repression of natural sensuality, takes all the fun out of it. The more you know, the less fearful you are of the 'consequences', be they pregnacy, STDs or judgement, the better it is on every level. And, less of a burden financially on everyone concerned. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. Every single time.

reply to post by shamhat



First, you are engaging in an at of sexual reproduction that just happens to feel good. Its evolutionary purpose wasn't for pleasure. So when people say that they didn't "choose" to become pregnant it reminds me of the drunk driver's excuse that they didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Well, are you a liar or stupid? It is a direct consequence of your action. Had you not been driving no one would have been killed. You weren't drunk when you chose to drive to the bar or party, so in your sober mind you were coherent enough to make that choice. You knew what negative possibilities could ensue if you decided to drink and your sober self made the decision.

The drunk driver is responsible for his actions and the poor choice he made.

People know that heterosexual vaginal intercourse makes babies. They know that birth control is not foolproof. They know that unprotected sex can also lead to disease. Those that don't should remove themselves from the genepool through sterilization for being a willfully uninformed idiot.

The two involved in sexual reproduction make that choice prior to having sex, they choose to deny that it was a "choice" after.

You don't write checks without money in the bank, so why have sex if you can't afford a baby?

Because it feels good? So do blowjobs and they don't result in kids. So does a vibrator and that doesn't result in kids. So does smoking pot and that doesn't result in kids.

In HIV/AIDS prevention we promote condoms all the time because of their success rate, and yet if you read ATS we are the world's most irresponsible, murdering schmucks on the planet for promoting condoms! Everyone here who is Pro-Choice either was a product of a broken condom or has a friend who had the condom break resulting in a baby. Who'd have thunk it? Why then would we risk the lives of our clients by handing them out to prevent AIDS?

Maybe Bush was right when he called for abstinence only?

*rolls eyes*

I just want some honest debate, some acknowledgment that people do in fact not think about the consequences of their actions until it bites them on the ass, then instead of promoting after the fact solutions like abortion or HIV/AIDS, herpes, and HEP treatments we can put money into education, awareness, and prevention tools.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the whole "abortion" thing. The points made by this OP are entirely valid and women have had undue control because of the way civil liberties were interpreted. What I don't want to see happen is what the OP and several other posters described. Children don't deserve this BS. They don't deserve to be at the mercy of adults whims.

We can't ask for personal accountability from individuals because that would be judging (although we all judge each other daily).

We can't suggest any constraints whatsoever because we must ignore the majority of cases and focus on the freakish ones (even though we don't do that anywhere else in life).

No we must plow forward with no thought to future repercussions involving designer babies and eugenics because right now and our immediate convenience is more important.

This whole issue deserves a well-thought out, no fallacies appealing to popularity, emotion, or straw men, and discuss what our current practice does to our society and the future of our society. Then having "war gamed" our current or revised strategy out to its ultimate and final conclusion...then we proceed forward.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Well considering that condoms are the only contraceptive available to men at this time, I think that highlighting their unreliability only weighs more on mens side when an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

Women have contraceptive pills, 3 months shots, morning after pills, IUDs, diaphrams and spermicides and probably more alternatives that I haven't mentioned. So, if they are allergic to the pill they have other options that don't involve permanent infertility that men don't have access to.

Maybe its time some serious money was invested in a male contraception that is easy to use and effective. It seems almost a conspiracy in itself how men who generally are the ones who don't want children are also the ones who have extremely limited contraceptive options.

And I doubt the Feminists would go with children (especially girls) being taught that sex = pregnancy , as they have spent the last 30 odd years seperating the two into a womens right to sexual pleasure and also their right to planned motherhood.
Yet men aren't entitled to these same rights of course.

The OP is off.

The "unmarried" non custodial male does have a choice. That choice is called contraceptives. Lack of planning is no defense. It's not as if condoms are not available on nearly every corner of this country.

Here is where the system fails and the right of choice is undermined...It is in the rights and choices in raising the child.

Although, in most cases 50% custody is awarded to each parent...The mother is almost always awarded "Primary Custody" meaning the final decision regarding the child's upbringing is at her discretion..

The financial aspect is ludicrous and gives the male (father) no rights whatsoever.

As an example: Say I make $30k and the mother makes $30k - Well then there is this out of whack formula that says rasing this child equates to $1000 per month and the responsibility is a 50/50 split between each parent = $500 a month child support payments.

Now let's say I make $100k and the mother makes $50k - Well then under that idiotic formula the cost of raising the child now rises to $3000 a month with 75% of the responsibility falling on the father = $2000 a month in child support.

Now let's think about that.

There are statistics and historical averages about what it costs to raise a child. There are averages on costs for daycare, for food, for clothing etc.. What does the father's earning capability have to do with the proportion of money that is spent raising their child? Absolutley nothing. When the father goes into the supermarket to buy diapers the cost is $20. And it's $20 irregardless of whether or not he makes $30k a year or $100k.

The government figures since the father is making more money, the child should be afforded more luxuries.....And this is where the choice element is completely subverted by this ridiculous system......In the gov't's opinion the father making $100k should be buying the brand name diapers that cost 20% more than the father who earns $30k and is buying the store brand...

There should be a standard cost associated to raising a child...and it should not be proportioned by the amont of money someone earns.....

Now....As a good parent.....The father making the $100k should have a choice....and should want to allow the child a higher standard of living.....However, the gov't mandates that father to provide support to mother with the expectation of that higher standard of living.....

So in the example above....One child receives $500 a month....The other receives $2000 month.....

You would think the child receiving the higher amount is attending private school, wears only brand name clothing, and rides a tricycle with vibrant colors-lights-and a neat little horn.....

When in reality---They sit next to each other in public school, both shop at Walmart, and both have tricycles that have loose left back tires....

reply to post by Masterpumpkin


In my state it is the person who earns more that pays the lions share of the upkeep. My friend, a female, had to give half to her ex-husband even though she is the custodial parent.

It is not always the man who makes more.

Devils advocate question:

If men want rights to be able to say whether a woman can have an abortion or not, and choose one or the other.

Then will women have the right to be able to say whether a man should have a vasectomy or not so she doesn't get pregnant?

There are people who are gonna argue to the contrary but these are the facts why the courts award money to the women:

Women still are not equal and they are not paid the same as men.

Women tend to do the sacrificing, promotes their husbands or SO's careers, they also risk or hold back their careers to raise the family, or have no career at all.

They are discriminated against more. They are discriminated against more for having children.

They live longer, but childbirth can also be risky.

They tend to be left with the children.

That is why they get awarded money. To make up for the discrepncies in society.

"In my state it is the person who earns more that pays the lions share of the upkeep"

Yeah...but who determines the upkeep.....Surely there must be an accepted standard of living and that should not deviate whether you make $100K or $300k.

Let's say you knew somebody who was divorcing her husband (an example and it could be reversed) and in talking to this someone they mentioned to you that in their divorce settlement......They got the $350k house....The brand new Toyota Camry.....the 21 foot boat.........and they were going to receive an additional $5,000 a month in alimony.....which leaves them an excess of $1500 a month.

I think that is a pretty good standard of living..

What does it matter if the spouse providing this makes $100k a year or $1m a year?