Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

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.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll try this again. Take the above quotation and simply replace "woman" with "man" and "sire" with "become pregnant with"

ok, I'll do it.

so by your logic, a woman should be free to engage in sexual activity and not take any responsibility for a child she may become pregnant with.

Yeah, if she so chooses.
Take the heartless way it sounds (i agree it sounds awful) and strip it down to essentials, it's your supreme court guaranteed right!
You don't have to convince a judge why you can't, shouldn't have, or don't find it desirable to have a baby. You could be doing exactly what you think is so horrible to consider allowing a man. sex without consequences. The major victory of the sexual revolution! Hurray for women's rights and progress! Don't you get it? A woman can do exactly what you think i so unthinkable for a man to do. And it's legally protected Your body, Your choice, Your responsibility. How hard is that to understand?

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


There is no form of contraceptives that is 100% effective. Aside from abstaining from sex, there will always be some risk of pregnancy no matter how minute.

reply to post by maria_stardust


Agreed in this case... not sure what else to say.


The only area where I disagree is the inequalities concerning parental choices.

A woman does not need a man's permission to have a pregnancy terminated. Heck she can do it in secret, and lie for months(I have seen this).

However if a woman was forced to seek to the fathers permission(barring extreme case obviously) to abort... see how bad this starts to sound.

I would be much more comfortable with the current system if there was a way for young fathers to opt out of child support before the child is born, much like the many options available to women in this country. This is better than trying to give humans control over each others genitals.

I'd say our entire child support and protection system need a reboot.

Originally posted by joechip
You don't have to convince a judge why you can't, shouldn't have, or don't find it desirable to have a baby. You could be doing exactly what you think is so horrible to consider allowing a man. sex without consequences. The major victory of the sexual revolution! Hurray for women's rights and progress! Don't you get it? A woman can do exactly what you think i so unthinkable for a man to do. And it's legally protected Your body, Your choice, Your responsibility. How hard is that to understand?

There are always consequences for both women and men when it comes to sex and unplanned pregnancies. To even think otherwise is laughable.

If an unwanted pregnancy occurs both parties are culpable. Not just the woman. Not just the man. Is that so hard to understand?

Again:

so by your logic, a woman should be free to engage in sexual activity and not take any responsibility for a child she may become pregnant with.

Roe v. Wade in a nutshell.

Answers?

Double standard finally acknowledged?

Justification for double standard?

Legal basis for double standard?

Please, I'd be very interested in hearing something real and substantial.

reply to post by maria_stardust


Legally the woman can walk away from motherhood for almost a year after conception, this is where things differ between men and women. Try to walk away as a man...

This is where people like me and Joe have problems with the system.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


Now we're dealing with the issue of autonomy. Should anyone be stripped of the right to control what happens to their body? That is treading dangerous territory.

In the case of an unplanned pregnancy, a woman should not be forced to carry a child to term without her express consent. By the same token, a woman should not be forced to abort a child if she wishes to carry it to term.

If an unwanted pregnancy occurs both parties are culpable. Not just the woman. Not just the man. Is that so hard to understand?

ity
Yes, its impossible to understand because:
a.)it isn't true
b.)culpability being defined: culpable: Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.

But I think you mean "responsible" or "liable" and clearly if a woman can abort, adopt, or even legally abandon the child, but the man is bound financially for 18+ years, both parties are not "culpable" or responsible equally. Not even close. Nice try. I guess.

reply to post by maria_stardust


This is where problems start to pop up.

I honestly agree with you on the issue of a woman's body. There are too many emotional and physical risks with either pregnancy or abortion to force any kind of action against her will.

The question does remain though, how do we apply the system so that all rights and responsibilities are equal between men and women?

Statistically, most of the time, a woman ends up with the child and child rearing responsibilities when a child is born out of wedlock.

That's why the law is written the way it is written , in my opinion.

The time for the mans "choice" comes when his hand is on his zipper.

Once the choice is made, he may have to live with the consequences. That was one of the little speeches I gave my son before he went off to college.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Statistically, most of the time, a woman ends up with the child and child rearing responsibilities when a child is born out of wedlock.

That's why the law is written the way it is written , in my opinion.

The way the law is currently written is one contributing factor for single motherhood. Courts all too often grant custody to the mother out of ill-conceived ideas. Truth is there is prejudice against men in the family court system.

The time for the mans "choice" comes when his hand is on his zipper.

Once the choice is made, he may have to live with the consequences. That was one of the little speeches I gave my son before he went off to college.

Why is the same not said of a woman? No one has pointed that out yet...

reply to post by Wildbob77


Why not go read "the law" instead of having uninformed opinions on it. It's not a matter of debate, it all clearly there including dissenting opinions, legal justifications etc., The law, being actually a series of laws over time, would include Roe v. Wade, a well as the 1996 welfare reform act. Happy reading! (see if you can spot the unconstitutional parts! Fun stuff!)

Originally posted by joechip
Again:

so by your logic, a woman should be free to engage in sexual activity and not take any responsibility for a child she may become pregnant with.

Roe v. Wade in a nutshell.

Not my logic, your attempt at a straw man argument.

Roe vs. Wade deals with the issue of abortion and by extension a woman's right to autonomy. So, no, the above statement you were gracious enough to attempt to attribute to me through some sense of fuzzy logic (yours, not mine) does not even come close to summing up this particular landmark case in any nutshell.

As I have stated more than once, the responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy falls squarely upon the shoulders of both the man and the woman.

Answers?

I've given you honest (not straw man) arguments. You did mention a little something about "intellectual honesty" in your opening post.

Double standard finally acknowledged?

The only double standard I am able to see is your ascertain that men not be held accountable for any children they sire if they "choose" not become a parent. At this point, the deed is done, these men already are parents.

Justification for double standard?

You have been trying to justify that man should have a right not be held responsible for helping support his own children because he no longer "chooses" be a parent.

Legal basis for double standard?

There is no issue of autonomy concerning men regarding Roe vs. Wade as it is not his body that doubles as an incubator. Until that magical day where men are able to conceive there is no issue of autonomy, hence no double standard.

Please, I'd be very interested in hearing something real and substantial.

I've given you very real and substantial arguments. Just because you don't happen to like them doesn't make them any less valid.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by maria_stardust]

According to proper justice, in America, the man should have no financial responsibility forced by the state for children.

This is a position that few like to take, but there can be no responsibility without the associated rights. Men currently have no choice, thus should have no obligation to provide for the child legally.

Morally is another matter, but that's for each person to work out on their own.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Men currently have no choice, thus should have no obligation to provide for the child legally.

The thing is men do have a choice. If a man chooses to have sex there is always an inherent risk of pregnancy despite any precautions that may have been made by both the man and woman. That is a choice made with a known risk.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The thing is men do have a choice. If a man chooses to have sex there is always an inherent risk of pregnancy despite any precautions that may have been made by both the man and woman. That is a choice made with a known risk.

This is the same reasoning given to women by the pro-lifers (which I am one but shun this line of reasoning). The fact remains that people have sex, mistakes happen, birth control fails, etc, etc, etc.

This debate is about what happens after sex, it is about who controls birth.

There are cases where women have lied about who the father is, the men are then held accountable for child support. In one case (that I know about), the man only found out about the birth years later - by which time he was held accountable for past due money. When he asked for a DNA test, he was refused by the court. He's pretty sure he's not the father, but the law, and this despicable woman, have made him one without proving it. It takes years to fight such stuff, and in the meantime you are responsible for payments (and legal costs, and medical costs).

The current child support laws are such that the man is treated as a deadbeat from day one. Even when you pay on time, every time (although the child support service takes this particular task away from you - they decide how much, when, and how it's paid) you are responsible for every single issue with the case. If they screw up (the child support services) your file and payments AND THEY WILL, they hold the 'father' accountable. Liens, withholdings, credit record dings, etc. and it's the 'father' who has to put it right, on their own dime, in their time.

If you are named on a birth certificate, it is your responsibility to pay for the child. If you are unfairly named, you are responsible for proving it. The 'mother' does not. Your financial records will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, the mothers will not. She can tell them that she earns a dollar a month and they will believe her.

If you are the 'non custodial parent' and you wish to raise the child, you are at the mercy of the 'custodial parent' at all times - regardless of any court orders. There have been many cases where 'parental alienation' has been proven.

There are many women who have been unlucky enough to be a victim of a 'deadbeat dad', but it's not always the case. The law seems to think it is, however, and all fathers are treated as such.

If Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a choice, it is only logical that the man does too. Many, many men are unfairly victimized by women, and by the system. Equality is not just for women.

Roe vs. Wade deals with the issue of abortion and by extension a woman's right to autonomy. So, no, the above statement you were gracious enough to attempt to attribute to me through some sense of fuzzy logic (yours, not mine) deviousdoes not even come close to summing up this particular landmark case in any nutshell.

As I have stated more than once, the responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy falls squarely upon the shoulders of both the man and the woman.

by maria_stardust]

You are obviously incapable of honestly arguing this issue. You use "autonomy" as some sort of band-aid to the basic inequality, and even assert the basic equality of the situation though I've shown repeatedly that its not equal in any way. I don't think you are stupid. I think you are devious instead. You don't want to see the point I've made, so you won't. It's that simple. You don't support the notion of equal rights, just women's rights. Well, YOUR BODY=YOUR RIGHTS=YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. That'S what you get for your autonomy...choice and its resultant responsibilities. Or what you should get, were our laws based on equal protection. And by the way ROe v. Wade was NOT about autonomy or your body, but about the choice to parent or not, and it was justified by a citation of privacy rights., which I assume include my privacy as well as yours. But I am done with you, and respectfully ask that you go elsewhere with your sexist bullheaded insistence that men be second class citizens. I don't think I should have to tolerate your presence here. YOu offend me.

Also,I was merely replacing woman with man in the above quote. duh.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by joechip]

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by TheBorg]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This debate is about what happens after sex, it is about who controls birth.

Then that's an issue of autonomy, and as such it is the woman who controls the birth.

A man can't very well expect not to take responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy just because he doesn't want to be a father. It might not be a popular view with the male population, but a man's reproductive rights begin and end with the act of sex. Once a child is conceived it is out of his hands.

When a woman decides to carry the child of an unplanned pregnancy to term she has not "forced" parenthood upon the man against his wishes. The man knows going into the proverbial fray that engaging in consensual sex may inadvertently lead to an unplanned pregnancy. It's part of the risk factor.

"It's part of the risk factor."

For men. A women can choose whether she will be a parent and also whether he will? And this is fair and equal?
And it has nothing to do with abortion. What about adoption? Legal abandonment? The woman has choices that have nothing to do with biology. Roe v. Wade cites poverty and emotional readiness for parenthood as factors in a woman's right to choose. These couldn't apply to men as well? Your argument doesn't even touch on the basic issues here.
You just want your cake and eat it too. And thanks to a system of government that honors only the politically expedient, you have the best of both worlds. But don't you dare call it fair or equal. Don't you dare.