Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

You leave your seed on the ground, expect it to grow.

There is a distinct difference between autonomy of body, and responsiblity to results.

That the dishonest men on this thread want to confabulate the existence of a human being that they created, with a woman's autonomy of body is the highest form of socially acceptable sociopathology.

reply to post by Aeons


Explain to me how I'm being dishonest when I say a woman's autonomy is in fact the ground on which her rights and resultant responsibilities lie. Take responsibility for you body. And for your choices. Nobody did something to you. And you don't have to be a parent if you choose not to. Allow men the same. Grow up and accept what the RIGHT TO CHOOse means. It naturally means being responsible for your choices. It doesn't mean the right to choose for someone else. Maybe you don't actually deserve this right if you're unwilling to grant it to others.

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

That is correct.

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.

That's correct, once implantation happens the man ceases to have any say in whether or not this child is born or not. This, to me, entirely cancels the responsibility carried by the choice in sex, as it ultimately decides if that sexual encounter has any repercussions.

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.

That is incorrect. There are 4 possible outcomes to every pregnancy where the father is known before birth.

1) Woman wants child, man wants child - This is a win win and everything is kosher.

2) Woman wants to abort, man wants to abort - This is also a win win (aside from the child) and everything is equal

3) Woman wants to abort, man wants child - This can be emotionally painful and brutal. While I'd never entertain the idea of forcing women in either direction, we can not discount this as it's similar to forcing abortion on an unwilling mother (not entirely, but as close as men can get).

4) Woman wants child, man wants to abort - In this case the woman IS, in fact, removing a legal option from the man and thrusting 18 years of financial support upon him without remedy or recourse.

This does not even consider what happens when the paternity of the child is not known until after the birth. This, in many ways, is worse than the previous 4 options as the man didn't even have a voice, much less a vote.

This is not a simple issue that can be easily tidied up, but I will say this:

If women would like to share the rights, then they have the ability to share responsibility. Until then the responsibility rests squarely where the rights are. On the woman.

Originally posted by Aeons
You leave your seed on the ground, expect it to grow.

There is a distinct difference between autonomy of body, and responsiblity to results.

That the dishonest men on this thread want to confabulate the existence of a human being that they created, with a woman's autonomy of body is the highest form of socially acceptable sociopathology.

Now wait a minute. I married a single mother of one boy and had 3 other children with my wife. I work hard to raise them and protect them so let's be careful when we talk about dishonesty.

I have, in my previous post, made it clear that there are a number of discordant possibilities that occur that are in opposition to justice and equal rights.

The autonomy of a woman's body is not in question, however the choices that come with that autonomy specifically conflict with the men's rights and can be terrible.

You can not thrust obligation for a choice not made. Change area of law and you will find that almost all other areas would not allow anything as imbalanced as this to occur without a written contract involved.

The people who make a baby should be responsible for its upkeep, whether they intended to make a baby or not. The fact that a fetus can (sometimes,) be aborted, or a baby adopted out, has nothing to do with this.

Despite being in favour of easy abortion for those who want it, I could no more abort my newly conceived fetus than I could strangle a 10 year old. This choice is not open to all women, and there are situations, even in America, where it is being made very difficult for some pregnant women, particularly teenagers, to get abortions.

I got pregnant when I didn't want to at a time when abortion was not available here, and I never whined about it. I accepted my responsibility for what I'd done and got on with raising my little darling - without help from anyone. It can be done, but kids don't deserve to be fed out of rubbish bins when their mother goes through 18 months of chronic pleurisy and their father is living the high life.

If a woman has an abortion or adopts the kid out, that gets the father off the hook too, so why complain and say that means he should never be obligated?

There's nothing unfair about the situation. Child support is not only paid by men. My daughter, is now paying child support for her teenage daughter, who has chosen to live with her father so she can get drunk and drop out of school. The only difference between that and earlier, when her ex was meant to pay maintenance, is that my daughter has continued to work a tax-paying job and actually pay up.

Don't do the crime if you're not prepared to do the time.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You can not thrust obligation for a choice not made. Change area of law and you will find that almost all other areas would not allow anything as imbalanced as this to occur without a written contract involved.

Unless a person is being raped, the choice is made by having sex in the first place. There aren't too many folk around these days who don't know how babies are made. And no contraception is 100% foolproof.

A woman can get pregnant using the pill, condoms and spermicide all together, and that was my first. A woman can get thrombosis from the pill, and toxic shock from and IUD, as I discovered personally. A woman can get pregnant using a cap, condoms and spermicide and doing it only when the Billings method says it's safe. That was how I had my second.

Women have always had to contend with the possibility of being left holding the baby. It's been a great advance to have men stuck with some responsibility for the babies they make too.

When you dip your wick you can make a girl morning sick.


This reminds me of a dreadful "joke". Mary meets Billy on a bridge with her apron riding high, saying if he doesn't marry her she'll throw herself over and drown herself. "Gee, Mary," Billy says, "I'm so glad it was you I got pregnant; you always were such a good sport. Would it help if I give you a push?"

Originally posted by Kailassa
Unless a person is being raped, the choice is made by having sex in the first place. There aren't too many folk around these days who don't know how babies are made. And no contraception is 100% foolproof.

Correct, the problem here is that we are not talking about rape, how babies are made, or sex. Please read my posts more carefully, as I've already discussed it and nullified your point in large part.

A woman can get pregnant using the pill, condoms and spermicide all together, and that was my first. A woman can get thrombosis from the pill, and toxic shock from and IUD, as I discovered personally. A woman can get pregnant using a cap, condoms and spermicide and doing it only when the Billings method says it's safe. That was how I had my second.

Interesting, obvious, and besides the point. I'm not trying to be discourteous but this really isn't close to pertinent.

Women have always had to contend with the possibility of being left holding the baby. It's been a great advance to have men stuck with some responsibility for the babies they make too.

When you dip your wick you can make a girl morning sick.

I believe I addressed this as well with my numbered selections of potential outcomes of this very thing. Read that first.

Again, this thread is about men not wanting to accept the reality of reproduction and its consequences. Gentlemen, the law is not equal because nature is not equal. The law is not fair because nature is not fair. And you damned well have the easy way out regardless because you do not have to suffer the physical pregnancy and birth, and you do not have to live with the nurturing motherly instincts which bind you to your child, inexorably, for life. No, you have a choice to make. You can be a good man and take care of your children, or you can be a worthless parasite on society who abandons his children. Like it or not, if you make the wrong choice, you deserve the worst society can throw at you.

Originally posted by Grumble
Again, this thread is about men not wanting to accept the reality of reproduction and its consequences.

This is wrong. I am a man who has not only accepted responsibility for the 3 children my wife and I have created, but one from a previous relationship in which the father is a loser who wants nothing to do with the child. So be it, so let's not go laying allegations against those you do not know.

Gentlemen, the law is not equal because nature is not equal. The law is not fair because nature is not fair. And you damned well have the easy way out regardless because you do not have to suffer the physical pregnancy and birth, and you do not have to live with the nurturing motherly instincts which bind you to your child, inexorably, for life.

No, the law is not fair, but it has more to do with abortion that anything else. When that is taken out of the equation I would be more inclined to agree with you, or at least if the regulations and associated rights are divided differently. To simply say it's not fair as in nature is to over-simplify the situation and prevent constructive conversation on justice and how it might be better applied more equally.

No, you have a choice to make. You can be a good man and take care of your children, or you can be a worthless parasite on society who abandons his children. Like it or not, if you make the wrong choice, you deserve the worst society can throw at you.

This might or might not be true, but the entire system is set up against the man almost exclusively and puts the man at odds with the system from day 1.

Those who run and don't want to pay can certainly find ways to do so, but those who do pay and do choose to pay are penalized frequently and strenuously.

I believe we can work out a better system that does not include the State.

reply to post by Grumble


[qoute]Gentlemen, the law is not equal because nature is not equal. The law is not fair because nature is not fair.

If you want to discuss this in terms of natural law, I'm all for it. How about civilizations throughout human history in every time and place using a surprisingly similar apparatus to insure the stable rearing of children, that being marriage. The problem here is the "progressive" swing that has enabled the "Murphy Brown" single-mother-as-a-choice generation has been a progressive thing for women only. We forget how recently this draconian legislation has been around. Welfare reform (the kind that is women friendly and Democrats love) took the time-honored and effective responsibility of finding a decent mate and marrying them totally off the table for American women. Not necessary. Building a stable relationship and getting a commitment used to be an economic and social necessity for a woman. They were "naturally" the gatekeepers of their own bodies. The state has usurped a basic human dynamic, which we can argue has its own limitations but nonetheless is how humans have done it at least since the advent of agriculture. (Hunter gatherer societies have marriage as well, but the child-rearing tends to be more tribe oriented.)
My main point is not reactionary, however; I don't necessarily view the "sexual revolution" and the evolution of sex roles in general as negative. My main point is that female choice, and the ramifications of this revolutionary change demand a more fair and "natural" appraisal of the male's rights and responsibilities. What has actually happened instead is very unnatural. Let's not expect anything but social ills aplenty when we turn nature on its head. Let's attempt to get a true historical view of where we are now and acknowledge that we're undergoing a truly revolutionary paradigm shift in gender roles and that the government, in its usual fashion, has applied a haphazard, unthinking, and politically driven series of measures that are unfair, and I believe unconstitutional. They certainly aren't smart or effective either. Female Choice does change the equation. It changes the "nature" of the entire issue. Law should reflect this. Fairly.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by joechip]
edit for typos

[edit on 9-3-2010 by joechip]