Should men also have the "right to choose"

[nehalem256]

I'm not here to defend everyone else's opinions on the matter. If you'd like to bring forth something specific then go for it.

As was brought up earlier "Safe Haven" laws that allow a woman to legally abandon her child without the consent of the father.

That is not true. I can be 100% certain that I will not father (another) child if I so choose.

This is only true if you are expecting men to practice abstinence. Funny how when ever conservatives suggest this for women liberals throw a fit about "controlling women's sexuality". Hell, they say refusing to buy BC for women is just because conservatives want to punish women for having sex.

I am sensing a similar reverse belief in you. You want to punish men for having sex. Apparently only women are allowed to have consequence free sex.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As was brought up earlier "Safe Haven" laws that allow a woman to legally abandon her child without the consent of the father.

In which case the government will happily hand that child over the the father if he can be found. It is not like women can give children away and the father has no say in it.

 

[actuarial]

As was brought up earlier "Safe Haven" laws that allow a woman to legally abandon her child without the consent of the father.

This does create a sticky situation. If safe haven laws don't protect kids then we should scrap them. If they do then there needs to be some serious thought into whether the benefit of them outweighs the rights of a man to know of his offspring. Without the laws, it may still be likely that the man's child dies without him ever finding out (which is an incredibly sad situation).

I wonder how common the scenario of a woman getting pregnant and getting to term without the man finding out though. It seems like a pretty unlikely scenario to me, but I'm open to statistics that show otherwise.

This is only true if you are expecting men to practice abstinence. Funny how when ever conservatives suggest this for women liberals throw a fit about "controlling women's sexuality". Hell, they say refusing to buy BC for women is just because conservatives want to punish women for having sex.

There is more than just abstinence to be 100% sure. In addition, proper and consistent condom use and spermicide is going to get you pretty close.

Again, I'm not here to defend the opinions of everyone who you disagree with. I will say that I believe government should fund birth control and provide free condoms, mainly because it is sound fiscal policy.

I am sensing a similar reverse belief in you. You want to punish men for having sex. Apparently only women are allowed to have consequence free sex.

I don't want to punish men for having sex. I think couples should take every precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and that applies to both parties.

You seem to assign all of the responsibility on having a child to the woman, but do you believe that in most cases of unwanted pregnancy the man has taken measures to avoid having a child (specifically condom and spermicide use)?

 

[actuarial]

In which case the government will happily hand that child over the the father if he can be found. It is not like women can give children away and the father has no say in it.

Actually that can happen. Safe haven laws don't require the woman to identify herself, as far as I know.

 

[Jhhnn]

As was brought up earlier "Safe Haven" laws that allow a woman to legally abandon her child without the consent of the father.

Those laws are based on certain reasonable assumptions- that the father has declined his responsibilities or that the mother can't accurately identify the father.

Other scenarios have pretty much the likelihood of flying pigs.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't want to punish men for having sex. I think couples should take every precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and that applies to both parties.

You seem to assign all of the responsibility on having a child to the woman, but do you believe that in most cases of unwanted pregnancy the man has taken measures to avoid having a child (specifically condom and spermicide use)?

I assign all responsibility to a woman having a child, because she has all the power in deciding whether to have it or not. If she doesn't want it all she has to do is swallow a couple of RU-486 pills and *poof* its gone.

Or use BC pills, or use the ring/patch/shot, or use an IUD. All of these options allowing her to enjoy the bareback'nest sex she wants and are more effective the condoms.

Or make sure her sex partner uses a condom (which she can verify he actually does).

Statistically, I would imagine that most pregnancies do not result from condom and spermicide use.

Those laws are based on certain reasonable assumptions- that the father has declined his responsibilities or that the mother can't accurately identify the father.

Other scenarios have pretty much the likelihood of flying pigs.

And all of that is irrelevant to the question of whether women are allowed to abandon their responsibility. They clearly can. And you have in this thread supported women having the right to pop out as many kids as they want and abandon them to society to care for, despite the fact that they have more (and more effective options for preventing pregnancy) and can terminate said pregnancy if the feel like it.

And yet you want to deny this same right to men, because you are a man hating sexist.

 

[Jhhnn]

As was brought up earlier "Safe Haven" laws that allow a woman to legally abandon her child without the consent of the father.

Those laws are based on certain reasonable assumptions- that the father has declined his responsibilities or that the mother can't accurately identify the father.

Other scenarios have pretty much the likelihood of flying pigs.

And all of that is irrelevant to the question of whether women are allowed to abandon their responsibility. They clearly can. And you have in this thread supported women having the right to pop out as many kids as they want and abandon them to society to care for, despite the fact that they have more (and more effective options for preventing pregnancy) and can terminate said pregnancy if the feel like it.

And yet you want to deny this same right to men, because you are a man hating sexist.

Heh. Women abandoning their babies at safe havens is a rare act of desperation, likely occurring for the reasons I offered above.

It really has nothing to do with the state removing children from either sex parents deemed unfit, no matter how badly you seek to conflate the issues.

Men are also free to pop out as many babies as they want, abandon them to society. The only thing stopping them is biology, because they've shown a great deal of willingness to abandon their own children in other ways, with you demanding that they have the right to do so.

 

[cybrsage]

Some people here are still saying it is not sexual discrimination to say women have the right to choose to be parents but men do not? Wow.

 

[nehalem256]

Some people here are still saying it is not sexual discrimination to say women have the right to choose to be parents but men do not? Wow.

Heh. Women abandoning their babies at safe havens is a rare act of desperation, likely occurring for the reasons I offered above.

Its rare, because I would assume that most women who would otherwise want to abandon their child killed it already. It is awfully silly to carry a child you intend to abandon for 9 months when you can pop a couple of pills to get rid of it.

Men are also free to pop out as many babies as they want, abandon them to society. The only thing stopping them is biology, because they've shown a great deal of willingness to abandon their own children in other ways, with you demanding that they have the right to do so.

(bolded) So men can't actually pop out as many kids as they want and force society to support them.

I am demanding men have the same rights as women. You have stated you are fine with women abandoning their children, but are not okay with men doing it. This makes you a man hating sexist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Some people here are still saying it is not sexual discrimination to say women have the right to choose to be parents but men do not? Wow.

Those differences are inherent in the biological fact of gender as it relates to human society. The broader choice of women is a reflection of their greater burden in the reproduction of the species. If men could become pregnant & give birth, suckle infants, they'd have the same choices.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its rare, because I would assume that most women who would otherwise want to abandon their child killed it already. It is awfully silly to carry a child you intend to abandon for 9 months when you can pop a couple of pills to get rid of it.

Your statement has no basis in fact. Many women experience menstrual irregularity & fail to discover pregnancy until it's too late for ru486, which is not 100% effective, anyway. Even women who may not be able to care for an infant have moral objections to abortion, not to mention inability to pay, and personal circumstances can change radically between conception and delivery.

So men can't actually pop out as many kids as they want and force society to support them.

I am demanding men have the same rights as women. You have stated you are fine with women abandoning their children, but are not okay with men doing it. This makes you a man hating sexist.

I am fine with women abandoning their offspring to circumstances better than they believe they can provide. I'm fine with men doing the same, but that's not what you propose.

Your demands are based on selfish fantasy that denies inherent differences in gender.

 

[actuarial]

I assign all responsibility to a woman having a child, because she has all the power in deciding whether to have it or not. If she doesn't want it all she has to do is swallow a couple of RU-486 pills and *poof* its gone.

Or use BC pills, or use the ring/patch/shot, or use an IUD. All of these options allowing her to enjoy the bareback'nest sex she wants and are more effective the condoms.

Or make sure her sex partner uses a condom (which she can verify he actually does).

Yes, a woman has a lot of options in terms of ensuring a pregnancy doesn't happen. That does not mean the man has no options, nor does it mean that they are solely responsible. Aside from in-vitro, the woman cannot unilaterally produce a child. That would be 100% responsibility. In cases of in-vitro, I agree that the donor male should be able to absolve himself of responsibility when donating sperm.

I find it interesting that you think only women want to have bareback sex.

Statistically, I would imagine that most pregnancies do not result from condom and spermicide use.

Then clearly the man wasn't taking proper precautions to avoid a pregnancy. If not using preventative measures does not increase your responsibility in a pregnancy occurring, that would apply equally to men and women (so your argument about all the contraception options women have is moot).

 

[actuarial]

So men can't actually pop out as many kids as they want and force society to support them.

I am demanding men have the same rights as women. You have stated you are fine with women abandoning their children, but are not okay with men doing it. This makes you a man hating sexist.

No one has stated they are against men having abortions. That is a straw man. No one has claimed they are against men popping out as many kids as they want and force society to support them. That is a straw man.

The fact that these things are not options does not make me a sexist any more than the fact that men can't breastfeed their children makes me a sexist.

For example, it would be ridiculous for me to call you a sexist because you support the right of a man to absolve himself of parental responsibility even if the woman brings the child to term, but you do not support the right of a woman to absolve herself of parental responsibility even if the man brings the child to term.

It is not biologically possible for a man to bring a child to term, and it is not biologically possible for a man to have an abortion. No one can grant men those rights, because they are physically impossible.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, a woman has a lot of options in terms of ensuring a pregnancy doesn't happen. That does not mean he man has no options, nor does it mean that they are solely responsible. Aside from in-vitro, the woman cannot unilaterally produce a child. That would be 100% responsibility. In cases of in-vitro, I agree that the donor male should be able to absolve himself of responsibility when donating sperm.

His only option is to do whatever the woman wants.

I find it interesting that you think only women want to have bareback sex.

No I think that both do. But only women are able to without fear of being a parent.

Then clearly the man wasn't taking proper precautions to avoid a pregnancy. If not using preventative measures does not increase your responsibility in a pregnancy occurring, that would apply equally to men and women (so you argument about all the contraception options women have it moot).

What if the woman said she was on the pill?

And as you said both men and women would prefer bareback sex. And women are the ones with a multitude of contraceptive choices that allow it.

 

[actuarial]

His only option is to do whatever the woman wants.

I'm not sure how condom and spermicide use are outside his control.

No I think that both do. But only women are able to without fear of being a parent.

And that is a result of nature.

What if the woman said she was on the pill?

And as you said both men and women would prefer bareback sex. And women are the ones with a multitude of contraceptive choices that allow it.

What if she didn't take it properly (which many women don't)? I don't mean intentionally, I mean because people make mistakes.

Maybe it's a myopic view, but I find little sympathy for people who don't take the proper precautions for something that could have such a significant impact on their lives.

These people would probably look at you like an idiot if you asked them to give their partner their credit card, bank card and pin, but have no problem trusting them with something as important as contraception.

 

[nehalem256]

And that is a result of nature.

No it is a result of sexist government laws. By nature a man is completely free to leave a woman after screwing her.

What if she didn't take it properly (which many women don't)? I don't mean intentionally, I mean because people make mistakes.

Maybe it's a myopic view, but I find little sympathy for people who don't take the proper precautions for something that could have such a significant impact on their lives.

These people would probably look at you like an idiot if you asked them to give their partner their credit card, bank card and pin, but have no problem trusting them with something as important as contraception.

What if the condom breaks?

What if the woman either intentionally, or shall we say semi-intentionally "forgets", to take the pill?

And of course at the end of the day the woman can take a couple of pills and *poof* the pregnancy is just a memory.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyway men have ways of not getting girls pregnant......we all know going into it that we are on the hook $$$ wise if mess up.

Not getting pregnant is also the argument to FULLY ban abortion. If Men's only choice is to not screw like rabbits - then that should also be the Woman's only choice.

As for being on the hook, you mean he should help pay for the abortion? Fair enough.

 

[cybrsage]

Those differences are inherent in the biological fact of gender as it relates to human society. The broader choice of women is a reflection of their greater burden in the reproduction of the species. If men could become pregnant & give birth, suckle infants, they'd have the same choices.

Lets see if I understand your point:

You lied before when you said you equally apply your views to both men and women. You instead say that a woman can decide to not be a parent at will due to her being a woman but a man cannot because he is a man. You also claim that holding this obviously sexually discriminatory view does not mean you are sexually discriminating against men.

Did I get it right? If not, what parts are wrong?

 

[SMOGZINN]

No it is a result of sexist government laws. By nature a man is completely free to leave a woman after screwing her.

And he is also free to leave a woman after screwing her by law. What he is not allowed to do is leave his child.

The laws have nothing to do with women, they have to do with providing for children. They are not discriminatory because they don't care if that child is male or female, you have to provide for either equally.

You want to make this into a silly sexism thing because you want to control women's reproduction. But you don't get that right, any more then they get to control yours. Until that baby is born it is a part of her body, just like a kidney. You get no say in her decisions on that body part. That is perhaps the most basic freedom of all, the ability to control our own bodily functions. I have heard no argument is strong enough to overcome that.

You also can't op-out of supporting a child that is yours. This is not a issue of discrimination, this is a basic moral code. You helped bring that child into this world, it is your responsibility to provide for it. Nothing, no agreement, no contract, no law, can overcome that basic truth.

So, no matter how many slippery arguments you devise, or how outraged you are you can't get around these 2 truths:

You can not force someone else to undergo a medical procedure they don't want.
You can not abandon your responsibility to a child you brought into this world.

This leaves men in a tough spot, and it is not fair, but no one ever promised you that life was.

 

[nehalem256]

And he is also free to leave a woman after screwing her by law. What he is not allowed to do is leave his child.

The laws have nothing to do with women, they have to do with providing for children. They are not discriminatory because they don't care if that child is male or female, you have to provide for either equally.

You want to make this into a silly sexism thing because you want to control women's reproduction. But you don't get that right, any more then they get to control yours. Until that baby is born it is a part of her body, just like a kidney. You get no say in her decisions on that body part. That is perhaps the most basic freedom of all, the ability to control our own bodily functions. I have heard no argument is strong enough to overcome that.

Funny how you want to control men's reproduction.

If a baby is 100% of a woman's body for 9 months. How does it coming out make it a man's responsibility.

If a woman performs oral sex should a man be held responsible if for her poop?

You also can't op-out of supporting a child that is yours. This is not a issue of discrimination, this is a basic moral code. You helped bring that child into this world, it is your responsibility to provide for it. Nothing, no agreement, no contract, no law, can overcome that basic truth.

Women are allowed to opt-out of supporting their children. EVEN AFTER IT IS BORN.

So, no matter how many slippery arguments you devise, or how outraged you are you can't get around these 2 truths:

You can not force someone else to preform a medical procedure they don't want.
You can not abandon your responsibility to a child you brought into this world.

This leaves men in a tough spot, and it is not fair, but no one ever promised you that life was.

(1) This thread is not about forcing people to perform medical "procedures". Although given that you can have an abortion by swallowing a couple of pills "procedure" is a needless emotionally charged term. Do you get a medical "procedure" when you swallow a tylenol?

(2) Maybe when men start giving birth you can claim they bring a child into the world. But until then it is a biological fact that women bring children into the world, and should be responsible for that fact.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Funny how you want to control men's reproduction.

I have no wish to control men's reproduction. Doing nothing is not a form of control.

If a baby is 100% of a woman's body for 9 months. How does it coming out make it a man's responsibility.

Because the child his half his. This is not hard to grasp. As long as it is a part of her body, it is her decisions how that body is treated. Once it is not a part of her body then we can start treating it as a separate entity.

Women are allowed to opt-out of supporting their children. EVEN AFTER IT IS BORN.

This is something I would support changing. No one should be allowed to abandon their responsibility to a child they conceived. You should be able to give a child away, but you should still have to pay child support for it, or show that another person is willingly supporting it. At any time before the age of consent that other person should be able to come back to BOTH parents for child support. You bring a child into this world you are responsible for it, NO MATTER WHAT.

(1) This thread is not about forcing people to perform medical "procedures". Although given that you can have an abortion by swallowing a couple of pills "procedure" is a needless emotionally charged term. Do you get a medical "procedure" when you swallow a tylenol?

This entire thread is emotionally charged. Procedure is as good a word as any. And yes, for this argument swallowing a Tylenol would be a medical procedure, in the concept that forcing her to do so takes away her absolute right to control her body.

(2) Maybe when men start giving birth you can claim they bring a child into the world. But until then it is a biological fact that women bring children into the world, and should be responsible for that fact.

I see our lack of sexual education has really damaged you. I recommend you find a good book on the subject of sexual reproduction. Then you will be able to see that women do not have children alone.

 

[nehalem256]

Because the child his half his. This is not hard to grasp. As long as it is a part of her body, it is her decisions how that body is treated. Once it is not a part of her body then we can start treating it as a separate entity.

Well by this logic men should be required to support children that are born out of sperm donation.

This entire thread is emotionally charged. Procedure is as good a word as any. And yes, for this argument swallowing a Tylenol would be a medical procedure, in the concept that forcing her to do so takes away her absolute right to control her body.

Forcing someone to do something does not make it a "medical procedure"

I see our lack of sexual education has really damaged you. I recommend you find a good book on the subject of sexual reproduction. Then you will be able to see that women do not have children alone.

Women are solely responsible for children being brought into the world. You stated above that until birth a fetus is part of a woman's body. It only becomes its own person once it is born.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well by this logic men should be required to support children that are born out of sperm donation.

Does the contract that he intends to take no responsibility of any child that might come from the donation, explicitly stated before donation, absolve the man of the responsibility of the child that is produced from that donation? I will have to think about this, you might be right about that. Even so, I doubt many women would agree to having sex with a man that required such a pre-coital requirement. So, I don't see how it really helps.

Forcing someone to do something does not make it a "medical procedure"

It is still forcing someone to change their body against their will. I don't think the semantics matter all that much, so, what word would you prefer we use?

Women are solely responsible for children being brought into the world. You stated above that until birth a fetus is part of a woman's body. It only becomes its own person once it is born.

A man had a part, it can't be solely her responsibility when he assisted. Just because it is a part of her body does not mean he didn't help put it there. But responsibility does not always grant agency over the thing you are responsible for.

 

[nehalem256]

Does the contract that he intends to take no responsibility of any child that might come from the donation, explicitly stated before donation, absolve the man of the responsibility of the child that is produced from that donation? I will have to think about this, you might be right about that. Even so, I doubt many women would agree to having sex with a man that required such a pre-coital requirement. So, I don't see how it really helps.

Why does the agreement have to be pre-coital. As per the OP the woman would still have ample time to figure out what to do. Whether that is to raise the child on her own or take a couple of pills to make the problem go away.

It is still forcing someone to change their body against their will. I don't think the semantics matter all that much, so, what word would you prefer we use?

Well you could just say "take a couple of pills". The same way people refer to taking Tylenol for a headache.

A man had a part, it can't be solely her responsibility when he assisted. Just because it is a part of her body does not mean he didn't help put it there. But responsibility does not always grant agency over the thing you are responsible for.

If the fetus is part his then the woman has no right to destroy HIS fetus without his consent. When the woman let the man squirt inside her she implicitly agreed to support said fetus until it was born. This is identical to the argument you make for the man implicitly agreeing to support the child. IDENTICAL. If a woman wants to abort she should simply get a pre-coital agreement to abort the child.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Why does the agreement have to be pre-coital. As per the OP the woman would still have ample time to figure out what to do. Whether that is to raise the child on her own or take a couple of pills to make the problem go away.

It being pre-coital would be a requirement because it is the only way to remove consent. You can not decide whether or not to consent to something that you have already done.

A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it.

Well you could just say "take a couple of pills". The same way people refer to taking Tylenol for a headache.

Sure, I don't really care what we call it, it has the same moral implications. And it is not always so simple as a couple of pills.

If the fetus is part his then the woman has no right to destroy HIS fetus without his consent. When the woman let the man squirt inside her she implicitly agreed to support said fetus until it was born. This is identical to the argument you make for the man implicitly agreeing to support the child. IDENTICAL. If a woman wants to abort she should simply get a pre-coital agreement to abort the child.

No, it is not identical. It takes away her agency. You can not force someone else to do something with their body they they do not want. No matter if that is take a couple of pills or carry a baby to term. No matter how you dress up the argument, this is the primary concern.
This argument does not hold for financial responsibility. I can morally demand that someone pay for something they caused, even if they don't want to.