"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Whoracle]

The problem here is that for women having a baby is 100% optional where as for a man it is not. There is no reliable birth control for men and condoms have problems often enough that you wouldn't want to rely on them for a long period of time. Women on the other hand have over 11 different forms of birth control available, many of which work 100% if they take it right. Not only that they could double up birth control and condoms to effectively have the security of Fort Knox guarding their uterus. Plus they can have an abortion, give the kid up for adoption or even in California (not sure about anywhere else) they can dump the kid off at a hospital within 72 hours and give up all responsibility to it.

Women can avoid all the responsibility if they want, men cannot. If it's the guys fault for not wearing a condom it's also her fault for making him wear one. Men have zero rights when it comes to reproduction, women have all the rights. I think that's a little unfair.

 

[meg]

Well, no actually, jj. I think the same should be true of the woman, too. I think that anyone that says that that absolutely completely and totally don't want children and they consider the risk inherent with contraception unacceptable, then they should get sterilized.

Meg

 

[jj]

Well, no actually, jj. I think the same should be true of the woman, too. I think that anyone that says that that absolutely completely and totally don't want children and they consider the risk inherent with contraception unacceptable, then they should get sterilized.

Meg

I see a difference between "never having children" and "not wanting to have children now, with this person".

 

[Meadmaker]

You've been cited one way to fix the problem, so you can't argue otherwise.

To what are you referring?

 

[meg]

There are several possibilities being worked on right now, Whoracle. Here are a few of them. Hopefully, soon there will be many more birth control options available to men.

 

[JamesDillon]

Women can avoid all the responsibility if they want, men cannot. If it's the guys fault for not wearing a condom it's also her fault for making him wear one. Men have zero rights when it comes to reproduction, women have all the rights. I think that's a little unfair.

A fundamental problem here is the recurrent idea that someone needs to be at "fault" in order to be susceptible to a legitimate legal obligation. Due process requires that there be some kind of causal connection between the act of an individual and the state's justification for imposing some kind of cost or liability upon him, but I think the notion of "fault," with its connotation of moral blameworthiness, is not very helpful. It is also noteworthy that, in these circumstances, it is almost always the case that the woman takes on far greater responsibility and liability than the man does-- the woman is obliged to care for the child for at least the next 18 years, whereas the man need only, at minimum, make certain monthly payments and needn't have any further interaction with the child. Finally, and most importantly, as soon as the child is born, there is a third party to this relationship who has certain legitimate needs, and who has played no causal role whatsoever in creating the situation.

It seems perfectly fair to me, therefore, to impose upon the father a certain share of the costs for the child's upbringing, regardless of whether he consented to the child's birth. Both the man and the woman were causal agents who contributed to the subsequent birth of the child. True, the man's role was perhaps quantitatively less than the woman's, but he is nonetheless a but-for cause of the child's existence, and his subsequent obligation in the form of child support payments is correspondingly less than that of the mother. In addition, the child, who is not in any sense a cause of its own existence, has legitimate material needs and legal interests that can, legally and, in my view, morally, be imposed upon the father due to his role as a proximate cause of the situation. The arguments focusing on the relative "culpability" of the mother and father simply overlook this point.

 

[meg]

jj wrote: Ok, I get your position plain as day. We're not going to agree. One side has to consent to self-mutiliation, the other doesn't. Gotcha.

Ok. I've taken a walk. I've counted to fifty, but I just can't do it. I just can't ignore this one and not respond...

Getting a vasectomy is "self mutilation"???

"The other doesn't"??????????????

"THE OTHER DOESN'T"???????????????????!!!!!


Are you an idiot, or what? Let's see here, the only two options for a pregant woman are make an appointment, get counselling, wait three days (or more, depending on the state), travel BACK to the clinic, however far it may be. (Did you know that 80% of all the counties in this country DO NOT have abortion clinics?) Pay $700+ dollars for the easy-po-peasy experience of being strapped to a table, legs high in the air while a stranger SCCCCCCCRRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPPPPEEESs the inside of your uterus out for a half an hour or so, then sends you on your way to bleed and cramp heavily for the next three weeks or so.

Oh! The Other option is even better! Let an alian take over your body for 9 months usurping all your energy, food, and sleep, filling your body with all sorts of hormones that make you feel insane, pukey and dangerous, going to the doctor and getting examined more than 20 times, only to be culminated by again being laid out on a table legs high in the air so you can spend 12 + hours pushing a 20 inch 8 pound watermelon out an orifice no bigger that your *******. Again, bleeding, cramping, etc for weeks afterward. Not to mention the little bugger is now regularly clamping onto your sore aching boobs, which hurts like hell at first, I'm here to tell ya. I hear the cost to do that is around $5,000 these days.

If you think a guy getting a vasectomy is the one getting "mutilated" in this deal, dude, you really need to get a grip.

I mean it.

Really.

Get.A.Grip.


Meg

 

[jj]

If you think a guy getting a vasectomy is the one getting "mutilated" in this deal, dude, you really need to get a grip.

You're conflating quite a few issues here.

1) The woman does not HAVE to have the baby.
We have two kids, I've watched the process. I know what being a mom means from the observational side, and I know it's a big deal. BUT it is optional. Now, don't start lecturing me about the dangers, there are several very good reasons I know all about late-pregnancy hypertension, so don't even start to go there. I know it's a great big deal. Why do you unjustifiably insinuate otherwise?

2) The guy, in your position, has no option. It's true that all male contraceptive methods do fail, and badly, except for sterilization, and you know what, in case you're not aware of it, vasectomy also fails sometimes. And when it doens't fail, it's permanant. There's no reversal in 99.9999% of cases.

The woman has an option. If you consider an abortion permanant mutilation, well, then, you have a point, but not one I agree with. If you don't consider an abortion to be a permanant mutilation (you do notice I'm leaving the possibility that it feels that way, at least temporarily, that it has nasty emotional and social side effects, nasty physical effetc, etc, yes?), then you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[jj]

A fundamental problem here is the recurrent idea that someone needs to be at "fault" in order to be susceptible to a legitimate legal obligation.

I believe that the issue of "fault" is a red herring here. I do see some people raising it, but it's not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is the inequities in the process.

 

[Whoracle]

A fundamental problem here is the recurrent idea that someone needs to be at "fault" in order to be susceptible to a legitimate legal obligation. Due process requires that there be some kind of causal connection between the act of an individual and the state's justification for imposing some kind of cost or liability upon him, but I think the notion of "fault," with its connotation of moral blameworthiness, is not very helpful. It is also noteworthy that, in these circumstances, it is almost always the case that the woman takes on far greater responsibility and liability than the man does-- the woman is obliged to care for the child for at least the next 18 years, whereas the man need only, at minimum, make certain monthly payments and needn't have any further interaction with the child. Finally, and most importantly, as soon as the child is born, there is a third party to this relationship who has certain legitimate needs, and who has played no causal role whatsoever in creating the situation.

It seems perfectly fair to me, therefore, to impose upon the father a certain share of the costs for the child's upbringing, regardless of whether he consented to the child's birth. Both the man and the woman were causal agents who contributed to the subsequent birth of the child. True, the man's role was perhaps quantitatively less than the woman's, but he is nonetheless a but-for cause of the child's existence, and his subsequent obligation in the form of child support payments is correspondingly less than that of the mother. In addition, the child, who is not in any sense a cause of its own existence, has legitimate material needs and legal interests that can, legally and, in my view, morally, be imposed upon the father due to his role as a proximate cause of the situation. The arguments focusing on the relative "culpability" of the mother and father simply overlook this point.

The woman doesn't have to do anything, she has plenty of options of getting rid of the baby if she doesn't want to care for it. Men have none.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Why the double standard for sperm donors? If a man has an agreement with his girlfriend that sex won't result in any children which he will be responsible for, why should that agreement be any less enforceable than that of a sperm donor?

Dad is dad, whether or not dad wanted to be. It doesn't matter if dad thought it was impossible to be dad. It doesn't matter if dad was too drunk to remember becoming dad.

So even if a man is raped, he is still responsible for any child that results?

May I point out that the mother is allowed to give coustody of her child to the state, by dropping off the child at a firestation, with no questions asked?

That's an interesting point. What would happen if a man didn't want to deal with child support payments, so he took his child and dropped it off at a firestation?

The fact that contraception sometimes fails is not a valid excuse to neglect using it, any more than the fact that traffic accidents occur is a valid excuse to drive with your eyes shut.

But it does contradict your position. You say that women on the pill sometimes get pregnant, so it's irresponsible to have sex with them. According to this logic, having sex while wearing a condom is also irresponsible.

Yes, it might happen even if you do take precautions. But it's much less likely to happen than if you take no precautions at all. So yes, it is indeed careless.

That simply does not follow. Simply because a precaution exists does not mean that not using it is careless.

Your position seems to be that trusting other people is being "irresponsible". According to your logic, no man should ever have sex. What a lonely world you must live in.

 

[pgwenthold]

So even if a man is raped, he is still responsible for any child that results?
.

I think there is even precedence for that.

ISTR that an underage boy who fathered a child by a woman of majority age was held responsible for child support, despite the fact that the encounter was legally rape.

 

[aerosolben]

And when it doens't fail, it's permanant. There's no reversal in 99.9999% of cases.

Your numbers here are totally bogus. Reversal is successful well over 90% of the time for those who been snipped less than 10 years, with successful pregnancies resulting at least a good 50% or so of those. Obviously, success rates drop off as time goes by, but not even remotely close to what you're suggesting.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Where the hell do you live? I'm pretty sure child-abandonment is illegal in most civilized countries!!

Florida. Here, a mother is free to give a child to the authorities at a firestation with no questions asked.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The fact that contraception sometimes fails is not a valid excuse to neglect using it, any more than the fact that traffic accidents occur is a valid excuse to drive with your eyes shut. Yes, it might happen even if you do take precautions. But it's much less likely to happen than if you take no precautions at all. So yes, it is indeed careless.

Please show me where I supported careless contraceptive use. I started out by saying that I use rubber baby buggy bumpers, because I know what the consequences are. I hope everyone here uses appropriate protection as well.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

True. At least, mostly true.

For example, if she gives the child up, dad ought to be able to take the child. If she keeps the child, dad ought to get visitation rights. However, dad can't force her to give the child up for adoption, and dad can't choose to "opt out" of child support. Dad is dad, whether or not dad wanted to be. It doesn't matter if dad thought it was impossible to be dad. It doesn't matter if dad was too drunk to remember becoming dad. It doesn't matter what dad thought would happen back when dad was just a single guy cruising the bars for some easy action.

Dad is now dad. He has a few rights, and a lot of obligations, and it doesn't have to be fair.

I never asked for it to be made fair. all I did is point out that this is case. If you're male, once you come, your reproductive choices go. Everything else I've been accused of implying is inference.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry I didn't reply to this post more promptly, I didn't see my moniker in bold, and didn't realize you were replyong to what I'd said.

ImaginalDisc wrote:

No. This is not true. There are many many women in this country that do not feel that abortion is an option. If they do not feel like they can choose an abortion, why should the man be able to choose one anyway?

I never said that men should have that right. Again, and I'm getting weary of saying this, I was attempting to point out the facts.

ID, I think you're really misconstruing the purpose behind the safe baby laws. The ability to drop off a baby at a hospital or firestation is not to make it easy for a woman to give the kid up for adoption. It is to prevent abandonment and death of the child. The point of these laws is to give the mother in crises an option besides abandoning or killing the newborn infant.

In my own state, the child is handed over to child protective services, who then decide where the baby should go. There is a search for the father, or other family members for the child to live with. Should no suitable family members be found, and should the mother not return (they do get a time period where they can change their minds and retrieve the baby), THEN the baby is placed up for adoption.

It is not the equivilent of an on paper abortion. It is the equivilent of telling desperate mothers "Don't kill the baby! If you bring it here instead, you won't be prosecuted for murder or gross negligence."

Big difference.

I will admit , of course, to the facts you've pointed out, but the fact remains that a mother can deliver her child to the care of the state, and that the intial choice to do so is in the hands of the mother, not the father.

I don't think I dismissed anything in my above post. Personally, I think the man should have a say in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

What form of say do you think he should have? Should abortions be a joint descision? I don't advocate that. I think abortions ought to be a choice made exclusively by the women *even though* that disenfrancises the man, because there's no way to justify party A making forcing party B to undergo a medical procedure.

However, I don't think that if his child is born, that there should be any way he can get out of taking responsibility for it. Once the child is born, the only thing to do is to take care of the child. There is NO WAY that a man should make the decision for the woman to have an abortion, so therefore, the man's ability to control his parental situation ends at the point of ejaculation.

That's what I've been saying all along.

If a man is so certain that he absolutely does not want a child, and that he will not accept that no matter how many precautions a couple may take, that a child might be the result, then he should get himself sterilized prior to having sex with women.

Meg

Sterlization is awfully harsh.

As Godmode pointed out earlier, this isn't a problem which can realistically be solved through legislation, but by technoliogy. I think a male contraceptive pill or implant is going to make this problem much smaller, especially if it's affordable. Women have gained a great deal of control through well, birth control. Men have only the choice of sterlization, or nothing.

Ok, now that I'm done being on the defnsive for allegedly supporting taking us back into the Victorian era, I'd like to point out that I never once adovcated taking rights away from women, I just wanted people to admit that men have no rights in this regard.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Your numbers here are totally bogus. Reversal is successful well over 90% of the time for those who been snipped less than 10 years, with successful pregnancies resulting at least a good 50% or so of those. Obviously, success rates drop off as time goes by, but not even remotely close to what you're suggesting.

If there aren't any pregnancies, in what sense is it "successful"?

 

[Meadmaker]

So even if a man is raped, he is still responsible for any child that results?

I must admit, I did not consider that possibility, but in those rare cases, the man should not be responsible for child support or any other paternal obligation.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I must admit, I did not consider that possibility, but in those rare cases, the man should not be responsible for child support or any other paternal obligation.

Rare? Much less common than the instances that women are raped surely, but it's not unknown, especially in the case of statuory rape. Billy the 15 year old is seduced by his 30 year old stepmother, and the stepmother has all the control over the choices to be made.