"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[aerosolben]

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

Successful in terms of vasectomy reversals means that sperm becomes present in the ejaculate, thus indicating that the tube is reconnected. Pregnancy is obviously the gold standard here, but there are a variety of reasons unrelated to the vasectomy as to why pregnancy might not occur. The true marker for success probably lies somewhere between the two numbers, which is why they are usually cited togetther.

Both numbers are ballpark, and placed a fair bit lower than most of the literature I've seen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

You suggested that since contraception can fail, that it was unfair to call someone "careless" for failing to use it:

All contraceptives have failure rates. There's millions of peple in this country, most of 'em have sex, and inevitably, there will be unwanted pregnancies no matter how careful someone is. This is a fact. This is not a problem born of carelessness anymore than we can say that all traffic accidents are someone's fault.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You suggested that since contraception can fail, that it was unfair to call someone "careless" for failing to use it:

I did not imply that, you infered that. It's inappropriate to deny help to someone for having an unwanted pregancy just because you *think* they didn't use protection. This guy happenes to have admited that he didn't. If I admit to the ambulence drivers that I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they won't pack up and drive away, they'll still help, even if they do ridicule me for it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I did not imply that, you infered that.

Probably because you stated "This is not a problem born of carelessness", which you justified by pointing out that contraception can fail.

It's inappropriate to deny help to someone for having an unwanted pregancy just because you *think* they didn't use protection. This guy happenes to have admited that he didn't. If I admit to the ambulence drivers that I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they won't pack up and drive away, they'll still help, even if they do ridicule me for it.

The "help" he desires is to evade his legal and ethical responsibilities to provide financial support for the child he created. It's completely appropriate to deny him this "help" when what he's asking for is wrong.

 

[JamesDillon]

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.

In what sense of the word is this not a "rare" event? Even in that situation, though, you've got two individuals (father and child), both of whom are wholly "innocent" (to use term with more moral baggage than I would prefer) of the child's existence, and yet the child's needs are no less real or legitimate for that fact (children who are the products of rape need food and shelter just as much as other children do), and the child is entirely unable to meet those needs for itself, so even in that situation I think it would be not unreasonable to impose some duty of care on the father. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law did not, and I think reasonable positions could be defended on either side of that question.

Once again, this question cannot be resolved simply by comparing the relative "fault" of the mother and father; the interests of the child must be taken into account as well.

 

[toddjh]

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

It means the operation is successful, e.g. it reverses the effect of the vasectomy and sperm are able to leave the body. The reason not all successful reversals result in pregnancy is that, after a vasectomy, the body begins to treat all the pent-up sperm as intruders, and develops antibodies to attack them. Sometimes these antibodies are present in the seminal fluid and will destroy the sperm cells before they can fertilize the egg.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

In what sense of the word is this not a "rare" event? Even in that situation, though, you've got two individuals (father and child), both of whom are wholly "innocent" (to use term with more moral baggage than I would prefer) of the child's existence, and yet the child's needs are no less real or legitimate for that fact (children who are the products of rape need food and shelter just as much as other children do), and the child is entirely unable to meet those needs for itself, so even in that situation I think it would be not unreasonable to impose some duty of care on the father. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law did not, and I think reasonable positions could be defended on either side of that question.

Once again, this question cannot be resolved simply by comparing the relative "fault" of the mother and father; the interests of the child must be taken into account as well.

I concede that this particular case is pretty cut and dry. However:

Let's take a look at some mistaken beliefs about male sexual assault and uncover the realities behind the myths...

Myth: Men can't be sexually assaulted. Reality: Men are sexually assaulted. Any man can be sexually assaulted regardless of size, strength, appearance or sexual orientation.

Myth: Only gay men are sexually assaulted. Reality: Heterosexual, gay and bisexual men are equally likely to be sexually assaulted. Being sexually assaulted has nothing to do with your current or future sexual orientation. Your sexuality has no more to do with being raped than being robbed.

Myth: Only gay men sexually assault other men. Reality: Most men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. This fact helps to highlight another reality -- that sexual assault is about violence, anger, and control over another person, not lust or sexual attraction.

Myth: Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women. Reality: Although the majority of perpetrators are male, men can also be sexually assaulted by women.

Myth: Erection or ejaculation during a sexual assault means you "really wanted it" or consented to it. Reality: Erection and ejaculation are physiological responses that may result from mere physical contact or even extreme stress. These responses do not imply that you wanted or enjoyed the assault and do not indicate anything about your sexual orientation. Some rapists are aware how erection and ejaculation can confuse a victim of sexual assault -- this motivates them to manipulate their victims to the point of erection or ejaculation to increase their feelings of control and to discourage reporting of the crime.

What Is "Sexual Assault?"

In legal terms, sexual assault is any sexual contact that is against a person's will or without consent. This includes situations where force, violence, or weapons are used as well as situations where the victim is too intoxicated or scared to give consent. Sexual assault happens to men as well as women. In fact, by most estimations, 5% to 10% of sexual assaults committed in the United States involve male victims. Some experts say that as many as 1 in 10 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. These numbers may sound startling because the problem of sexual assault against men isn't talked about very much.

Sexual assault against men happens in lots of different ways. Some men are assaulted by a stranger, or a group of strangers, while others may be assaulted by someone they know. Men are sometimes sexually assaulted by women but most often they are sexually assaulted by other men. Some attackers use weapons, physical force, or the threat of force to gain the upper hand. Others may use blackmail or a position of authority to threaten someone into submission. Still others use alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both, to prevent victims from fighting back. No matter how it occurs, it is a violation of a man's body and his free will and it can have lasting emotional consequences.

Adult men can and are sexually assaulted by women. Example: Man gets inebriated. Woman takes man home, and has sex with him while he's dead drunk, as passed out. That's sexual assault. In our legal system, that man might have to pay child support for a child he fathered without his consent, while being the victim of a crime.

Edit: Neglected this source link: http://www.utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/maleassault/menassault.html

 

[JamesDillon]

Adult men can and are sexually assaulted by women. Example: Man gets inebriated. Woman takes man home, and has sex with him while he's dead drunk, as passed out. That's sexual assault. In our legal system, that man might have to pay child support for a child he fathered without his consent, while being the victim of a crime.

Edit: Neglected this source link: http://www.utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/maleassault/menassault.html

I don't think anyone is denying that such things can and do occur; I very seriously doubt that a significant portion of the population is here today because their father was raped, but there are no doubt some cases in which that is true, and the fathers in those instances would probably feel some resentment for having to pay child support under the circumstances.

However, you only responded to the first sentence of my post, and ignored the following two paragraphs in which I argued that even under those circumstances, an argument can be made that the father should (or at least, could in a manner consistent with our basic notions of fairness) be compelled to pay child support. Whenever, for any reason, a child is born that the father would prefer not to have been born, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The mother supports the child alone, in which case the child is materially worse off than it would have been had the father also made monetary contributions to its well-being.
2. The mother supports the child with some support from the state, in which case the expense of raising the child is spread among all taxpayers instead of resting solely on the father, or
3. The father helps support the child financially.

In cases 2 and 3, the child is objectively better off than it is in case 1, in that more of its material needs will be met. I think that one could reasonably prefer either outcome 2 or outcome 3; in either case, the additional financial burden of raising the child will be borne by a party who had very little to do with its conception. At that point it really becomes a matter of risk allocation: do we place the risk of sexual assault leading to the conception of children on each individual, or on the collective state? I tend to prefer the latter, but there are no doubt plenty of taxpayers who would argue that the father should still be personally responsible even in those circumstances.

 

[jj]

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.

Uh, not by any numbers I've see. In particular, I've seen clear statements that immune reactions make reversal very unlikely. I'm talking about MEN here, you realize, not women.

 

[meg]

Here's a link about vasectomy reversal.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/25921-7.asp

There also is the option of saving sperm at a sperm bank prior to getting a vasectomy, in case the man wishes to have children later on.

Meg

 

[Cleon]

Here's a link about vasectomy reversal.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/25921-7.asp

There also is the option of saving sperm at a sperm bank prior to getting a vasectomy, in case the man wishes to have children later on.

Yeah...Personally, I'd prefer just keeping any sharp objects or snippers away from Little Cleon.

 

[aerosolben]

Uh, not by any numbers I've see. In particular, I've seen clear statements that immune reactions make reversal very unlikely. I'm talking about MEN here, you realize, not women.

Do you have a link? I can't find anything that states numbers anywhere close to what you cited.

Here's a study with 93% patency and 60% pregnancy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12809901&dopt=Abstract

Here's a bunch of other ones citing similar numbers:
http://www.mmhc-online.com/articles/vasectomy_reversal.html
http://www.vasectomymedical.com/vasectomy-reversal-success-rates.html
http://www.vasectomy-information.com/moreinfo/reversal.htm
http://www.webmd.com/hw/infertility_reproduction/hw227277.asp

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think anyone is denying that such things can and do occur; I very seriously doubt that a significant portion of the population is here today because their father was raped, but there are no doubt some cases in which that is true, and the fathers in those instances would probably feel some resentment for having to pay child support under the circumstances.

Thank you for perpetuating the myth that men being raped by women is so rare, that we shouldn't worry about it.

However, you only responded to the first sentence of my post, and ignored the following two paragraphs in which I argued that even under those circumstances, an argument can be made that the father should (or at least, could in a manner consistent with our basic notions of fairness) be compelled to pay child support. Whenever, for any reason, a child is born that the father would prefer not to have been born, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The mother supports the child alone, in which case the child is materially worse off than it would have been had the father also made monetary contributions to its well-being.
2. The mother supports the child with some support from the state, in which case the expense of raising the child is spread among all taxpayers instead of resting solely on the father, or
3. The father helps support the child financially.

In cases 2 and 3, the child is objectively better off than it is in case 1, in that more of its material needs will be met. I think that one could reasonably prefer either outcome 2 or outcome 3; in either case, the additional financial burden of raising the child will be borne by a party who had very little to do with its conception. At that point it really becomes a matter of risk allocation: do we place the risk of sexual assault leading to the conception of children on each individual, or on the collective state? I tend to prefer the latter, but there are no doubt plenty of taxpayers who would argue that the father should still be personally responsible even in those circumstances.

I can't belive you're aruging that a rape victim should be compelled to pay child support. That is akin to forcing a female rape victim to bear and support her child. Even if the child might be better off being supported by the father, and even if it was a sound moral choice for the father make (debatable) we have no right to force the victim of a crime to support a child he fathered against his will.

 

[JamesDillon]

Thank you for perpetuating the myth that men being raped by women is so rare, that we shouldn't worry about it.

When did I say that we shouldn't worry about it? The rest of my post goes on to discuss how we could respond to that very situation. I was merely rebutting your suggestion that the situation is not rare. If you care to offer some statistical information regarding the number of individuals alive today who are products of male rape, then I could be persuaded to change my mind. Otherwise I'll stick with my intuitive sense that this is a very unusual situation, and not the norm.

I can't belive you're aruging that a rape victim should be compelled to pay child support.

I said I could see an argument for it either way. The father in such a circumstance is an innocent victim. The child is also an innocent victim. The father is better able to provide for the child's needs than the child is. Thus I can see a non-frivolous argument for imposing a part of the cost of raising the child on the father. I also said that I think the better view is that the state should bear that cost instead of the father, but that there is room for reasonable disagreement on that point, since the taxpayers are also innocent victims.

That is akin to forcing a female rape victim to bear and support her child.

A female rape victim has a choice to abort the child, or to give it up for adoption. If she chooses not to do so, then of course I think she should be obliged to support the child.

The father, of course, lacks the legal right to decide whether to abort the baby, or put it up for adoption. So, sure, it's somewhat less fair to make him bear a part of the burden for caring for the child. That doesn't in any way diminish the baby's needs, or the fact that the father is better able to provide for those needs than the baby is.

Even if the child might be better off being supported by the father, and even if it was a sound moral choice for the father make (debatable) we have no right to force the victim of a crime to support a child he fathered against his will.

Again, I don't think that talk of morality is very helpful. The law resolves family issues by appeal to the best interests of the child. The child has an interest in having its material needs met. Unless the mother is sufficiently wealthy to meet those needs by herself, then the best interests of the child dictate that someone, either the father or the state, must step in to provide assistance. Outside the context of male rape, that burden should clearly fall on the father. In the rare context of male rape leading to the birth of a child, as I said before, I think that one could reasonably place that responsibility on either the father or the state, and, once again, I personally come down in favor of the state but would not be outraged by a conclusion to the contrary.

 

[epepke]

Adult men can and are sexually assaulted by women. Example: Man gets inebriated. Woman takes man home, and has sex with him while he's dead drunk, as passed out. That's sexual assault. In our legal system, that man might have to pay child support for a child he fathered without his consent, while being the victim of a crime.

You don't even have to go that far.

Say a man marries a woman. She goes off and has an affair. She conceives a child. She divorces the man she's married to. He has to pay child support.

This is the way it is in most states in the US.

 

[JamesDillon]

You don't even have to go that far.

Say a man marries a woman. She goes off and has an affair. She conceives a child. She divorces the man she's married to. He has to pay child support.

This is the way it is in most states in the US.

Can you offer some evidence for this? I'm not an expert in family law but I would think that, if the ex-husband can rebut the presumption of paternity (i.e., prove he's not the father), then he would have no legal obligations toward the child. The sort of evidence I'd like to see is a statute or court opinion holding that the ex-husband owes child support regardless of the fact that he has proven himself not to be the father-- I believe it is the case that many states presume that a child born to a married man is that man's child, but I think that presumption can be rebutted, ending any legal obligations the man may have.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, my! Lied to, by a lover? That's a first for the annals of human history!

My sympathy is zero. He got lazy and complacent and put trust where it shouldn't have been, and now he's trying to get out of the consequences.

If you caught an STD, would you seek medical help?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you caught an STD, would you seek medical help?

Yes. But I wouldn't whine about it and hire lawyers and start a campaign about how I ought to be protected from the consequences of my own carelessness or bad luck. I wouldn't expect other people to pay for my treatment. And I certainly wouldn't go online and argue that the responsibility wasn't mine.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. But I wouldn't whine about it and hire lawyers and start a campaign about how I ought to be protected from the consequences of my own carelessness or bad luck. I wouldn't expect other people to pay for my treatment. And I certainly wouldn't go online and argue that the responsibility wasn't mine.

I'm writing the freakin' master's thesis on female-on-male rape statistics, but I wanted to interject to ask. "If you were raped, and contracted an STD that way, would you object if people told you that was your fault?"

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm writing the freakin' master's rthesis on female-on-male rape statistics, but I wanted to interject to ask. "If you were raped, and contracted an STD that way, would you object if people told you that was your fault?"

Of course. If sex is nonconsentual, then the responsibility for the consequences does not rest with the victim, but with the perpetrator. Likewise if you are forced to steal at gunpoint, you are not guilty of theft, either ethically or legally. (Well, some idiot might charge you, but no jury would convict.)