Why shouldn't men have more reproductive rights?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by redferry
Seriously it's not exactly hard to wear a condom if you're that worried about it.
it's not about that. it's abou consent before and after. you cannot just expect a man to universally always keep to the same opinion with regards to having a child, which is a *huge* matter of responsibility. if a woman changes her mind about pregnancy, for example, that's fine apparently, but if the man does, then what can he do if he fails to convince the pregnant partner to have an abortion? do you see the inequality? or do you interpret this as "just different" or "giving birth hurts therefore she should have more/all of the rights"?
If a woman has a child and the man cares for the baby then the women still has to pay child support you do realise? This isn't just a man's issue.
right, and how many single fathers (of most of the custody) are you suggesting exist in terms of the ratio between them and single mothers?
If you choose to have a child - which lets be honest is a choice, it's easy enough to avoid, then you should pay for that child.
I don't think you understand. what if the father changes his mind? 18 years of paying for a child is a HUGE amount of money just for a mistaken action which can easily be avoided if he only had *some* rights, here! if I accidentally, or purposefully (and later have a change of mind), impregnate a woman, are you really suggesting that my punishment for having an alteration of opinion is *18 years of child support payments*?!
Weird thing is the people who whinge about this are probably the same people that whinge about people being given benefits (that's where the money will come from otherwise).
so what? what are you even implying?
The real gap in male reproductive rights is the lack of a male pill. Yet you never hear men complain about that for some reason? It woils solve all these problems by getting rid of any potential condom failiures and giving men complete control over whether they have kids.
no, again, I am telling you that it transcends simple contraception. what if the male partner changes his mind? a woman can, so why can't a man? and before I forget, what about the fact, legally, a woman in this country can lie about taking the pill and then forcing the man to pay for the child later on, or even, she can force him to pay for her child while she has a new male partners who is wealthier who spends more time with that child and naturalises into the father position? what about the women who say that the pill or condom failed but then get found out to be people who were impregnated by other men later after child support payments have been made? male reproductive rights would go a considerable way towards dealing with their very apparent injustices, wouldn't they? what's the disagree with in terms of allowing the man a choice before the point of no return (24 weeks) in whether he consents to the future child's birth?
(edited 9 years ago)
It's hard subject because someone has to pay for the child's upkeep and if the fathers aren't paying for it, then all you'll get is the state paying for it which obviously isn't ideal.
There is also the problem of men being forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs which is why I think DNA tests should be used more to stop this form of exploitation of men by women.
However if you are actually the father then you should financially support your child.
The male pill will hopefully reduce the number of unwanted children and cases of men paying for kids they don't want.
There is also the problem of men being forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs which is why I think DNA tests should be used more to stop this form of exploitation of men by women.
However if you are actually the father then you should financially support your child.
The male pill will hopefully reduce the number of unwanted children and cases of men paying for kids they don't want.
Original post by redferry
If you really think that is a common occurrence I think you have issues.
I think the bigger problem in society is men leaving their partners to look after children they willingly had and not paying child support. I mean, I literally know noone where their parner has had their baby without their consent, yet I know numerous women left holding the baby with little to no financial support.
I think the only thing that will solve this issue is the male pill. There is no need to change the law which will inevitably **** over thousands of women as their husbands opt to leave them caring for the children on their own.
I think the bigger problem in society is men leaving their partners to look after children they willingly had and not paying child support. I mean, I literally know noone where their parner has had their baby without their consent, yet I know numerous women left holding the baby with little to no financial support.
I think the only thing that will solve this issue is the male pill. There is no need to change the law which will inevitably **** over thousands of women as their husbands opt to leave them caring for the children on their own.
Err, I didn't say it was a common occurrence; I just said it happens (and it does). And instances where the pregnancy comes as a surprise to both parents is rather common.
Even with the male pill, there are still going to be unexpected pregnancies (it still happens even with condoms and the female pill). It is only fair that, if we allow one sex to decide not to be a part of the child's life and pay nothing, we extend that same right to the other parent too. As I've already pointed out, the female parent gets to make all the choices, and the male parent next to none (but is still made to pay his earnings). But if it is a case that the man leaves after the child is born or after the abortion cut-off date passes, then, naturally, he should be made to contribute. This would apply to women too. If, however, he is unaware of any pregnancy at all, and the woman made no effort to contact and inform him up until that point, he should not necessarily be made to contribute.
Original post by Dandaman1
Err, I didn't say it was a common occurrence; I just said it happens (and it does). And instances where the pregnancy comes as a surprise to both parents is rather common.
Even with the male pill, there are still going to be unexpected pregnancies (it still happens even with condoms and the female pill). It is only fair that, if we allow one sex to decide not to be a part of the child's life and pay nothing, we extend that same right to the other parent too. As I've already pointed out, the female parent gets to make all the choices, and the male parent next to none (but is still made to pay his earnings). But if it is a case that the man leaves after the child is born or after the abortion cut-off date passes, then, naturally, he should be made to contribute. This would apply to women too. If, however, he is unaware of any pregnancy at all, and the woman made no effort to contact and inform him up until that point, he should not necessarily be made to contribute.
Even with the male pill, there are still going to be unexpected pregnancies (it still happens even with condoms and the female pill). It is only fair that, if we allow one sex to decide not to be a part of the child's life and pay nothing, we extend that same right to the other parent too. As I've already pointed out, the female parent gets to make all the choices, and the male parent next to none (but is still made to pay his earnings). But if it is a case that the man leaves after the child is born or after the abortion cut-off date passes, then, naturally, he should be made to contribute. This would apply to women too. If, however, he is unaware of any pregnancy at all, and the woman made no effort to contact and inform him up until that point, he should not necessarily be made to contribute.
What if both are unaware of the pregnancy? I had a colleagues who didn't find out she was pregnant until 28 weeks... And another friend who was 21 weeks as all the tests were negative yet she definitely was pregnant....
Original post by SnooFnoo
What if both are unaware of the pregnancy? I had a colleagues who didn't find out she was pregnant until 28 weeks... And another friend who was 21 weeks as all the tests were negative yet she definitely was pregnant....
In this instance the woman still has the opportunity to give up the child after birth. Out of fairness, as no commitment was promised by the man prior, he should also have the same opportunity to sever himself from the child. If the woman chooses to keep and raise the child, that is then her responsibility.
This applies both ways (if the man wants to keep it but the woman doesn't, for example).
Original post by Dandaman1
In this instance the woman still has the opportunity to give up the child after birth. Out of fairness, as no commitment was promised by the man prior, he should also have the same opportunity to sever himself from the child. If the woman chooses to keep and raise the child, that is then her responsibility.
This applies both ways (if the man wants to keep it but the woman doesn't, for example).
This applies both ways (if the man wants to keep it but the woman doesn't, for example).
The emotional distress that comes with adoption is generally why women don't consider it an option any longer.
There's too many grey areas, or exceptions to your rules.
People should pay for the children they create.
Original post by SnooFnoo
The emotional distress that comes with adoption is generally why women don't consider it an option any longer.
There's too many grey areas, or exceptions to your rules.
People should pay for the children they create.
There's too many grey areas, or exceptions to your rules.
People should pay for the children they create.
I would be happy for this principle to be followed, as long as women are made to follow it too. What I most dislike about the current system is unequal allocation of rights and responsibilities between parents. As it currently stands, a woman has ways to wash her hands of the pregnancy and not pay a thing. A man doesn't (but still has to pay).
Original post by Dandaman1
I would be happy for this principle to be followed, as long as women are made to follow it too. What I most dislike about the current system is unequal allocation of rights and responsibilities between parents. As it currently stands, a woman has ways to wash her hands of the pregnancy and not pay a thing. A man doesn't (but still has to pay).
By wash her hands do you mean abortion? It's not an easy choice and it's one they have to live with forever.
Original post by SnooFnoo
By wash her hands do you mean abortion? It's not an easy choice and it's one they have to live with forever.
The easiness of it is subjective. Nevertheless, many women are very vocal in fighting for their right to have them.
And remember it's not their choice, it's hers. But this is one instance where I do think the woman should have all the power (as she is the one who has to carry it inside her and give birth).
Original post by Dandaman1
The easiness of it is subjective. Nevertheless, many women are very vocal in fighting for their right to have them.
And remember it's not their choice, it's hers. But this is one instance where I do think the woman should have all the power (as she is the one who has to carry it inside her and give birth).
And remember it's not their choice, it's hers. But this is one instance where I do think the woman should have all the power (as she is the one who has to carry it inside her and give birth).
It's never an easy choice but OfCourse the choice will be there. Women facing desperate times will always seek abortion, legalising is provides a safe environment for that to happen .
Totally agreed. If the woman has full say over whether to have the baby then the man has full say over whether to pay for it.
It's cheaper and politically easier for the government to make unwilling fathers the scapegoats. The alternatives are paying child support from the taxpayer, leaving the child to grow up with a mother who can't adequately provide for them and forcible abortion/adoption.
Obviously the closest thing to fairness would be that the father (to be) can drop all rights and responsibilities to the child in the same circumstances as the mother (to be) can have an abortion. It's not entirely fair in that the mother can be made to carry and have the baby, and the father can have his unborn child killed, but it's the closest thing to fairness that is feasible.
Obviously the closest thing to fairness would be that the father (to be) can drop all rights and responsibilities to the child in the same circumstances as the mother (to be) can have an abortion. It's not entirely fair in that the mother can be made to carry and have the baby, and the father can have his unborn child killed, but it's the closest thing to fairness that is feasible.
The reason the law is the way it is two-fold.
1. Practicalities - If there are more single mothers with child support, we all have to pay more tax to support them. No-one wants to do this.
2. Morality - Most people would find it (or at least would claim to find it) morally reprehensible that a man would have a child and not want to do his best to make sure that they have the best possible childhood. For most adult men, a big part of self worth comes from being able to provide for children. So again, few would vote for a man to be able to simply walk away, because that is something they couldn't imagine doing themselves.
1. Practicalities - If there are more single mothers with child support, we all have to pay more tax to support them. No-one wants to do this.
2. Morality - Most people would find it (or at least would claim to find it) morally reprehensible that a man would have a child and not want to do his best to make sure that they have the best possible childhood. For most adult men, a big part of self worth comes from being able to provide for children. So again, few would vote for a man to be able to simply walk away, because that is something they couldn't imagine doing themselves.
Original post by SnooFnoo
What if both are unaware of the pregnancy? I had a colleagues who didn't find out she was pregnant until 28 weeks... And another friend who was 21 weeks as all the tests were negative yet she definitely was pregnant....
You had a colleague who didn't have her period for 7 months and didn't go see a doctor to figure out why?
Where on earth do you work?
Original post by TurboCretin
You had a colleague who didn't have her period for 7 months and didn't go see a doctor to figure out why?
Where on earth do you work?
Where on earth do you work?
Both examples continued to have periods. Rare but does happen.
Original post by vickidc18
Instead of being selfish think of the child, imagine how hurt you would be if your dad signed a contract saying he wanted nothing to do with you. The pill isn't 100% effective, condoms arent' 100% effective, start taking responsibility for our actions, the day when men can get pregnant, and give birth I will support reproductive rights, maybe we should campaign for a male pill. A lot of men can and do walk away my friend got pregnant at 19 she didn't want the baby but he convinced her to continue with the pregnancy he was 26 and had a job, she gave birth the relationship broke down 4 months after the baby was born, he hasn't seen the child since october and he moved away, she does 100% of the childcare, lives in poverty and if she said she wouldn't go through the csa because he will just quit his job. He doesnt pay and he doesnt see the child and he wanted it!! It works both ways!
See that is horrendous, because he supported her decision to have the child and walked away after it was born. He should fully accept responsibility to pay for that child, because she went through with the birth in reliance on his support.
However, if he had said from the outset that he didn't want the child and she kept it anyway, I would think differently.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
