Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why shouldn't men have more reproductive rights? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    how does it reduce risk?
    Are you seriously asking how additional contraception reduces the chance of conception?

    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    You are financially responsible for the baby you created when you decided to take that (tiny) risk of having sex.
    This is the same argument religious nuts use to argue against abortion. 'You are responsible for the life you created when you decided to have sex'. But we don't say that, do we? We say 'No, a women isn't automatically responsible, she can choose to take no responsibility'. Financially abortion is giving a man the same choice. It ultimately helps both sides as it allows the woman to make a more informed decision as she knows from a legal standpoint whether the man would be in the child's life or not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamKeene)
    Are you seriously asking how additional contraception reduces the chance of conception?



    This is the same argument religious nuts use to argue against abortion. 'You are responsible for the life you created when you decided to have sex'. But we don't say that, do we? We say 'No, a women isn't automatically responsible, she can choose to take no responsibility'. Financially abortion is giving a man the same choice. It ultimately helps both sides as it allows the woman to make a more informed decision as she knows from a legal standpoint whether the man would be in the child's life or not.
    Nothing is ever 100% and forcing and woman to make a choice (one that's horrendous already) based on financial burden is a disgusting thing to suggest.

    You don't have to go through abortions or pregnancy. You never have to feel the guilt or yet the potential damage caused by an abortion or child birth.

    You created a baby when you had sex too. It's your responsibility too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    You don't have to go through abortions or pregnancy. You never have to feel the guilt or yet the potential damage caused by an abortion or child birth.
    This is a baseless appeal to emotion and is immaterial to the overall discussion.

    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    Nothing is ever 100% and forcing and woman to make a choice (one that's horrendous already) based on financial burden is a disgusting thing to suggest.

    You created a baby when you had sex too. It's your responsibility too.
    And forcing a man to pay for a child (that sometimes isn't even his) is not disgusting?

    You made a mistake that anyone is 'forcing' the woman to do anything. The only one being forced against their will is the man in these situations. The assumption that you think a woman would be 'forced' to have an abortion because the man doesn't want to be a parent is absurd. As I have said, there is lots of support for single mothers.

    Both man and woman create the baby. The women has potential responsibility. The man has forced responsibility.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Guys get a load of this. There is this thing I've heard about called contraception. It comes in many forms, but I've been told that "condoms"(?) are most popular. What it actually does, is prevent pregnancy after sex. Now that's pretty darn cool if the rumours are true. You have GOT to check it out!

    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    "better still don't have sex in the first place". This makes it sound worryingly like your attitude is that people should only ever have sex if their intention is to produce a child as a result of it.

    The problem here isn't situations where a couple in a stable relationship split up after having a child, it's situations where it's two people who are not in a relationship.

    What we have is an action that takes two people but a decision which is only made by a single person.

    1) The woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the kid, the man doesn't want anything to do with the kid, but the woman can choose to keep it and then get him to pay to support it.
    2) The woman gets pregnant but doesn't want the kid, the man does want the kid and would happily take the kid and support it himself, but the woman can still choose to have an abortion without having to even take into account the mans desire to raise the kid himself.

    If a woman is irresponsible enough to get pregnant from a random shag then it should be her responsibility to raise the child by herself unless the man chooses to be a part of it.

    If you're not able to raise a child by yourself then don't ****ing get pregnant.
    Could you not just as easily and as logically say to a man, "If you're not able to raise a child by yourself then don't ****ing get someone pregnant​"?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamKeene)
    You made a mistake that anyone is 'forcing' the woman to do anything. The only one being forced against their will is the man in these situations. The assumption that you think a woman would be 'forced' to have an abortion because the man doesn't want to be a parent is absurd. As I have said, there is lots of support for single mothers.
    By impregnating a woman and then denying responsibility for the pregnancy, a man is indeed forcing the woman to make a choice. She can abort the foetus, let it come to term and then put it up for adoption, or let it come to term and then raise it herself. While it's true that she isn't being forced to choose any of those options in particular, she is forced to choose one of them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    By impregnating a woman and then denying responsibility for the pregnancy
    This isn't about denying responsibility for the pregnancy, it's absolving oneself of financial responsibility if the child comes to be born, and as a result, parenthood.

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    a man is indeed forcing the woman to make a choice. She can abort the foetus, let it come to term and then put it up for adoption, or let it come to term and then raise it herself. While it's true that she isn't being forced to choose any of those options in particular, she is forced to choose one of them.
    She is 'forced' in the sense that it is logically impossible to not do any of them. She is 'forced' in the sense that I am 'forced' to choose between not brushing my teeth, or brushing them.

    You didn't really make any point, but like you said a man absolving himself of responsibility does not 'force' her to choose any particular option.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Seriously it's not exactly hard to wear a condom if you're that worried about it.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.
    Because condoms are infallible.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamKeene)
    This isn't about denying responsibility for the pregnancy, it's absolving oneself of financial responsibility if the child comes to be born, and as a result, parenthood.



    She is 'forced' in the sense that it is logically impossible to not do any of them. She is 'forced' in the sense that I am 'forced' to choose between not brushing my teeth, or brushing them.

    You didn't really make any point, but like you said a man absolving himself of responsibility does not 'force' her to choose any particular option.
    The choice the woman has to make has only come about because the man impregnated her. It is his fault, as well as hers, that it is logically impossible not to choose one of the options. Consenting to unprotected sex with the woman constituted an agreement to take responsibility for the consequences of the unprotected sex that they both took part in. If that was not a responsibility he was prepared for, perhaps he should have thought of that beforehand?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    Are you serious? Of course they should have to pay maintenance, if they didn't then as soon as a couple with a child splits (even if the guy has an affair) then the mother could struggle to provide for the child. If you are that serious then you should wear a condom and make sure she is on the pill or better still don't have sex in the first place!
    If the mother would struggle to pay for the child, then perhaps she shouldn't have the child. Why should the guy be held to ransom for 18 years simply on the basis that the mother wanted a child she couldn't afford?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    The choice the woman has to make has only come about because the man impregnated her. It is his fault, as well as hers, that it is logically impossible not to choose one of the options. Consenting to unprotected sex with the woman constituted an agreement to take responsibility for the consequences of the unprotected sex that they both took part in. If that was not a responsibility he was prepared for, perhaps he should have thought of that beforehand?
    There is no need to add the qualifier that the sex was 'unprotected'. Such a requirement is immaterial to the discussion. As really is the concept of 'fault' and 'preparedness'. A woman isn't refused a MAP or Abortion because she 'should of thought about it beforehand', and a man shouldn't be refused the similar chance because of the same reason.

    There is a noticeable trend in these discussion that it's the man who should have been prepared, or thought about things before hand, or done more to prevent contraception, or not had sex at all. Anything to avoid that fact that men do not have control over their responsibility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My two cents worth (as no one seems to have even considered the child yet): Don't you think the child deserves to be financially supported by both individuals that helped to produce it in the first place? It's not the child's fault that the mother made a decision to keep it that the father didn't like.

    As a woman, I would never have a child without my partner expressing a desire to parent that child after birth. I would consider it a wise option, as a woman, to reserve my becoming a mother when I am in a stable relationship with a partner who desires a child with me. That being said, it is relevant that many men later ditch their parental role at the end of a relationship with the mother - in this situation, would you still consider it inappropriate for a father to pay for his child?

    As a man, I may or may not want a child. If my mind were implanted into a male body, I still wouldn't want a child (I don't currently want one as a woman either). But as a man in that situation, if the woman I decided to sleep with - whether or not I used protection - decided to have the baby against my wishes, I would make a decision for the *child* to financially support it. The reason having *nothing* to do with my feelings toward the mother, my rights (or lack of) or anything as egocentric or as selfish...my decision to financially support the child would be a result of that child not deserving to lack parental support as a result of selfishness from the mother and the father.

    This situation is unfair on both parties involved, for several different reasons, but the child didn't make any of the ****ty decisions, e.g. for a man to engage in sex when it could produce a child they don't want, or for a woman to go through with the pregnancy even when the man doesn't want to be father. The only person in this situation that really suffers from such selfishness is the child, due to the selfishness of BOTH parents in this situation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Yes but it really isn't difficult not to become a parent. I don't understand how anyone would feel that is outside of their control?

    The implant is literally more effective than being sterilised, and you can see it in a girls arm.

    Except there are way fewer infertile men than women on birth control and you can't tell if a man is infertile by looking at him.

    In fact it shouldn't come down to that in the first place, why anyone would sleep with someone they don't trust to take their birth control is beyond me :/
    But accidents can and do happen. This isn't always the man's fault. There have also been cases where women try to get pregnant without the man knowing (lying about being on the pill or having a coil, etc.).

    A woman has the choice to abort the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption if she can't look after it. A man doesn't. Therefore I don't think it's fair that men are made to pay child support when they have no choice in the matter.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well at least that's one good thing about being me I don't need to worry about that type of stuff.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    But accidents can and do happen. This isn't always the man's fault. There have also been cases where women try to get pregnant without the man knowing (lying about being on the pill or having a coil, etc.).

    A woman has the choice to abort the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption if she can't look after it. A man doesn't. Therefore I don't think it's fair that men are made to pay child support when they have no choice in the matter.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Because condoms are infallible.
    why do all you men seem to have a thing for crazy psycho women who are going to trick you into making them pregnant?


    It isn't exactly hard to avoid them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    why do all you men seem to have a thing for crazy psycho women who are going to trick you into making them pregnant?


    It isn't exactly hard to avoid them.
    'Why do all you women seem to have a thing for crazy psycho men who are going to commit violence against you? It isn't exactly hard to avoid them.'

    See, both of us can say stupid things.

    It's not about how often it happens, either. It's about the fact that it does happen, it could happen to any guy and it is intrinsically unfair. I fully accept women's right to decide whether to keep an unplanned child, but that is based on the fact that it's her body and the man has no right to interfere. But if that decision is solely hers, then why should the man bear the financial burden of that decision? It makes no sense to me.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    'Why do all you women seem to have a thing for crazy psycho men who are going to commit violence against you? It isn't exactly hard to avoid them.'

    See, both of us can say stupid things.

    It's not about how often it happens, either. It's about the fact that it does happen, it could happen to any guy and it is intrinsically unfair. I fully accept women's right to decide whether to keep an unplanned child, but that is based on the fact that it's her body and the man has no right to interfere. But if that decision is solely hers, then why should the man bear the financial burden of that decision? It makes no sense to me.
    for the good of the child that's genetically his?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    'Why do all you women seem to have a thing for crazy psycho men who are going to commit violence against you? It isn't exactly hard to avoid them.'

    See, both of us can say stupid things.

    It's not about how often it happens, either. It's about the fact that it does happen, it could happen to any guy and it is intrinsically unfair. I fully accept women's right to decide whether to keep an unplanned child, but that is based on the fact that it's her body and the man has no right to interfere. But if that decision is solely hers, then why should the man bear the financial burden of that decision? It makes no sense to me.
    Well I don't assume every man is going to beat me, and there lies the difference.

    Because god forbid he might want to do the right thing by his child instead of allowing it to suffer for it's parents mistakes?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Well I don't assume every man is going to beat me, and there lies the difference.

    Because god forbid he might want to do the right thing by his child instead of allowing it to suffer for it's parents mistakes?
    Men don't assume every woman is going to keep any unplanned child against his wishes, either. I don't see a difference there. The fact is that they can, and sometimes do.

    The vast majority of men in such circumstances would choose to be involved anyway - to do 'the stand up thing'. But why should they be compelled to when they had no power over the decision? As it stands, the only way a man can be sure he won't be supporting a child to the age of 18 is not to have sex at all. Do you really think that's right?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.