I see my problem: I forget these things aren’t blindingly obvious to some people.
Male birth control? A condom. Takes five seconds to put on and has no side effects. There’s a vasectomy. A short procedure with minimal recovery time.
Female birth control? Let’s see.
There’s the pill. It works but we all know it can cause serious side effects including cancer.
There’s a female condom which I’ve head bad things about. A woman can get her tubes tied which is a major in office procedure with not minimal recovery time.
There’s tracking bbt and cevical fluid which can be unreliable as I can tell you having gotten pregnant that way.
There’s the IUD which needs a doctor to insert.
My suggestion? If men want more rights they should spend more time finding better, cheaper and more reliable birth control methods for women.
Until then since the woman’s the one going through all the not insignificant rigors of pregnancy and childbearing the man should put on a condom or accept any consequences.
The woman has exactly the same parental responsibilities as the father.
Men have exactly the same rights. Both men and women can have abortions if they get pregnant. Both men and women must support their children once the children are born.
It happens that men rarely get pregnant.
I understand that. It would probably be a subject for another thread, but I’m not sure there would be more of a burden on society. There would most likely be fewer “deadbeat dads”, and there might be a greater number of abortions. It is strictly my opinion that less women would be willing to have a baby if they knew the father gave up all rights to the child (it would have to be mandatory, and irreversible), and that there would not be a thousand dollar check coming in every month. Of course, that would present another challenge to society, because I also believe that we benefit from all the bouncing babies we can get. I just have problems with the sentiment of “equal rights for everybody…except for you, and you, and you. Put it back in your pants.”
because that’s the way it is
Don’t like it? Don’t fuck
Simple as that.
Disagree? Tough.
Period. Don’t like it, don’t fuck.
That’s idiotic.
I see your problem, too. It just isn’t the one you think it is.
Well, you’re probably right that if the law no longer required men to pay child support, there would be fewer deadbeat dads. You may also be correct that some women would choose to terminate a pregnancy if they knew that the child would get no support from its father. That is, of course, purely speculative, and it misses the point, which is that for those women who would choose to carry the pregnancy to term, society will still bear the burden of those children. That burden isn’t just financial; fathers are an important influence in a child’s life, and if a father isn’t required to support his child, that child misses out on important things.
And if you’re permitted to speculate that more women would terminate the pregnancy, I’m permitted to speculate that a number of men who did not want the pregnancy to continue nevertheless are important and valuable influences in their children’s lives.
Except that men and women do have equal rights in this arena. A man must exercise his option sooner than a woman, that’s all. And she has a bit more certainty than he does (he knows that by having sex his odds of fathering a a child are somewhere between 0 and 100%, while she knows her chances of carrying an existing pregnancy to term are probably higher). But at the end of the day, a man and a woman each have the same choice to make.
I guess I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that a man somehow doesn’t have a choice, which seems to be the implication. We may not like where biology and society and law put his choice on the timeline, but he has the same choice to make that a woman does.
If I’m alive if/when embryos are nurtured for nine months in a wholly artificial environment, I’ll be really interested to see how this issue is worked out.
As it is, though, of course the way matters stand is inequitable, but I can’t think of any reasonable way of working things so that the man “has a say.”
So he wants the baby. She doesn’t. You can’t exactly compromise here. Do they draw lots to decide whose wishes will be upheld? Do they agree to arbitration? Contracts? That could be feasible: in the event of pregnancy, sexual partners agree a) to keep/raise the baby together, b) to keep the baby but allow it to be raised only by one party, thereby absolving the other party of responsibility for it, c) to give the baby up for adoption, or d) abort it. For anyone who wouldn’t sign such a contract and still enters into consensual sex, the woman’s wishes are upheld in the event of pregnancy. If you don’t like it, don’t have sex with someone who won’t sign a contract you can agree with.
Could be workable, but at the same time doesn’t allow for changes of heart (there do exist some people who never really wanted sprogs but who unaccountably go all melty after peeing on a stick 
). And how many people would run off to the lawyer to sign a contract before an afternoon of bliss? Also, I wouldn’t like my sex life to be contracturally (as well as governmentally, probably) controlled, and I imagine many would feel the same way.
Now, I do think the current way of doing things is inequitable, but at the same time I don’t see a practical way of doing otherwise, hypothetical draconian sex contracts notwithstanding. So I ask you all in complete earnestness: for all of you who feel the man should have a say, do you have a practical system that could accomodate the wishes of both parties?
Care to actually explain what you’re talking about, or do you just have fuck-all to say and hence blow smoke up peoples asses when at a loss?
And a pregnant man can also terminate his pregnancy for any reason at all. He has control over his own body, just as she does.
However, once there is a third person who needs to be clothed and fed, both the man and the woman are in the same boat. They’re not ready? Tough. They want to travel? tough. The kid needs diapers; both parents are on the hook.
[ Moderator Mode ]
This thread is right on the point of being shut down.
Granting even the passion and volatility of the topic, there are too many opinions expressed as absolute truths, too many assertions made in the most hostile tones, too many implied statements that one’s opponents are either stupid or venal, and too much overall anger to bother leaving it open.
Find a way to discuss this politely or you’ll have to open a new thread in the Pit to discuss this topic.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Sure.
Just because something seems blindingly obvious to you doesn’t mean you are correct.
Just because comething seems simple to you doesn’t mean it is not complex in reality.
Just because you say something with vehemence and belligerence doesn’t mean you have any authority or special knowledge of a subject.
Just because you insult people who disagree with you doesn’t mean they are wrong.
“Don’t fuck” is not a legitimate solution. If it were, we’d already have solved a lot more problems than the one we are talking about.
Being self righteous and perpetually angry might be fun, but it really doesn’t help advance your argument.
Contemptible? You say a man shouldn’t have sex without responsibility but a woman should. Why? If a man is expected to keep it in his pants, why shouldn’t a woman be expected to keep her legs closed? Is a woman weaker?
And you claim a moral high ground with that asinine pontification?
All things before conception are equal, Sport. They only carry the child once they (a)agree to have sex, (b)they do not use birth control, and (c) they decide to have the baby. Women don’t just get pregnant the moment a man decides to whip it out.
It’s not debatable weather the law could be changed or Roe overturned. If you had any understanding at all you would realize that. I have a child. I went through the 9 months of ultrasounds, heart monitors, and fetal movements and know for a fact that there is life in there. Your term of ‘religious depravity’ and perverted sense of responsibility is what is contemptible. And your right, ‘life’ aint fair. It’s the unfair law that abdicates life’s responsibility to the mother that’s the crux of the problem.
When did he say a woman shouldn’t take responsiblity?
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy IS taking responsibility.
Not if you believe it’s terminating life. Most Americans do.
As usualy, I agree with whatever Miller and Campion are saying. One facet I’ll add is that in an ideal case, the woman considering abortion has a moral (not legal) duty to inform her partner that she’s pregnant and therefore allow him the opportunity to persuade her to carry to term. An ideal case in sthis instance would be one in which the woman is confident that the man would not use violence, intimidation, blackmail, or undue psychological pressure to force her to carry, but merely try to work things out. However, I recognize that when abortion is being considered, it’s very rarely close to such an ideal case, so this is more important in theory than in practice.
–Cliffy
[ Moderator Mode ]
Everyone has now had a chance to read my earlier post which they may have missed while composing their impassioned replies. The next poster who drags their emotions into this thread or expresses themselves intemperately gets warned. If multiple posters do the same before I see the posts, the thread dies.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
OK, first, citing Wikipedia is lame, because any yahoo can edit it. Moreover, you appear to be citing to the reported 2004 study which says 53% say abortion is the taking of a life. But dude, the paragraph immediately above that is a 2005 survey saying 54% support abortion. There probably are a few people who think abortion is murder and still justified, but it’s got to be a really small number. I think the real thing to take away from these studies is that they’re unreliable as a way of really understanding what people think because they’re not as finely drafted as they’d need to be and people just ain’t that consistent about stuff, especially such a highly charged issue as this.
Also, even if your facts were right, your point still doesn’t scan. Even if the majority believes abortion is murder (which it doesn’t), and even if that somehow meant that abortion actually is murder (which it wouldn’t), and if therefore abortion were in fact murder (which it isn’t), that’s a pretty conclusively final way to take care of a situation. So how is it not taking responsibility? Sure, it might be a morally reprehensible way to take responsibility (again, coounterfactually assuming that all your implicit premises weren’t false), but nonetheless – problem solved.
–Cliffy
Respectfully in regard to the OP.
The women legally is the one with the final word here for many reasons.
-
Because carrying a child to term carries a 3/10,000 risk of mortality in the west and as high as a 1/11 risk in developing countries.
-
Because carrying a child to term carries a significant risk of thromboembolic disease, haemorrhage and infection. Any of which could cause significant morbidity including, but not limited to, permanent loss of fertility due to hysterectomy, stroke and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy.
3.Carrying a child to term carries a 10% chance of major depression and a 0.2% chance of psychotic illness.
- Early 1st trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy is not associated with these dangers to the same degree. Undoubtedly a 1st trimester abortion is safer for the woman than carrying a child to term.
By the man being the one with the final say he subjects a woman to these risks against her will. To me, since she is the one with these risks to her health, she should be the one to decide.
I realise others disagree, but respectfully, would many men be willing to walk into a stadium full of 10,000 people and know that 3 would be randomly chosen to die, while 1000 would suffer depression, 20 suffer psychotic illness and many more suffer long-term disability and loss of fertility?
Would many men appreciate it if their girlfriend could force them into that stadium, or would they prefer to be the one to make the choice of whether to enter?
It’s about letting the person with the most to lose make the decision. It’s not just her bodily integrity, it’s her life at stake.
emphasis mine.
Why the assumption that birth control methods for men cannot or should not be improved? Condoms have a non-negligible failure rate. Vasectomies are not reliably or inexpensively reversible. As a man, I would really like to have more personal control over whether I cause a pregnancy. And while I am consistent in using a condom, it does interrupt the proceedings, even if only in a minor way.
You’re more than welcme to improve birth control methods for me. I brought up women because they tend to be the person in the relationship most in charge of birth control.