logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Men's Reproductive "rights", Pregnancy & responsibility options
GenX_Futurist
post Feb 5 2003, 02:08 AM
Post #1


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 48
Member No.: 434
Joined: February-5-03

From: Everett, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I have no children. I'm largely deterred by the unilateral control a woman has to control the parental phenomenon. A mans only control is to abstain entirely from sex in order to be 100% responsible. Birth control... yadda yadda. Risks to well being, etc..

My point on this issue:

Men should have the right to decide in the first tri-mester of any pregnancy they are party to, that they will either "YES" be responsible for the well being of that offspring, or that they will "NO" ... NOT be responsible for the choice ultimately under complete control of the woman (and rightly so), to go thru with the term of the pregnancy and bring a child into the world. Outside of rape, ultimately, a woman has the FINAL level of responsibility in choosing to conceive or risk conception, and currently, because of the lack of ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER for men in the way of a choice in the matter per current laws, current laws can be seen as CLEARLY in-equitable. A woman is basicaly in complete control of this matter outright, totally, and as is apparent to most men in this great country of ours, unfairly. When potential single mothers find themselves "unexpectedly pregnant", they know that they have complete control over EVERYONES life who is involved. This is something they know going into any sexual relationship as well.

I believe that the number of single mothers on welfare, and the undeniable existence of "predatory conception" for the social net's invoked, will be drastically reduced if not eliminated by incorporating this simple and above all FAIR idea I am putting forth.

If a man has made his mind up in the first tri-mester, he is bound to that decision. If he says "YES"... (there would surely be paperwork involved), then current social mechanisms would apply, if he says "NO"... she has made the choice to go it alone. Consciously. Period. Accepted all burden and cost related thereto, and rightly so, she would enjoy all the rights to the unilateral up-bringing of that child w/o the father having any rights whatsoever to that child.

This is not a cop-out mechanism for men alone, this is FAIRNESS being added to a currently unfair system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 58)
Bikerdad
post May 9 2003, 05:36 PM
Post #41


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Artemise @ May 9 2003, 09:45 AM)
Yes, there are extremes. Women do decieve, men decieve, people will treat you only as you allow yourself to be treated. All of us are responsible for our actions.

Ive got some words.  Ethics. Depth. Judgement. Responsability. Being a Man in its real sense, not a whiny victim of your penis for your whole life. Just a thought.

QUOTE
Forgive me but, your arguments are THE most marginal.


Marginal in what sense? In the sense that they don't happen, are fanciful flights of my imagination? Or marginal in the sense that because they challenge cherished paradigms and would demand change if true, so they should be pushed off to the margin so they can be ignored? sour.gif


QUOTE
Statatory rape,  a woman compromising a condom, or claims tubes tied, and most ridiculous, a women getting her father drunk to get pregnant. I dont believe any of us are debating within the realms of the Jerry Springer Show or biblical events 2000 years old.


The statutory rape example is not marginal, unless you consider the Kansas Supreme Court to be "marginal" and the Roman Catholic pederasty scandal "marginal." The deliberate deception of one partner by the other is not marginal, unless you consider deliberate deception in order to foist parenthood on an individual and then bring the police powers of the state into play to be "marginal." The utilization of drugs in order to facilitate non-consensual sex is not marginal, unless you consider drug rape, rape will sedated in the dentist's chair, and the like "marginal."

Are they marginal simply because they are rare? If so, then you still have to engage them because, rare or not, the injustice that occurs is real. Of course, it could simply be that you only consider these events "marginal" when they happen to men?

QUOTE
The previous posts rely on a premise that women are just out there trying to get pregnant by any screwed up loser on the planet, or a child father, as in the above.


No, it doesn't rely on the premise the women are behaving in such a fashion, it acknowledges the simple fact that some women do, and both social mores and the legal system overlook their misbehavior. As for premises, the three points I make simply illustrate that the premises you are using are flawed. You haven't established why my rebuttals are erroneous and the premises they attack are true.

QUOTE
I feel  more likely, with the males who have entered this discussion, we are talking about predators who would try to portray themselves victims. A worse case scenario, because there is no love involved, but extreme selfishness and hedonism to the point of sacrificing the truly innocent, a child of ones making.


Was that just a drive-by ad hominem attack? Was I, and the other men here, just insulted? Or perhaps merely marginalized


The rest of your post doesn't deserve a response, especially given its closing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post May 9 2003, 05:48 PM
Post #42


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(mrspigpen @ May 9 2003, 01:01 PM)
QUOTE(Artemise @ May 9 2003, 09:45 AM)

Statatory rape,  a woman compromising a condom, or claims tubes tied, and most ridiculous, a women getting her father drunk to get pregnant. I dont believe any of us are debating within the realms of the Jerry Springer Show or biblical events 2000 years old.


I always thought it would be interesting to have been a fly in the wall in Lott's house and see what REALLY happened there. Events took place over 2000 years ago have a way of changing in the telling. Especially during a time when all children (especially daughters) and wives were considered to be property.

The purpose of the Lot illustration is to show that women have been drugging men for sexual advantage just as long as men have been doing it to women. The development of Viagara simply makes it a much more effective strategy. Whether it has resulted in any increase of frequency I can't comment on, nor am I claiming that nefarious, evil women are behind a massive epidemic of drugged, involuntary fathers. I'm simply saying that it does happen, contrary to the premise that all fatherhood is consensual.

There are four options we can take to the issue of sexually predatory drugging, which is a violation of the victim's reproductive rights.

1] We can overlook it completely.
2] We can ignore it when it happens to women, and punish it when it happens to men.
3] We can ignore it when it happens to men, and punish it when it happens to women.
4] We can punish it when it happens to anybody.

Take your pick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post May 9 2003, 06:11 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
I agree that there is a double standard, but it isn't one that's rectifiable, as far as I can see.


Many elements of it are rectifiable, if only by replacing the term "women's reproductive rights" with "human reproductive rights."

QUOTE
I don't imagine any of the men complaining that the father is liable for medical bills of the pregnant woman would actually want to be pregnant, themselves, and have the situation in reverse.


What about all the "magic of pregnancy" and the "joy of life quickening within" and all the other romantic notions of pregnancy? Women (warning: generalization alert) need to make up their minds whether pregnancy is a blessing or a curse, and then stick to their story. This is why the complaints about single mothering sound so hollow when the actual facts are considered: at least where divorce is concerned, women are the one's choosing to place themselves into single parenthood twice as often as men place them there...

Anyhow, whether men would choose to switch places with women is irrelavent, simply because as you've noted, it can't happen. What is relevant is that the premise that men should have no reproductive rights pre-partum because they have no pre-partum responsibility is demonstrably false. Another justification for denying men the same pre-partum reproductive rights as women needs to be proferred.

ermm.gif

QUOTE
I would find it very hard to believe that even the most adamant pursuer if (of?) sexually reversed inequality really thinks that women have the good deal in reproduction and rearing.


Millions of women who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done raises serious doubts about that proposition. whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 9 2003, 07:20 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,351
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 9 2003, 06:11 PM)

What about all the "magic of pregnancy" and the "joy of life quickening within" and all the other romantic notions of pregnancy?  Women (warning: generalization alert) need to make up their minds whether pregnancy is a blessing or a curse, and then stick to their story.  This is why the complaints about single mothering sound so hollow when the actual facts are considered: at least where divorce is concerned, women are the one's choosing to place themselves into single parenthood twice as often as men place them there...

QUOTE
I would find it very hard to believe that even the most adamant pursuer if (of?) sexually reversed inequality really thinks that women have the good deal in reproduction and rearing.


Millions of women who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done raises serious doubts about that proposition. whistling.gif

Why can't motherhood be considered both a blessing and a curse?
Is a soldier, who believes himself 'blessed' to serve in the military contradicting himself when he finds war conditions unpleasant? Do those who either refuse to serve or cannot serve for physical reasons hold the right to condemn him for expressing his opinion on the matter? One can simultaneously feel both 'blessed and cursed', and it doesn't mean that their complaints are 'hollow'.

Motherhood is not for wimps. I challenge you to find one, single mother 'who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done' who doesn't agree with that.

Editted to add:
QUOTE
Many elements of it are rectifiable, if only by replacing the term "women's reproductive rights" with "human reproductive rights."

I am very curious what you mean by this one. Are you suggesting that a man has authority over a woman's body because he impregnated her?

Editted (again)to add:
QUOTE
The purpose of the Lot illustration is to show that women have been drugging men for sexual advantage just as long as men have been doing it to women. The development of Viagara simply makes it a much more effective strategy. Whether it has resulted in any increase of frequency I can't comment on, nor am I claiming that nefarious, evil women are behind a massive epidemic of drugged, involuntary fathers. I'm simply saying that it does happen, contrary to the premise that all fatherhood is consensual.

I didn't realize you had a couple of other posts above the last one. This reminds me of an urban legend. You know, like the one where a pretty woman picks up a guy from the bar, drugs him, and takes him to a hotel room? In the morning he wakes up with a sign on his chest saying 'don't move, call 911' because his kidney had been stolen. Do you know why there's no such 'legend' about serial women drugging men for purposes of coerced pregnancy? It's even less believable than the kidney story.

This post has been edited by mrspigpen: May 9 2003, 08:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post May 9 2003, 10:55 PM
Post #45


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Why can't motherhood be considered both a blessing and a curse?


It can, its simply that many women are remarkably selective about which one they choose to highlight, as it suits their purposes. To claim societally imposed benefits at the cost of another person based on the "burdens" of motherhood without simultaneously considering the benefits is dishonest. A simple economic analogy would be "it cost me 200 dollars to do this, so you have to pay me the 200 dollars." Yeah, but what was your Return on Investment? What did you get out of it? Many women are remarkably silent on the subject when they're attempting to extract the $200 from men....

A simple question to be asked: are you better off or worse off as a result of the experience? If you're better off, and I'm partially responsible, are you going to share the good fortune with me? Of course not, because the benefits of motherhood are unfairly restricted by Nature {hmmm, would that be Mother Nature?} to mothers. Then where is the justice in demanding that I share the burdens with you? This is the ethical trap of the "my body, my choice" position when combined with demands for fatherly assistance.

QUOTE
Motherhood is not for wimps. I challenge you to find one, single mother 'who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done' who doesn't agree with that.


No argument from me there. wink.gif

QUOTE
I am very curious what you mean by this one. Are you suggesting that a man has authority over a woman's body because he impregnated her?


No, I'm not even addressing the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, nor whether the father's consent is required to obtain one. I am, however, puzzled that supposedly liberal women here continue to insist on a position that reduces to a woman having authority over a man's body simply because he impregnated her. Such an unbalanced notion cannot be sustained in a conception of equal reproductive rights, i.e. "human reproductive rights."

Your strawman (or would that be strawwoman, or perhaps strawperson) indictment of the drug scenario as not even rising to the level of an urban legend fails on two points. First, passing a law against involuntary organ donation in hotel rooms wouldn't be wrong because of its never happened. It may be unnecessary, but it would still be a valid law. You appear to be arguing that because the drug scenario hasn't occurred, its okay if it does. The second reason your strawman fails...

QUOTE
Mary fits the average international profile of a drug-rape victim: aged over 30, out with someone she knows and trusts. Hers is a generation of women generally more trusting of strangers and not as street-savvy about drug crimes.

But Rape Crisis and police say New Zealand victims, in particular the spate of Hamilton incidents, are bucking that trend.

"Other than being Friday night drinkers, there's no pattern to victims," says Mr Dunbier.

"We're talking predominantly young 20s women, not exclusively but usually."

Dr Kristen Sorrenson, from Auckland's Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care, has also treated male victims.
"We see a variety of ages, men and women - anyone could be a victim."


http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/1805.htm

Do women commit rape?

http://www.sfwar.org/facts/brochles.htm

So, we have established that both men and women can be victims of drug rape, and that women do, in fact, commit rape. The only question remaining is can women rape men leading to conception? As noted earlier, in the past such an attempt would face significant physiological challenges, rendering it improbable, but not impossible. Since Viagra became available, the only thing preventing it from happening is the angelic, superior moral nature of women. rolleyes.gif

So, when, not if, society is presented with a legal case of drug'n'Viagra rape of a man by a woman leading to conception, you'll have the opportunity to revisit this...

Or you can simply acknowledge the current reality and make your argument for unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority and rights without resorting to flawed, erroneous premises.

Personally, I think the reason nobody has yet to make such an argument is because they can't without blatantly and consciously violating their own sense of justice, and the perceived moral and economic benefits they would lose by doing so would be too great. So, they refuse to acknowledge the reality.

Here's the simple formulation: If a man is victimized by a woman via non-consensual sex and conception, should the man be obligated to be a parent?

Turn the question around. If you get a different answer, then justify the difference without violating the tenets of equal protection under the law, aka the 14th Amendment.

w00t.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post May 9 2003, 11:07 PM
Post #46


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Suggested reading:

QUOTE
The role of fraud in paternity has already had a run in the United States, in a 1981 case involving Frank Serpico, the New York policeman made famous through a movie on his role as whistleblower of corruption in the city's police department. Serpico claimed in a New York State family court that he should not have to pay child support because he could prove his child's mother had deceived him into pregnancy.

A friend of the mother testified that the mother, an ex-girlfriend of Serpico, decided to seduce Serpico in order to get pregnant. She told the friend that she had stopped taking birth control pills but had assured Serpico she was doing so. The judge in the family court ruled in Serpico's favour. The mother's "planned and intentional deceit barred her from financial benefit at the father's expense", she wrote. But Serpico lost on appeal when higher courts ruled charges of fraud were irrelevant since the only consideration in child support was "the best interests of the child".

An interesting twist on this case was that one of Serpico's lawyers was Karen DeCrow, a former director of the National Organisation for Women.

DeCrow attracted considerable critical attention for supporting Serpico's cause. She told the court: "Autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

...
...

While the rights of children need generally to be given priority, it hardly makes for a just society when women are given licence to exploit and deceive men in order to pursue their reproductive choices.

DeCrow is one person determined to see this change. "Because of Roe v Wade, women have the right to choose to be parents. Men, too, should have that right," the feminist lawyer proclaims.



http://old.smh.com.au/news/0102/17/review/review2.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 10 2003, 12:40 AM
Post #47


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,351
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 9 2003, 10:55 PM)
Or you can simply acknowledge the current reality and make your argument for unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority and rights without resorting to flawed, erroneous premises.


I have made no such argument. Find it, if you can.

QUOTE
Here's the simple formulation: If a man is victimized by a woman via non-consensual sex and conception, should the man be obligated to be a parent?


No, the man should not be financially indebted to a person who subjugated (possibly drugged) him for the purpose of stealing his sperm. I don't think you'll see much of an argument on that point here. Maybe on Jerry Springer.
blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post May 10 2003, 01:42 AM
Post #48


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(mrspigpen @ May 10 2003, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 9 2003, 10:55 PM)

Or you can simply acknowledge the current reality and make your argument for unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority and rights without resorting to flawed, erroneous premises.


I have made no such argument. Find it, if you can.

QUOTE
Here's the simple formulation: If a man is victimized by a woman via non-consensual sex and conception, should the man be obligated to be a parent?


No, the man should not be financially indebted to a person who subjugated (possibly drugged) him for the purpose of stealing his sperm. I don't think you'll see much of an argument on that point here. Maybe on Jerry Springer.
blink.gif

QUOTE
I have made no such argument. Find it, if you can.


I agree that there is a double standard, but it isn't one that's rectifiable, as far as I can see.

i.e, "yes, I acknowledge the double standard, and we shouldn't change the double standard because we can't." You're making the argument without resorting the the flawed premises I have pointed out. Congratulations. Of course, simply saying "that's the way it is, and we can't do anything about it" is a remarkably unprogressive stand. whistling.gif

QUOTE
No, the man should not be financially indebted to a person who subjugated (possibly drugged) him for the purpose of stealing his sperm. I don't think you'll see much of an argument on that point here. Maybe on Jerry Springer.
blink.gif


Not just Jerry Springer, but also in the courts of America. Please see the Serpico case referenced above, and most significantly, how the appeals court overturned your argument, "in the bests interest of the child." Here, most of the posters have avoided answering the question by refusing to acknowledge that it can happen. Since I've proved that not only can non-consensual conception occur, but it has, do you think they'll change their tunes about what should be?

I don't. ermm.gif

On a related note, should we distinguish between drug induced non-consent, statutory non-consent, and fraud non-consent? If so, why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 10 2003, 02:49 AM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,351
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 10 2003, 01:42 AM)
QUOTE

I have made no such argument. Find it, if you can.


I agree that there is a double standard, but it isn't one that's rectifiable, as far as I can see.

i.e, "yes, I acknowledge the double standard, and we shouldn't change the double standard because we can't." You're making the argument without resorting the the flawed premises I have pointed out. Congratulations. Of course, simply saying "that's the way it is, and we can't do anything about it" is a remarkably unprogressive stand. whistling.gif


One can simultaneously disagree with something and see no resolution. I am making no argument in FAVOR of ‘unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority’, flawed or otherwise. I will, however, now qualify WHY I don’t think the situation can be remedied.

I previously stated that I believe the male should be able to terminate his obligation as a father, if there is a contractually binding agreement made at the onset. This, obviously, is no panacea. (I hope I don’t now have to explain why this is no panacea).

Gen X proposed that a man should be able to terminate his obligation as a father at anytime during the first trimester. Basically, under this policy the prospective father could simply ‘wish it all away’, and that would be the end of his obligation. The woman would certainly have a LEGAL choice to terminate the pregnancy during this time, but it isn’t the equivalent.

The man, under that proposal, would have absolutely no obligations to the subsequent children he conceived. That would be a burden to the taxpayers, when the responsibility should lie with the parents, if possible.

Also (to use your favorite example) a truly malicious female who practiced ‘drug induced non-consent’ or 'fraud non-consent' would be unaffected by this policy. Such a person would conveniently wait until the second trimester to inform the future father.

The people who WOULD be adversely affected are a lot of taxpayers, honest (and perhaps antiabortion) pregnant women, and the subsequent offspring. The people who would remain unaffected (or benefit) would be the fraudulent women, and (not intentionally deceived) men who wished to elude financial responsibility as fathers.

So, again….. I agree that there is a double standard, but I see no way to remedy it, realistically.

This post has been edited by mrspigpen: May 10 2003, 03:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 10 2003, 11:57 AM
Post #50


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



mrspigpen,

QUOTE
So, again….. I agree that there is a double standard, but I see no way to remedy it, realistically.


Right! Act realistically, think idealistically biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post May 11 2003, 05:14 AM
Post #51


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I was initially talking about Gen Xs commentatary in that men can choose not to be a father in the first tri-mester. Nothing there if I remember, was speaking about rape or drug induced, deliberate fraud, or deliberate deciet by the woman.

In the case of deiberate deciet, I believe the man should NOT be responsible, though, like MrsPigPen, Im not sure what that means to society. "in the best interests of the child" holds up, in a truly twisted way, but I see it as unacceptable. Im trying to think of a paralell situation, of something so grave being done to you and then being held responsable for it; I can find none at the moment. ( Maybe if you purposely addict someone to drugs against their will, or have sex with them while being HIV positive) It could by all means be prosecuted as a crime, practically a crime against humanity. Then, we would put a woman with a child in jail, not an effective solution. In truth, I have no solution to this problem, these things are so far out of my personal comprehension its like an alien planet.

I do agree with Author Musician, if we can reverse an already existing problem; that its a long time needed that we educate our youth to a much greater extent about sex, the distinction between each others drives and how to protect themselves in many areas.

Women and Men have sex and enter relationships for completely distinct reasons, especially in the onset. Both need to be better prepared to know what they could be in for.

That in itself is a huge topic, in that psychology plays a big part in Why a woman would want to get pregnant from a man against his will or why a male would rape a woman, etc etc etc etc...It would appear a total overhaul of our societal norms and mores be neccessary. EEK.

Sometimes I think our biology has not run parallel with our society and there is some catching up to do. The male biological urge to spred seed among as many females as possible yet have little or no responsability for those actions comes from tribal times, but currently is not meeting up with societies expectations causing stress in relationships and society. That is understandable. As far as women choosing unviable partners to have children with goes against the natural biology of the female in choosing a good genetic mate and family member. This I dont understand, except that somehow we got way offtrack. Possibly society is just to messed up to even consider fixing, and the chips will fall as they may, case by case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bill55AZ
post Jun 6 2003, 03:52 PM
Post #52


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
June 3, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 771
Member No.: 769
Joined: June-2-03

From: Dry Heat, Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



Like at least one other responder said, this thread is a bit sickening.
My wife and son are educators, both teach 8th grade. They know many children from single parent homes, or dual parent where neither cares much about the child.
It is easy to see that their lives are more difficult. Children know when they are not "wanted", and being wanted is something that needs to exist before conception as well as throughout their childhood.
I was unwanted by one parent, and un-noticed by the other, but both were there and I did get fed, housed, and clothed. No love, but hey, who needs that?
GenX, you sound like an attorney, are you? And you also sound selfish. Not trying to be rude here, just trying to determine what your real complaint is.
Children are our future and we owe it to the future to either stay out of the reproductive process altogether, or to do it right. I think children do have a right to good parents, or at least one good parent. They have a right to be sheltered, not just housed and nourished, not just fed, and by all means loved. If you can't do parenthood right, get a vasectomy and place yourself on the bench. We don't need that kind of player in the game.
I think that the original question was not stated correctly, as it appears to be about the right of a man to have sex irresponsibly rather than about reproductive rights.
On the other hand, I could be all wrong. I am just a simple father and grandfather who has actually experienced the joy of children and grandchildren. For those who opt out of this wonderful experience, whatever the reason or method, you get my pity, whether you "want it" or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jun 6 2003, 11:34 PM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
I think that the original question was not stated correctly, as it appears to be about the right of a man to have sex irresponsibly rather than about reproductive rights.


Sadly, the question IS formulated correctly. As the abortion reality demonstrates, women's reproductive rights ARE about the right to have sex irresponsibly. Abortion on demand means any reason, i.e., no standard of responsibility is required. A woman MAY have very good reasons for having an abortion, but she doesn't have to...

The reason I raised the subject of non-consensual conception is simply that its one of the most popular arguments offered to justify "choice." That our society currently requires men to meet the obligation of becoming a parent even when the condition is a result of criminal victimization, yet exempts women from the same obligations for any reason, is the issue.

The current schema of assigning legal parental responsibilities is flawed. This question illustrates one reason why its flawed. Allowing men to descend to the legal level of irresponsibility of women in this area is an idea that I can't get behind, but neither can the injustice of the current situation be ignored.

There are solutions, the biggest of which is to no longer allow women to use their children as a "get out of jail free" card in escaping responsibility, a situation which Artemise notes ...
QUOTE
It could by all means be prosecuted as a crime, practically a crime against humanity. Then, we would put a woman with a child in jail, not an effective solution.


If that's not an effective solution, are we left with the conclusion that leaving a child in the care of a "criminal against humanity" is effective question.gif

Good Day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Jun 6 2003, 11:57 PM
Post #54


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



As it is, the government is having limited success enforcing child support and custody issues. I am not sure that more legislation will ameliorate the situation.

Certainly, a couple planning on copulating could sign something akin to a Pre-Coitus Agreement. Sounds pretty freaky to me. Makes me glad I'm married.

But as long as male and female let their glands supercede their intellects, there will be unpremeditated coitus.

I do not see an alternative to civil cases for each situation. It is not criminal to impregnate someone except in certain circumstances.

If a man is determined to "spread around his inheritance," he should be aware of the consequences. If a woman wants to take the risk of conceiving a child whose father is a good lover but a jerk, she should be willing to experience the consequences. If a man wants to be a father involved in the child's life, I think the woman should at least give him a chance to talk to her.

In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jun 7 2003, 12:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Jun 7 2003, 03:03 AM
Post #55


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
If that's not an effective solution, are we left with the conclusion that leaving a child in the care of a "criminal against humanity" is effective


Please dont try to make this more sickening than you already have by blowing situations out of porportion. I was responding to your cases of drug induced rape against men or boys, for the possibility of pregnancy, which I am sure there may actually be one or two in the entire nation. A ridiculous arguement to waste and defer attention to in this forum, but since you seem to think it worthy, its criminal, just as rape against women. Yes, put them in jail and their kids too. Are you happy now?

As Elpeth noted: In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.

Over and done, now that weve solved those two cases, on to the actual thread which pertains to a greater majority.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Jun 7 2003, 03:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greenring7
post Jun 16 2003, 05:04 AM
Post #56


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 93
Member No.: 800
Joined: June-14-03

From: Jacksonville, Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



If I understand you correctly, you are asking if it would be equal to a woman's right to abort or raise to give men their own "opt out" clause?

If that's the case, I seriously see where you're coming from.

If a woman becomes pregnant, feels it is a mistake, perhaps will not gain custody (as unlikely as that is...) she just kills it. Or she can raise it, and force thousands of dollars out of the father over the next twenty years.

If a man sires a pregnancy, feels it is a mistake, perhaps will not gain custody (no way in hell, unless he can prove the mother is completely unfit to be a parent), he has no options. If he kills it, he's charged with murder. He can't raise it unless he can prove the mother is an unfit parent (oddly enough, wanting to kill the unborn child doesn't make you an unfit parent).

So, to make things equal, in this case, it would seem that:

A. Men should not have to be parents (emotionally or financially) if they chose not to be - just as women have that choice.
B. Men should have a right to force Abortion at any time a woman would.
C. Men should have a right to raise a child that the mother does not want - which would basically require the end of abortions without the Father's conscent. (I can hear the femenists screaming now...)

However, your position that men should simply be able to "opt out" during the woman's abortion window would seem to be fiscally fair, though still ignoring the greater inequalities involved.

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jun 16 2003, 09:09 PM
Post #57


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Artemise @ Jun 7 2003, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE
If that's not an effective solution, are we left with the conclusion that leaving a child in the care of a "criminal against humanity" is effective


Please dont try to make this more sickening than you already have by blowing situations out of porportion. I was responding to your cases of drug induced rape against men or boys, for the possibility of pregnancy, which I am sure there may actually be one or two in the entire nation. A ridiculous arguement to waste and defer attention to in this forum, but since you seem to think it worthy, its criminal, just as rape against women. Yes, put them in jail and their kids too. Are you happy now?

As Elpeth noted: In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.

Over and done, now that weve solved those two cases, on to the actual thread which pertains to a greater majority.

QUOTE
As Elpeth noted: In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.
As I've noted, criminal law does NOT take precedence. With that in mind and noting your previous sarcasm, please clarify your position: Do you think it should take precedence?

QUOTE
Yes, put them in jail and their kids too.
No. Put the mother in jail, terminate her parental rights, forever. I fail to fathom your twisted desire to punish the kids for the mother's crime, unless there is some other reason you keep linking the mother to the kids. Oh, I know.

They're her kids, period. Except when its time to pay for them, then you're gung-ho for enslavi, er, involving the father. The possibility that a woman could entrap a man is one that you're unwilling to truly face. What, does it offend your sense of feminine moral superiority? Does it make you "sick" for a man to say "my body, my choice!"?

These are simple questions of justice:

What basis is there for having different reproductive rights and responsibilities for men and women?

What basis is there for holding that force or fraud relieves women of any responsibility, but not men?

How is the cause of equality advanced when there is a heirarchy of rights, with women's right of "choice" at the top, below that the child's right to support, and last, men's right to ?? What?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greenring7
post Jun 17 2003, 05:45 PM
Post #58


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 93
Member No.: 800
Joined: June-14-03

From: Jacksonville, Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



To make this conversation even more fun, here's another chink to consider:

Women who cheat on their husbands, but the courts rule must continue to support (read:give the mother money) even though the children are not theirs.

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Jun 29 2003, 10:13 AM
Post #59


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Does it make you "sick" for a man to say "my body, my choice!"?


"My body my choice begins" when you decide to put it in. Weve been through this previously. If as a male you do not want children, you have the choice of condoms or abstinance. Men are not, as you would like to play it, victims in this scenario. You have choice before the fact.
Either party may use available contraception, making both partners responsible.

QUOTE
These are simple questions of justice:

What basis is there for having different reproductive rights and responsibilities for men and women?


Abortion being legal does not include ALL women, since many are against the practice for personal or religious reasons, therefore the legal ability of all women to have abortions does not cover all women, hence impossible to legislate mens reproductive rights based on the LEGAL availability of women to abort.

Many legislators and our sitting President are against abortion and would have it abolished if possible and are actively working against legal abortions, hence leading that ALL men pay for their children, desired or not. So better get your condoms on and start taking reproductive rights from the start.

Abortion is not equal to contrception, but has farther reaching implications, in cases such as serious birth defects, mongoloidism, rape, incest or threat to the mothers life.

If we deemed that because any woman can (legally but possibly not morally) opt out, therefore any father who didnt want a child can also 'opt' out, it would create an impossible burden on individuals, society and the courts, not to mention the children.

QUOTE
What basis is there for holding that force or fraud relieves women of any responsibility, but not men?

Bikerdad, your pounding this debate from the point of female criminal intent/ male rape for the express purpose of pregnancy and basing your arguement there is just too ludicrous to be worth going over time and time again. Lawmaking in a country as large as ours cannot be based on such few cases. I suppose they will have to be taken one at a time and precedent set then. I think its been answered to the best of anyones ability.
Fraud: Are you claiming lack of male responsability to make desicions about sexuality? to THINK before the ACT, then blame the woman for fraud? It wont hold up in court. Humans lie to each other all the time and judges now ask, "why didnt you take care of yourself?"

This post has been edited by Artemise: Jun 29 2003, 10:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 8th, 2020 - 07:38 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.