The denied reproductive rights of males. - Page 4

Firefly · 2012-01-28, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Raising a child is difficult and ungodly expensive. There should absolutely be measures in place to prevent men from just backing out of it when it gets rough.

http://bit.ly/zG5C0i

Graywolves · 2012-01-28, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

http://bit.ly/zG5C0i

On a serious note....

A fetus does have a potential to live, that's a fact. It is also a fact that it is inside the woman's body.

However. The argument about a male's rights in it isn't about the abortion itself necessarily, but how it effects the male.

Both partners are (or should have been) completley aware of the possibilities when a woman is impregnated in consentual sex. Once a female has been impregnated she then has a choice on wether or not to keep the baby.

Now both sides could have used a number of birth control methods to prevent this. Who is responsible could easily be argued endlessly and could be difficult to provide evidence and even so, not everything is 100%

The woman might want to abort, but the man might not. It's too bad for him.

The woman might want to keep, the man might want to abort. It's too bad for him.

Personally this doesn't bother me so much as I try my best to avoid situations like this or a female who might screw me over. But we never know what the future holds.

Warborn · 2012-01-28, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

However. The argument about a male's rights in it isn't about the abortion itself necessarily, but how it effects the male.

The abortion stuff grew from the fact that "a male's right" doesn't exist in this case. When a woman is pregnant, it is her body and she is the sole arbiter (or should be in a just society) of what she does with the parasite within her. When the baby is born, there is now a new person in the world which requires adults to care for it such that it has the best possible shot at life. In the one case, it's none of your business, and in the other it is all of your business from that day until such a time as the child becomes an independent adult.

If you can't accept the idea of raising a child with a particular woman, you should avoid putting your penis in her vagina under any circumstances, because once you've done that you've consented to raising a child with her if such should be the case that she gets pregnant and wants to keep it.

Graywolves · 2012-01-28, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

The abortion stuff grew from the fact that "a male's right" doesn't exist in this case. When a woman is pregnant, it is her body and she is the sole arbiter (or should be in a just society) of what she does with the parasite within her. When the baby is born, there is now a new person in the world which requires adults to care for it such that it has the best possible shot at life. In the one case, it's none of your business, and in the other it is all of your business from that day until such a time as the child becomes an independent adult.

If you can't accept the idea of raising a child with a particular woman, you should avoid putting your penis in her vagina under any circumstances, because once you've done that you've consented to raising a child with her if such should be the case that she gets pregnant and wants to keep it.

One could say (in consentual sex) that the women always had the option to avoid becoming pregnant and many options to use to prevent this. Her body or not the male's DNA is in there.

Warborn · 2012-01-28, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

One could say (in consentual sex) that the women always had the option to avoid becoming pregnant and many options to use to prevent this.

What difference does it make whether the woman took precautions or not when she became pregnant? At the end of the day, the pregnancy is still hers to do with as she choose, and the child you were instrumental in creating is still equally your responsibility if it is born. Whether she took no precautions at all and neither did you, or whether you used a condom/spermicide and she was on the birth control, the end result is the same.

Her body or not the male's DNA is in there.

This bit of trivia does not trump a woman's sovereignty over her own body.

Graywolves · 2012-01-28, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

What difference does it make whether the woman took precautions or not when she became pregnant? At the end of the day, the pregnancy is still hers to do with as she choose, and the child you were instrumental in creating is still equally your responsibility if it is born. Whether she took no precautions at all and neither did you, or whether you used a condom/spermicide and she was on the birth control, the end result is the same.

This bit of trivia does not trump a woman's sovereignty over her own body.

Why should the male be victim to whatever the female desires if she has all the choice in the matter?

It's restricting on the Male's freedoms if his fate on the matter is not up to him at all.

Warborn · 2012-01-28, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

Why should the male be victim to whatever the female desires if she has all the choice in the matter?

It's restricting on the Male's freedoms if his fate on the matter is not up to him at all.

There is no victim unless it was rape. You are, presumably, not a slave to your penis and can therefore make your own decisions about who to sleep with. If it was consenting sex, then part of that consent was for the consequences of the sex. Your feeling of persecution is not enough to deprive the woman of her autonomy, nor is it enough to deprive the eventual child of a second parent contributing to its well-being (whether actively or via child support).

Your freedom to not be tied up in parenting starts and stops with what you do with your junk.

Graywolves · 2012-01-28, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

If it was consenting sex, then part of that consent was for the consequences of the sex.

The Female partner is aware of that just as much as the Male. So why should the Male be enslaved if the Female makes a certain decision.

Warborn · 2012-01-28, 11:08 PM

It's the female's body and not the male's, and it's thus her choice and nobody else's whether to have an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. Having to support the eventual child is simply necessary. Having a child is a huge deal, and simply allowing a man to walk away from it and not contribute to his child's well-being is absurd.

Also, playing the victim here is silly. You realize women have been broodmares to men for the vast majority of our species' history, right? And that it's only recently they've been able to be their own people? Acting as if this is unfair to us as men is fairly laughable given the history of our gender's treatment of theirs. The right to full ownership of their own bodies is not an injustice.

Graywolves · 2012-02-01, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

It's the female's body and not the male's, and it's thus her choice and nobody else's whether to have an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. Having to support the eventual child is simply necessary. Having a child is a huge deal, and simply allowing a man to walk away from it and not contribute to his child's well-being is absurd.

Also, playing the victim here is silly. You realize women have been broodmares to men for the vast majority of our species' history, right? And that it's only recently they've been able to be their own people? Acting as if this is unfair to us as men is fairly laughable given the history of our gender's treatment of theirs. The right to full ownership of their own bodies is not an injustice.

Painting women as victims of history is a consequence of liberal guilt. Times have changed in the past hundred years but not much further away there was no way a woman could do what a woman can today. Things only changed due to technology, easier living, and birth control.

The role of woman birthing children and taking care of the home wasn't because Men were oppressing them. Think about it, what's a woman gonna do in the vulnerable state of pregnancy? Who's going to hunt? They weren't victims of history, it was the way things worked in the time. If a victim of anything it was civilization being slow to adapt to changing times.

Warborn · 2012-02-01, 04:38 PM

There are hunter-gatherer societies that exist even today where men are not the hunters and women the caretakers of children. The Aka people of the C.A.R./Congo areas are a well-known example. Otherwise, for thousands of years it has been the case that women in most civilizations have been relegated to second-class citizenship. It's even enshrined in many major religions, where women are described as property for men to possess and merely companions God made for his true creation, Man, so that Man might not be lonely.

And even today there is all sorts of sexism that exists. Racism, sexism, discrimination against homosexuals, all are still major problems in our societies today. But the one group that has it the best are light-skinned guys, like Yours Truly. So when I hear people making us out to be the victims in something that relates to us fucking people, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Senyu · 2012-02-01, 11:30 PM

Because the woman has to endure the process of pregnacy, which is a hard thing especially if the woman does not want the baby, womans choice is heavlly backed up just because it is a long and hard process. It can potentially mentally scar the woman in a variety of ways. If it was revsered and men carried the baby, I sure as hell know alot of guys would say, "Fuck that. I am not carrying it within me for so many months and all the shit that happens during."

Plus the woman has to get legal affairs in order such as maturnal leave/vacation, paying or having a share in hospital bills, the legal and custody issues, court fees......theres alot of things the woman has to literally and metaphoracally "pay" for to have the baby even if she doesn't want it but the man does.

Graywolves · 2012-02-02, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Senyu

Plus the woman has to get legal affairs in order such as maturnal leave/vacation, paying or having a share in hospital bills, the legal and custody issues, court fees......theres alot of things the woman has to literally and metaphoracally "pay" for to have the baby even if she doesn't want it but the man does.

I've been playing devil's advocate mostly but I found that last paragraph most convincing for me.

Warborn · 2012-02-02, 01:57 PM

Really? The cost to the mother is the most convincing argument to you? Well what if the mother is affluent and does not work for a living. What if she has a lawyer or other individual who handles all of the paperwork for her, and she is at most burdened with signing on a dotted line now-and-then. What if her actual delivery is done with enough anesthesia that she is not discomforted by it significantly. Would that make a difference to the right she has over the child?

Senyu · 2012-02-09, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Really? The cost to the mother is the most convincing argument to you? Well what if the mother is affluent and does not work for a living. What if she has a lawyer or other individual who handles all of the paperwork for her, and she is at most burdened with signing on a dotted line now-and-then. What if her actual delivery is done with enough anesthesia that she is not discomforted by it significantly. Would that make a difference to the right she has over the child?

Are you implying financial status is a decideing factor on if they woman should have the child?

And are you saying that money is the only payment a women has to deal with? As I stated, "metaphorically" the woman has to pay alot. Imagine having to go through the hormones of pregnacy. The mental stress of the whole situation alone is enough. And also potentially damaging to her mental health of going through pregnacy for a child she doesn't even want. You cant have pure logic validate and over-rule the emotions and pain a woman would go through in that situation.