Men's reproductive rights
Here is an interesting new trend in the UK and US: Reproductive rights for men. Men have finally discoverd that they should have some rights when it comes to women having their babies, since they do have to support them afterwards. However, as they say: Choose your battles; and the men- who are calling for those rights- have been choosing some very weird ones. In the UK, the European Human rights court denied a British woman's request to use frozen embryos against her ex-fiance's wishes. She says it's her last chance to have a baby since she had ovarian cancer, while her ex is saying :"I broke up with her crazy ass, and I don't want her to have my babies anymore". This one I support: A man should not be forced to impregnate a woman with his sperm if he doesn't want to, especially one he broke up with. The one I don't support is this one: The man who is suing a woman that got pregnant with his baby because he doesn't want to pay child support. His argument? He didn't want a baby, she told him she couldn't have one, and now she is pregnant and keeping it. Since only women have the right to keep and abort the child no matter what the men fathering them think, he contends men should be able to choose not to support said child if they never wanted it. This, of course, is crap. Yes, the way abortion works now is crappy for the men, cause they don't get to have a say in anything, but the moment the baby is born, you are responsible for it. It's your flesh and blood whether you like it or not. And next time, no matter what the woman tells you, use a condom. Even if she is on the pill use a condom. The Pill won't protect your ass from STD's Bubba. Safer that way. So men, to recap: All is fair until the woman gets pregnant. After that, sorry, you are screwed! So, be a man and deal with it!
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 3/12/2006 06:15:00 AM
28 Comments:
I get really tired of men whining about abortion. If they don't want their in utero child to be aborted, then they should choose more carefully who the mother should be. Responsible parenthood begins with that choice. So guys, screwing around willy nilly without regard for the possible consequences makes you just as much an idiot (or more) as the woman.
May I remind you that the use of a condom will protect both involved persons from pregnancy and other STD.
Scandinavian person
Well,
the woman should have been allowed to keep her child _provided_ that she doesn't ask him for money or help to bring it up. He agreed to have the embryo fertilised, and enforcing an abortion on a woman is simply wrong (even if that abortion means to chuck the fertilised embryo).
But, a mere sperm donor should not be asked to contribute, as becoming a father is all too easy, but being a father is very difficult!
And why is it that woman can inflict children (and the resulting 18 years of payment) on men anyway?
If she hasn't got his agreement to become a parent, then he shouldn't have to pay. (you can use contraception but what if she lies or it doesn't work (99% safety means 1% misses...))
Becoming a parent is a huge decision that should not be left to random chance, but should be planned and agreed by both parents.
That is better for the children anyway, every kid deserve to have a dad who wants to be a dad, not some guy who is bitter because the kid that has been conceived by stealth has robbed him of the chance to be able to afford a real family.
ps.: I'm female, and my mother brought me up on her own. She took my 'father' for what she could get the courts to squeeze out of him. I didn't want a payfather, I wanted a real father!
I get tired of men whining about abortion also. Once the baby is on it's way, the female should be able to decide whether she's going to carry it or not. The man has a right to try to convince her to have it, if it wants it, but not by legal coercion.
I also get tired of women forcing men to have children they don't want. I've known too many women who have tricked men into having children as an attempt to pressure them into marriage. It's sickening. If a woman chooses to have a child totally on her own, and she and the man are not in a committed relationship, then she should be ethical enough to raise the child completely on her own without forcing the man to have a child with a woman he doesn't want to father his children.
If a child is a surprise to both parties, and the woman is truly the type that ethically can't face an abortion, the man should be a man and help her and the child out. Mistakes happen to both parties and I wouldn't allow anyone I'd had an "accident" with to bear the entire consequences themselves.
But people are rarely that ethical are they?
Was going to write a long rant, but Angie pretty much said what needs to be said.
actually,
all the people I know who've had abortions (ok, not that many, but still) had them because the guy didn't want the baby, so men do have a say.
K from Oslo
ok the woman wanting to force her ex to provide previously frozen sperm is full of shit. She can buy the sprem of a donor anything she wants.
Men didnt anyone tell you that everytime you stick your dick in a woman there is a chance she will get pregnant. FIRST OF ALL IF U DONT WANT TO HAVE A BABY, THEN TAKE RESPONSIBLITY OF YOUR OWN SEMEN. USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME BUT REMEMBER, NO BIRTH CONTROL METHOD IS 100% EFFECTIVE. SO IF U REALLY REALLY DONT WANT TO HAVE A BABY, HERE IS A RADICAL SUGGESTION. DONT HAVE SEX!!! THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN BE SURE THAT U WONT HAVE ANY BABIES BY A WOMAN U MIGHT NOT WANT TO BE CONNECTED TO FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
Nothin in this world is free remenber the price of that 10 minutes of pleasure can become the most expensive pleasure ever.
anon 8:41
"She says it's her last chance to have a baby since she had ovarian cancer"
ovarian cancer = no ovaries so she doesn't have that many possibilities.
I don't think she is responsible having a child though, since she has had a cancer with a sadly low long-term survival.
Yasmina:
I think there was a case in Norway some 10 years ago, where a father-to-be tried to stop his girlfriend from having an abortion.
Since the law states, that a woman has full right to control her own body, he lost the case.
Maybe K from Oslo remembers the details?
Scandinavian person
Sorry Yasmina,
But I don't agree. The woman physically carries the child and it should be her ultimate decision. The man certainly has every right to convince her to have the child and it's very admirable to do that, But having a child is not like buying a car together. To require a woman be a forced incubator for 9 months is nothing less than indentured servitude. And forcing a woman to raise a child she doesn't want is nothing less than child abuse, or certainly provides fertile ground for that to occur.
And trust me...I LOVE men! AND children!
The irony is, that embryoes and potential human beings are terminated on petri dishes in fertility clinics and research labs all over the world, every minute of every day.
How fair is it of people to demand that only an unfortunate woman who does not choose to be a mother (and who is therefore the one person who would be most negatively impacted by not being allowed to terminate an embryo), is the only entity that is legally prevented from doing so?
I have never in my life, had a man press me for physical favors with the sole aim of fathering a child with me. They press me because of physical desires. Neither do I blame him, for being human and having overwhelming physical desires. They would scarcly be human if they didn't.
If I behave as a human being, and succumb to what can be overwhelming biological urges, it doesn't mean that the man, who was also giving into his, automatically has a legal or moral claim on me.
If one man's daily sperm potential was actualized into human beings, it would quite literally double the world's population within the week. Obviously God, or biology, did not intend for every sperm to exist as a person. And obviously God, or biology set the general conditions for the fact that most sperm would not become beings, by making sure that men produced vastly more viable sperm than could ever reach fruition.
If men are concerned that the potential life within their bodies not be terminated, they shouldn't masturbate. As the wastage of potential life in one act of auto-erotic gratification is approximately 1/3 of the world's existing population.
Very interesting Sandmonkey,
You are too wise for your age, my dear!
I hope your parents are proud of you, I sure would if I were (was?) you mom! ;-)
-Still learning English writing.
Sorry meant to say that it is 1/12 of the world's existing population.
Men's reproductive rights? I wish I had thought of this before I hired a homeless person to push her down the stairs. Oh well.
Hey scandi,
I remember the case, butnot the details, but I remember that he did lose the case. As long as women are the ones who get pregnant it's difficult for a man to prevent her frm having an abortion, because if she suspects he might say no, she can chose not to tell him about the pregnancy and have an abortion anyway (legal or illegal). But I think this situation (woman wanting abortion, man wanting the baby) is rare and that a man not wanting the baby is a common reson for a woman to have an abortion, as being a single mother is hard.
Yasmina; getting pregnant is not a crime and a baby is not a punishment. Ideally it should be a wonderful thing, but we don't love in an ideal world, do we?
An embryo in a petridish, however, is a different matter. You could argue that the ex-husband gave his permission to fertelize the egg in the first place, but that was under the condition of them raising a child as a couple, and so I think he has a right to end the procedure.
K from Oslo
But there is one question I would like to pose to Sandmonkey, if he has the time and disposition to answer it:
As a man that supports women's rights, would you, or not, agree that ignoring all other "rights" that may be granted to a person either by society, or by nature, is there any "right" more elemental than the simple governance of ones's own body?
So when a situation arises, where there is disagreement, and no real compromise (e.g. either you're going to produce a child, or you are not). There are no half measures for example; the woman becomes impregnated, and not wanting to bear the child, the man agrees to take the child in his body, carry it to term and raise it.
Do you agree that one's decision, by necessity, must be the prevailing decision? And that the prevailing decision should fall to the person most impacted? In this case...the one who actually physically carries the child and (usually) the one that rears it, with or without the help of the other?
Don't play hide the weenie unless you are prepared for the consequences.
I had thus huge comment answering your question angie
and blogger deleted it.
So to give u the shoirt and simple answer : Yes, women have the right to gover theiur own bodies, because we as men never have to question that right!
God damn! I'm glad SOMEBODY finally agrees with me...they hardly ever do! ;)
DC,
I agree completely. If I were Sandmonkey's mother, I'd also be very proud of him (and I'm old enough that I could be his mother).
Note for your English writing: "If I were" is correct. "If I was" is also used and understood - it's just seen as a bit more 'common' (lower class).
the differing expectations of two people relieves neither from their obligation. the woman should hold power over the fetus as she is the vehicle for gestation. she puts her health at risk regardless of her decision.
a man's ego should hold no sway in her decision. a man's commitment to the child should be a consideration, but not the ultimate deciding factor.
we have requirements from each sex to insure the continuation of us. we need to respect the differences and stop making demands of each other when we have failed to commit to a life together.
In the first case, the woman's fiance agreed to create a life with her. The embryos that have their very own one of a kind DNA are already made. The life has been created. And I hate the argument of 'it depends on when life begins'....duh...amoebas and paramecium are considered life, correct?
The man gets to make the abortion decision here. Why can't he just have a contract written up that if she goes through with it, that she is not to tell him or expect anything from him? Seems he is just being an asshole.
In the second case, the guy is also an asshole.
If people respected life a bit more than their own selfish-whatever-feels-good-at-the-moment...then maybe more would be serious about preventing pregnancies. It isn't rocket science for a woman to know her fertile days....she needs nothing more than her own eyes around the middle of her cycle. If she disregards that and continues to have unprotected sex anyway resulting in pregnancy...only to say it is her choice to kill it, then she is an asshole. She made her choice when she pulled off her pants.
Alright Yasmina, it's a fair enough question, and I'll try to answer it fairly...
If a child is born and the child is reared by the man, the woman is obligated to pay child support by law... in conclusion..the law does NOT differentiate between men and women in regards to supporting a child, it is, as you put it "BOTH THEIR FAULTS". Both parties are equally responsible for a child's support. To put it your way...both the "Bastard and the Bitch" are equal under the law.
This is where your logic becomes non- sequitur...
The bearing of a child is IPSO FACTO, under natural laws and civil laws, an inherently unequal proposition. You cannot, by attempting to make a moral equivalence, make it so.
In a pregnancy, the woman will be the one to physically carry and bear the child. The man cannot; hold the child within his body, or assume the required physical obligations, burdens, or possible dangers for the woman, even though many caring and loving men would wish to do so.
Therefore... in a situation where the two parties disagree, as in our case, the woman being the one who wishes to terminate the pregancy, the deciding opinion must be meted to the individual whose health and possibly life is put in jeopardy (as child birth can be terminal in some cases, and in EVERY case, there is SOME permanent damage (however severe of slight) to the body).
So the party who is clearly not at risk for physical damage or possible death, cannot impose his will upon the party who will be at risk by continuing a pregnancy. It MUST be her ultimate decision whether she is willing to take that risk.
In short, the legal/moral encumbrance of financial support upon both parties is not interchangeable with the physical/emotional risks of a pregancy. They are not the same.
And as K from Oslo so wisely put it...getting pregnant is not a crime and having a baby is not a punishment.
I might also add, that having sex is not a sin that someone needs to "pay the piper" for because the slut (if I may assume to extrapolate) "opens her legs".
But, there are serious consequences to having unprotected casual sex. That is why it has been called a 'sin' outside of marriage through the ages.
Yes, Anonymous, embryos have their very own "one of a kind" DNA and so does every cell in your body have all the DNA in paired chromosomes it needs to replicate life (cloning) into infinity. It doesn't stop you from blowing your nose; the fact that life is killed off everytime you do it.
However, many women's cycles are not that regular...very few women actually have the classic 28 day cycle where fertile days are predictable.
And every last one of us (from time immemorial, excluding in-vitro fertilized people) are here because our parents all had "their own selfish-whatever-feels-good-at-the-moment" moment...
It's not something to be "paid for" or sneered at.
That's why YOU call it a sin outside of marriage..not I!
With modern fertilization techniques, her getting pregnant with his sperm is no different that her demanding he sleep with her with no protection. He doesn't want to have children, so he does the right thing and says no. Just because she has the technology to make it conception happen later than during real intercourse doesn't make any difference.
How would she feel if it was the other way around? He has access to some of her eggs and demanded that they be fertilied and planted into his current wife, or some other serragate?
ANd what happen to the good old technique of just getting him too drunk to say no?
"the woman is obligated to pay child support by law..."____In which country? Laws vary greatly in different countries. Does this law apply in Egypt?
Yes my dearest monkey, you speak like a true trooper. Do not be a slave to your best friend, otherwise either the woman or the state will come back and screw you. In other words, not all that feels good, turns out good. Use a condom is certainly the minimal advice.
i agree on the decision has to be the womans, firstly because it is her body, and there still is consecvenses and lots of complications having a child, that could be lethal, paralycing, cribling, sterilicing and so fort..
secondly, both culturally, and even more important genetically, women are ingeniered to take care of their offspring, so they cannot walk away from a child that they dont want without being "scarred" both psycologically and socially (well it its seldom anyway).
Men on the other should not (and do not where i come from DK)pay childsupport to a child that they dont want, and they have every legal right to decline to be the father of the child, if they do not want to have it.
And that is his right, and thats how it should be. So he can decide wether he agrees with her or not.
Women arent total idiots, you have to be two (at least...) people to engage sex, so its not like shes and innocent victim who woke up one morning and was fertilized by the holy spirit (al though is has been known to happen looking back in "history", hæhæ,), so why this forced childsupport?, the money would be much better spent on sexual-education, (by professionals and not by priest and the likes).
Post a Comment
<< Home