Male Reproductive Rights

Originally Posted by Gohan1983

Male Reproductive Rights

Men don't have any, get used to it. If you get your partner pregnant and neither of you was using any contraceptive products (pills, condom, etc..) you're basically giving her full control over whether the potential kid is born or not.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by scotty

What would mens rights be if you were using a condom, and it failed? Just curious

And your partner got pregnant and she wants to carry the kid to term? None, you have no right there either. Sure there would be a lot of "what if" situations, and there have been quite a few already, but the choice is ultimately up to the woman.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

I would disagree with this. Given a situation in which my partner became pregnant but felt she didn't want to go through with pregnancy I would argue that I have a right to fight for that child's life. I understand I don't have the responsibility of carrying and delivering the child but I think I would be pretty upset if I knew I was a father but my partner made a decision to terminate the pregnancy and I ultimately could do nothing about it.

But that comes back to what Bradylama said up top:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The phrase "Your rights end where my nose begins" has as much truth here as in any other topic.

You put the sperm in her body, one which she has rights over, including whether or not she keeps or removes the kid. Heck, there are debates about what stage you can even call it a child, let alone its rights. You're right about it being rather upsetting for a man if he actually wanted this kid and his partner didn't, but it's ultimately up to her.

Now, if this had been done via IVF which requires consent from both parties at every step of the way, then you'd have an option.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I think a lot of people in this thread are forgetting that there is a third party that is completely innocent of any bad things the father and the mother did. Why should the child be punished because the father didn't want the kid?

But wouldn't what people consider a child differ from one person to the next? Some think a bunch of cells is a child and mention the same thing you said above, while others don't think anything's being punished until well into the pregnancy.

And that question, couldn't you replace father with mother and end up with a nasty, but realistic, answer to that question? The answer, of course, being that she can "punish" the child because of her right over her own body.

Originally Posted by Minion

Fathers should definitely not be given the right to demand an abortion, but they should be allowed to request one. Failing that, they should have the right to choose not to support the child. Either way, neither party should have more authority over whether or not the other party is responsible for the baby.

Minion, wouldn't that open up the ability for some men to have sex without using protection, get a woman pregnant and if she decides to keep the baby, absolve themselves of any legal or financial responsibility for their kid?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

I'm talking and the article is talking about the right the fathers have to not support their living offspring, not the pregnancies they have caused.

Ah, ok.

Quote:

You are absolutely right. it is not the mother's decision, in fact, whether the father supports the child or not. It is the law's decision that he supports the child financially, and that she does as well.

That's pretty much it. It's essentially in the child's best interests to have both parents supporting them, even if one of them is only doing so financially.

Quote:

Okay, say a guy is sleeping with this chick and they have an agreement that they don't want kids, but the mother decides shes not going to take the pill and not tell him because she wants a baby even though he doesn't? What are this man's rights? Is forcing this guy to raise this child any different than forcing a raped woman to raise her child?

Wasn't there a case like this recently? In any case, wouldn't it be fraud? He'd still have to support the child, again, because it's in the child's best interests. The raped woman would have to carry around the product of her rape for 9 months, endure various health problems and labor and then try and raise her rapist's offspring. It's far removed from a man tricked by his partner into having a kid, and at the bare minimum supporting them financially.

I was speaking idiomatically.