Reproductive Freedom, a Man's Perspective

[Keyser_Soze]

A woman gets pregnant and she gets to choose to either have the baby and get money from the father or have the baby aborted, even if the father is willing to pay her a good sum of money to carry the baby and has the funds to raise the baby himself. She has the right to shrug off both HER parental responsibilities and also throw the fathers in the trash to spite him if she so chooses.

In order for a man to have equal reproductive rights a law would need to be passed where a man would need to be notified by the female he impregnated so that he could go to court and legally sign away all of his parental responsibilities, all of his financial responsibilities for that child, the same way the woman gets to do by having an abortion. then the woman could have it or abort it as is her choice anyway. But the man would be free and clear of any responsibilities, financial or otherwise.

Until then, women have the best of both worlds when there is any dispute in cases where there are babies/children/etc.

[Dogmatique]

A woman gets pregnant and she gets to choose to either have the baby and get money from the father or have the baby aborted, even if the father is willing to pay her a good sum of money to carry the baby and has the funds to raise the baby himself. She has the right to shrug off both HER parental responsibilities and also throw the fathers in the trash to spite him if she so chooses.

Until men are physically able to give birth, there is nothing unfair in what you've said here (and you've spoken the truth). This is, after all, her body we're discussing. Not his. Roe v. Wade decided that quite some time ago.

In order for a man to have equal reproductive rights a law would need to be passed where a man would need to be notified by the female he impregnated so that he could go to court and legally sign away all of his parental responsibilities, all of his financial responsibilities for that child, the same way the woman gets to do by having an abortion. then the woman could have it or abort it as is her choice anyway.

Until then, women have the best of both worlds when there is any dispute in cases where there are babies/children/etc.

Knowing that sex = risk of pregnancy, men DO have a choice in their reproductive rights. They can choose not to have sex. Have a vasectomy.

Simplistic? Yes, it is. But it's also accurate.

[cyjeff]

Why in the hell do we get all the crackpots?

People that want to just stir the pot and see what kind of trolling nonsense they can start.

I GUARANTEE the OP has been here under a couple of different names all for the same purpose.

[Dogmatique]

Why in the hell do we get all the crackpots?

People that want to just stir the pot and see what kind of trolling nonsense they can start.

I GUARANTEE the OP has been here under a couple of different names all for the same purpose.

I think it's my cologne

Or yours?

[aardvarc]

Anthropologocially, this is why human relationships have evolved to have period of courtship for the couple to determine that they are compatible to raise a family together, and the institution of marriage, as a legal contract binding the two together to do so. Those are the principles upon which a majority of societies base their family law. (Of course there are noteable exceptions, bearing in mind that societies with exceptions also have much more stringent rules and mandates). Operating outside of those principles causes problems for a reason; because the law presumes that it is in the best interest of society at large, and children in particular, that the family structure is a healthy and stable one, meaning that it doesn't want there to be children with one parent (it wants TWO), paternity questions (it wants children to be the product of marriage), and many of the other issues that complicate matters when people with no intent to follow that social structure bump uglies in the night to create children outside of a long term relationship supporting the rearing of resulting children, and providing legal protections for those children.

It's only been the last handful of decades that a pregnancy in an unwed couple didn't typically resolve into a marriage - either due to family pressure, societal pressure, religious pressure, financial pressure, and internal pressures for the individual parents.

[Keyser_Soze]

Until men are physically able to give birth, there is nothing unfair in what you've said here (and you've spoken the truth). This is, after all, her body we're discussing. Not his. Roe v. Wade decided that quite some time ago.





Knowing that sex = risk of pregnancy, men DO have a choice in their reproductive rights. They can choose not to have sex. Have a vasectomy.

Simplistic? Yes, it is. But it's also accurate.

women know that sex= risk of pregnancy just as well as men. So if men's reproductive rights end at the moment the penis enters the vagina, if we are to have equal rights, so does a woman's.

women who do not want a child can have their uterus taken out or whatever, that is also accurate.

Sorry, but you don't get it both ways

Why in the hell do we get all the crackpots?

People that want to just stir the pot and see what kind of trolling nonsense they can start.

I GUARANTEE the OP has been here under a couple of different names all for the same purpose.

I am new here and have never been under any other name. I prefer controversial discussions. Are they not allowed or something? If fact, the very reason I made this post, is because people were giving me shit in the police area so I decided to make a post in another area so people may see that I am not some cop hating meat head.

Seriously, are only non-controversial discussions allowed at his website?

[mamabear2102003]

You HAVE equal rights... wear a condom. If you choose not to reproduce, that is your right and your responsibility. You don't carry a child, your body is not the vessel, and the damage/changes (physically) are all borne by the female.

[Keyser_Soze]

Anthropologocially, this is why human relationships have evolved to have period of courtship for the couple to determine that they are compatible to raise a family together, and the institution of marriage, as a legal contract binding the two together to do so. Those are the principles upon which a majority of societies base their family law. (Of course there are noteable exceptions, bearing in mind that societies with exceptions also have much more stringent rules and mandates). Operating outside of those principles causes problems for a reason; because the law presumes that it is in the best interest of society at large, and children in particular, that the family structure is a healthy and stable one, meaning that it doesn't want there to be children with one parent (it wants TWO), paternity questions (it wants children to be the product of marriage), and many of the other issues that complicate matters when people with no intent to follow that social structure bump uglies in the night to create children outside of a long term relationship supporting the rearing of resulting children, and providing legal protections for those children.

It's only been the last handful of decades that a pregnancy in an unwed couple didn't typically resolve into a marriage - either due to family pressure, societal pressure, religious pressure, financial pressure, and internal pressures for the individual parents.

Well now women can have babies and go on welafe, they don't need a man or their family to support them. I"m sure there is a def strong correlation between the implementation of large welfare $ and females having babies out of wedlock.

[Dogmatique]

women know that sex= risk of pregnancy just as well as men. So if men's reproductive rights end at the moment the penis enters the vagina, if we are to have equal rights, so does a woman's.

women who do not want a child can have their uterus taken out or whatever, that is also accurate.

Sorry, but you don't get it both ways

Re-read what I wrote.

(For what it's worth, a hysterectomy is rarely performed for the purpose of sterilization...that procedure would actually be tubal ligation, and the uterus would remain in situ).

[cbg]

Folks, why are you even giving houseroom to this troll? Ignore him and he'll go away.