Men's Rights?

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Well, in that case isn't it Male slavery that a man has to pay for a child he didn't want to keep? Should he not be able to sign away his parently rights and no longer be responsible for it in the same way a woman can choose not to have the child?

If its BOTH of their children then both get a choice in all decisions about it. If its HER child only, then he should not be responsible as he gets no say in it.

He could simply decide not to have sex with a woman and thus not be a slave.

So too could that woman not be a slave by simply choosing not to have sex with that same man.


If its slavery for one, its slavery for both. If its ok for one, its ok for both.

Can you not see the double standard? Its "Is MY baby if I want to abort it, but OUR baby if I don't" in any way a fair system to both genders?

If only the man could choose whether or not to abort the baby would that seem fair?

It's not a double standard, it's biology. Equality or fairness don't enter into childbearing unfortunately. Men and women can never have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and risks when it comes to childbearing because of biology. A man isn't equally responsible for a pregnancy since his body is completely uninvolved after conception. Abortion is allowed because a woman has the right to control her body and pregnancy affects her body exclusively. Legal rights to abortion have nothing to do with the child and who "owns" the child because it isn't considered a child yet.

That's a separate issue from child support. Child support is mandatory because of the rights of the child (and those include male children!!!). Children's rights have nothing to do with gender. Child support shouldn't have anything to do with whether it's a father or a mother raising the children either. The non-custodial parent (mom or dad) should be contributing to their child's needs. In the interest of male children, I would think mandatory support would be something men's rights activists would be all in favor of as long as it's applied to both parents. I really think the fact that children's rights have become such a women's issue says something bad about fatherhood in our society.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Would it not be more fair if (with the exception of cases of rape) BOTH parents had to agree to abortion? .

Not unless they BOTH have to experience the pregnancy and birth and that's impossible.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

[.[/
Just so you know, Tracy, recent studies are indeed showing a difference in HIV rates in Africa in circumcised vs non circumcised males. The researchers are beginning to focus on the possibility that there are certain receptors on the foreskin that the HIV virus can attach to. Therefore, if the foreskin is absent, the HIV is not as readily attached and it is being considered that this may explain the difference in infection rates.

This may also explain the difference in cervical and penile cancer rates in circumcised vs non circumcised populations as these diseases, being related to the HPV virus may have similar receptor differences.

Again, those African studies are largely flawed.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

This is a good link discussing some of the problems with those studies. Many of them are frankly junk. While researchers know that certain cells on the foreskin may be easier to infect with HIV than other cells, circumcision does not have such a dramatic effect on HIV infection rates that routine infant circs are being recommended. Condom use, monogomy and abstinence are still the best ways to prevent HIV. Circumcision is still a cosmetic procedure. If it were so protective, the US would have less infections than Canada (circ rates are about double in the US). It doesn't, it has more HIV infections. That's why it's premature to recommend cutting off a part of a male baby's body.

It also ignores the potential problems with circumcisions and health. I only stopped participating in circs after seeing a baby almost bleed to death after having one (not one I had participated in fortunately).

I do think there is a big double standard in this area. I have friends here who think an uncirced penis is wierd or gross so they would prefer their partner was circumcized. But, how would they react if a man told them their bodies were so disgusting that he wanted them to have their genitals operated on before having sex? The justifications for female genital mutilation and male circumcision are very similar. Even the language is a bit sexist. We used to use the term female circumcision but that fell out of favor because we didn't want that to be compared to male circumcision, the assumption being male circs are ok or normal.

 

[Zzarchov]

Woah woah woah..

Childbirth is part of biology. And? Whats your point?

Sex is part of biology too, and it is VASTLY different for men and women, BOTH are governed by the same laws, even when it is obviously not the biological norm.

Even if you assume that the woman is fully responsible for her own biology (which I can easily support) does that mean a man can then hire a surrogate and force you to transplant the embryo over (at his expense?)

It is a problem where women do intentionally get themselves pregnant (such as by lying about birth control) to gain power over a man, as he has no say in it, requesting bribes to have an abortion.

This is simply not right. Obviously these are not your average woman, If these individuals were male they would be the sort who end up being rapists. Its a power fantasy in exactly the same way.

Before you say "that never happens" It does, I've seen it happen, I've been there when the woman made the demand to a friend of mine (who learned the hard way women are no more innocent than men).

Obviously I don't have a better system than the one we have currently, anything I could suggest would merely be throwing the pendulum the other way and having even more abuse.

But to just waive your hands and say "biology is different" is not an excuse.

Men are physically stronger than women in upper body strength, its part of our gender. Despite the actual physical requirements of the Job being the same regardless of gender, women who are firefighters and soldiers have to do fewer pushups, lift fewer weights etc, in the interest of giving them an equal chance at having the job.

So if your willing to declare biology irrelevent there.. declaring a man who can do 75 pushups too weak but a woman who can do 60 strong enough, should the law also not say that even though a woman actually has to suffer through the pregnancy, in the interests of gender fairness the father has equal say in the fetus?

If your willing to risk peoples lives in a fire or combat in the interests of fairness, I think forcing someone who screwed up and didn't use proper protection to actually consult their partner on an abortion is not a heavy handed action, worst case scenario you have to suffer through morning sickness and a caesarian (as health complications would still allow an abortion), in other areas worst case is dozens of people end up dying but that didn't stop anyone.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Woah woah woah..
Childbirth is part of biology. And? Whats your point?

Sex is part of biology too, and it is VASTLY different for men and women, BOTH are governed by the same laws, even when it is obviously not the biological norm

.

My point is that biology is what it is. Women and men can't be treated exactly the same when their biology is different and I would disagree when you say they are governed by the same laws. When was the last time a woman was charged with rape? They can't be because rape requires penetration. Only men can get charged with that because we recognize that we're different and have different rights and responsibilities and abilities.

Even if you assume that the woman is fully responsible for her own biology (which I can easily support) does that mean a man can then hire a surrogate and force you to transplant the embryo over (at his expense?)

Not possible I'm afraid.

It is a problem where women do intentionally get themselves pregnant (such as by lying about birth control) to gain power over a man, as he has no say in it, requesting bribes to have an abortion.

This is simply not right. Obviously these are not your average woman, If these individuals were male they would be the sort who end up being rapists. Its a power fantasy in exactly the same way.

Before you say "that never happens" It does, I've seen it happen, I've been there when the woman made the demand to a friend of mine (who learned the hard way women are no more innocent than men).

I'm not in favor of that type of behavior at all. I agree with you that it's sick. But, there is a really easy way for a man to avoid that kind of situation. Because of his biology, the only time a man can avoid unwanted children is before conception. Condoms are a great thing. So are vasectomies.

Obviously I don't have a better system than the one we have currently, anything I could suggest would merely be throwing the pendulum the other way and having even more abuse.

But to just waive your hands and say "biology is different" is not an excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's reality. It is the reason why things can never be the same for men and women in childbearing. Men don't have to be pregnant. They don't have to have morning sickness, gain weight, get stretch marks, risk having PIH, seizures, infection, death, having their genitals cut, etc. Women get those things. Women and men don't have the same risks and responsibilities in childbearing, so why would their ability to decide on abortion be completely equal? Biological reality has nothing to do with gender politics.

Men are physically stronger than women in upper body strength, its part of our gender. Despite the actual physical requirements of the Job being the same regardless of gender, women who are firefighters and soldiers have to do fewer pushups, lift fewer weights etc, in the interest of giving them an equal chance at having the job.

So if your willing to declare biology irrelevent there.. declaring a man who can do 75 pushups too weak but a woman who can do 60 strong enough, should the law also not say that even though a woman actually has to suffer through the pregnancy, in the interests of gender fairness the father has equal say in the fetus?

If your willing to risk peoples lives in a fire or combat in the interests of fairness, I think forcing someone who screwed up and didn't use proper protection to actually consult their partner on an abortion is not a heavy handed action, worst case scenario you have to suffer through morning sickness and a caesarian (as health complications would still allow an abortion), in other areas worst case is dozens of people end up dying but that didn't stop anyone]

You've confused me with someone else. I don't advocate lowering standards for women. If a woman can't lift the minmum the men have to then she shouldn't be a firefighter. BTW, worst case scenario in childbearing is a lot worse than a c-section and morning sickness, it's actually death. Rare, but it still happens. [/quote]

 

[tamarin]

If abortion is to stay as commonplace as it is, of course, men should have a say. Especially since having a child has immediate financial consequences for them. The thing is to get it out of the legal arena as far as possible so that the parasitical weenies who have destroyed western discourse and life don't get a chance to own this dialogue for their personal profit. If a woman insists on having the child and the father signs off he should be free and clear of all responsibility. Knowing, of course, he has also signed off on all rights to access etc. It can be done. Just make it simple. And when the crybabies begin to howl deal with them viciously.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually your wrong Tracey, Rape does not require penetration. And women COULD be charged with rape even if it did as it is still possible to drug a man for the purposes of sex.

About 10% of all rapes are against men, and a majority are commited by women not male sexual predators.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

Also: No death is not a real risk, the Death is always predictable as a risk, even if not certain. Should a woman wish an abortion when her life is at stake, she can still have one as now currently.

And its not about you advocating lower standards, they ARE lower. The precedence has been set already.

If that is how the country works already for one gender, it should work that way for both.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Said 1, you have use the classic old argument of "we still have to cross the street even though we may be hit by a car"

You're being overly dramatic. *shrug*

I guess I would have to ask a mother why it is SO important to have a baby at home.What advantages to the mother and baby outweigh the risks?

Are the instances of death higher for babies born at home?

Anyway, obviously this is something that won't be for you and that's fine. It wasn't for me either because I knew I wouldn't be able to take the pain. This doesn't mean I don't understand WHY someone would choose that option. What do your friends say? How did they benefit from a home birth?

I am sure you meant Mortality, not Morality, of the African women. But your chuckling is a misinterpretation of my point. I did not say Western Women think African women have a sense of entitlement- but I have had many friends who quote childbirth as a natural event, and then point out that African women have their babies at home, or even out in the wilds. My point was that these women fail to mention the sad outcome of many of these births. Also, as African women are often malnutritioned, their babies tend to be smaller, and are more easily delivered than our big fat McDonalds babies.

I understood your point. Let's do this again. African women, giving birth with a midwife (and other experienced women) is not valid justification for entitlement to home birth, for western women. But like I said, I've never heard a mid-wife or homebirth advocate use that comparison...... "they do it, why can't we?"

As the major risks are at at the time of delivery, yes, hospitals dont advise you to rush in at the first signs of labour, but that is not the same as telling you to stay home and have the baby at home.

There are all kinds of complications, from beginning to end. On the other hand, how does a woman know she's not at risk if no one is monitoring her condition/progress until she can't stand the contractions any longer? That is my point. I had a friend who stayed home until she was at 7cm, then had to go natural. The nurse couldn't believe she made it that long - me either. :lol:

I am not sure why so many women fight for the idea of home delivery as though it is a feminist right that someone is trying to deprive them of.

We don't live in a policed state. There are different risks involved with both hospital and home births, it should be an option.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point but your opinion will never change my mind. Just like mine won't change yours.

Again, I'd like to hear about your experiences. Do you know someone who had a very bad experience giving birth at home?

 

[Zzarchov]

The biggest reason I know (I know a woman who had a home birth) was morality. She didn't want a bunch of med students staring intently at her vagina without her consent. She has VERY conservative religious beliefs and I don't think we have a right to force that upon her, dictating what she may and may not believe if we choose to allow her to breed.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Actually your wrong Tracey, Rape does not require penetration. And women COULD be charged with rape even if it did as it is still possible to drug a man for the purposes of sex.

About 10% of all rapes are against men, and a majority are commited by women not male sexual predators.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

She can commit sexual assault or forcible sodomy. That isn't rape under our penal code

Also: No death is not a real risk, the Death is always predictable as a risk, even if not certain. Should a woman wish an abortion when her life is at stake, she can still have one as now currently

.

If it were that simple we'd never have women die in pregnancy. Women and their health care providers don't know when they are going to up and throw an embolis or start seizing or hemorhage.

And its not about you advocating lower standards, they ARE lower. The precedence has been set already.

If that is how the country works already for one gender, it should work that way for both.

So two wrongs make a right? I don't see why one wrong headed policy (lowering standards for women) should lead to another (men getting equal say in a process that does not affect them equally).

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

[
Are the instances of death higher for babies born at home?

They aren't.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Well, in that case isn't it Male slavery that a man has to pay for a child he didn't want to keep? Should he not be able to sign away his parently rights and no longer be responsible for it in the same way a woman can choose not to have the child?

If its BOTH of their children then both get a choice in all decisions about it. If its HER child only, then he should not be responsible as he gets no say in it.

He could simply decide not to have sex with a woman and thus not be a slave.

So too could that woman not be a slave by simply choosing not to have sex with that same man.


If its slavery for one, its slavery for both. If its ok for one, its ok for both.

Can you not see the double standard? Its "Is MY baby if I want to abort it, but OUR baby if I don't" in any way a fair system to both genders?

If only the man could choose whether or not to abort the baby would that seem fair?

I don't have a problem with the guy not having to pay child support if she refuses to have the abortion. The law can change financial issues, but that's not relevant to forced birth or forced abortion.

 

[Kreskin]

If two people make a deal, where one is to donate a kidney to the other, and the donor rescinds the agreement, what should happen? Should the donor be forced into a hospital to have the kidney removed? Of course not. Should the donee be forced to undergo a transplant if he/she decides not to accept the kidney? Of course not. There could be civil remedies but neither will be forced into a hospital to complete the contract. The same basic principle applies to pregnancy/abortion. The person with the physical obilgation cannot be forced to undergo childbirth or abortion. The financial issues can be argued in court but the physical act cannot be forced on anyone. In fact, that applies to any contract. If I'm a house builder and I decline to build the house after signing the contract to build it the law cannot physically force me to complete it. I will be in breach of contract and required to pay financial restitution but no one can force me into labor. That is a basic principle of every law we have.

 

[Zzarchov]

"If it were that simple we'd never have women die in pregnancy. Women and their health care providers don't know when they are going to up and throw an embolis or start seizing or hemorhage.
"
Women only die when they refuse to abort the baby and take the risk, because they WANT to have the baby. If A woman wants an Abortion in the first place its not a problem.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Finder, your post is the exact reason there need to be men's rights groups. Some things HAVE become real issues.
Example, the legalization of abortion (which I am for) now brings up the biggest issue. Women having complete control over men.

Two consenting adults are both equally responsible for the pregnancy. EQUALLY. If she wishes to abort the child, he doesn't even have to be told let alone decide if he's willing to raise it and she can pay child support.
If she chooses to keep it he just has to know he's responsible for it.

Would it not be more fair if (with the exception of cases of rape) BOTH parents had to agree to abortion? Its not like women aren't aware that having insufficiently protected sex can't lead to a child. Should they not have an equal level of personal responsibility as men? Knowing not to ride some guy if she doesn't want to risk being stuck with a kid? The same as a guy has to think carefully before he starts sowing his wild oats?

The other option is allowing either parent to decide on an abortion and that is FAR more likely to end horribley, horribley wrong.

I am a woman, and I agree with you.
I don't think that a woman can expect to have her cake and eat it too.
Whenever two people have sex, they BOTH know that no matter how well they protect themselves, a pregnancy may be the outcome. Several people on this forum keep pointing out that the man shouldnt have sex if he cant stand the consequences. Well, ditto for the woman. Especially these days. It will be interesting to see how Plan B figures into things. Now that a woman can prevent a pregancy even after the dirty deed, she becomes even more responsible for an unwanted pregnancy.

I don' t think that just because the woman carries a child that she necessarily has the complete right to abort it without consideration to the father. Society currently strongly condemns deadbeat dads who dont care about their kids, and dads who get a girl pregnant and dont care, but society doesnt want to have to consider the dad who DOES want to have the child against the mothers wishes. Society says that a woman should not have to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy, and should not have to suffer bringing up a child on her own without financial help.

But society doesnt seem to care about whether the man who does want a woman to have an abortion suffers for the rest of his life in financially supporting the child, or the suffering of a man who desperately wants the child having to watch it be flushed away.

Times are changing. Women wanted times to change. They wanted the freedom to participate in and enjoy sex just as men do. Well, now they have to face up to the responsibilites that this brings. No longer should women be able to stand behind the "pregnant victim" scenario. Some men just may stand up for their own rights, and the rights of THEIR unborn children.

Right on Zzarchov.

 

[Kreskin]

Forced birthing or abortion as per the decision of the father would be a first of any kind. Lets not confuse financial responsibility with physical servitude. They are completely apples and oranges. Unwanted dads should argue their case in court to be rid of the financial burden, but there is no chance that any court will force unwanted physical acts on anybody. That's contract law 101.

 

[KellyF]

I have to jump in here as I take extreme issue with comparing male circumcision with genital mutilation. Doctors have been performing circumcisions for centuries for medical or health reasons. There is no Female circumcision...it is genital mutilation. There is no medical reason for this and no health issue. It is strickly to ensure that women do not experience the pleasure of sex. Snipping of a woman's clitoris serves no other purpose. To compare the too is ignorant. It is simply yet another way to degrade a woman sexually.

 

[Zzarchov]

Kreskin, the courts aren't forcing unwanted physical acts upon you, If you really didn't want to get pregnant you should a.) Not have sex, B.) use contraceptives or the morning after pill c.) certainly be sure the man your having sex with doesn't have moral qualms about abortion.

If you can't do A,B or C are you not endangering yourself and others? because if you don't know or do any of those things, aren't you risking spreading deadly STD's? (which the courts have ruled can be harmful negligence)

Also, Kelly F, not all female circumsicion is the removal of the clitoris, the clitoral hood is also practiced in some areas. Either way you are right it is genital mutilation, but then so is male circumcision, there is literally no medical reason to do it, just cultural, and it does remove many nerve endings.

 

[Kreskin]

Zzarch, every time I hear that argument it reminds me of the doctor on HeeHaw. When his patients came in saying "it hurts when I do this" his answer was always "well don't do that". I'm sorry but life is alittle more complicated than a HeeHaw skit, and the debate is well past it. Last I heard it was difficult to get pregnant or have an abortion without first engaging in sexual repoductive activities so you'll have to come up with something more novel to justify forced birth or forced abortion after the fact.

 

[fuzzylogix]

That's correct, Kreskin. Life is a little more complicated, and at the PRESENT time, the law does not consider the man's position. BUT, I think times are changing and I think men are starting to realize that some of their own rights are being infringed upon and they may start fighting back.

And sadly, the debate IS often about money. To say that you cant reduce it to that is ridiculous. Our laws DO reduce most compensations down to money. I think it will happen that men sue the women for having an abortion. And the law may well change in the future. Laws do, as society changes. A woman can prevent pregnancy. So maybe she will have to accept the responsibility over a pregnancy too, and either have the male opt out over support fees if he DOESN'T want the child and she has it, OR pay HIM compensation for an abortion if he does.

Snickering away? I wouldn't. Look how divorce laws have changed dramatically over the years as fathers have been standing up for their rights. Years ago, a father would have had zero chance of getting custody of his kids, even with a deadbeat mum. Times have changed.