Male reproductive rights

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Espaldapalabras, May 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    I'm not a lawyer, but I thought there was some legal document that a man could sign in which he waived all his parental rights and responsibilities? It would involve his never seeing his child at all, but it would also absolve him of any responsibility for the child.
  2. Epicauthor Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 2002
    star 4
    I gotta agree with Lowbacca. The best option is for a father to be able to pull away from that child within a limited time frame should he decide he doesn't want it.

    It still doesn't deal with the issue of a woman wanting to abort, but a father wanting to keep it. In that case, I have to say that I support the abortion over the father taking the baby as it would force a woman to carry a fetus to term, which not only has huge physical cost (up to and including death), but it encroaches on her right to her own body. His rights end where hers begin.
  3. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Not any fashion I'm aware of.

    I think it's irresponsible, generally. Just as I think (based off the polls of reasons) that I think many women that have abortions are being irresponsible.

    However, that doesn't have anything to do with if I think it should be LEGAL or not.
  4. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    It blows my mind that you want to legalize irresponsibility.

    Anyway, since you think men should have the RIGHT to not take care of their kids, I thought you were going to compare those deadbeats to Rosa Parks.
  5. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I also think that people should be able to smoke (both legal tobacco and illegal marijuana et al), drink, and have casual sex, all of which I consider to be irresponsible. And most of that is already legal. Not to mention all the irresponsible parents there are that are allowed to have and raise kids.
    There's a whole lot of things that people do that I think is irresponsible. I don't think the solution is to make it all illegal, however.
  6. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Do you think deadbeat fathers should be compared to Rosa Parks?
  7. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'd say trying to make comparisons just sidetracks this from the issue. I don't know why you're so hung up on the Rosa Parks thing.
  8. Darth_Smileyface Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2004
    star 2
    To anakin_girl:

    I'm sorry if you got the idea that I was calling you a hypocrite. I wasn't, I was just pointing out that you seemed to be introducing points that were tangential at best to the argument.

    To F_I_D and epicauthor:

    Thank you for explaining things much more eloquently and succinctly than I could.

    To Lowie:

    Thanks for defending and making my point. I was out all day and missed that part of the thread.

    To wannasee:

    My stance is basically the same as lowie's. I don't like abortion and what it means. But I prefer that to the alternative, forcing women to have unwanted children or dangerous backalley procedures.

    As for responsibilities, I think it would be great if everyone took responsibility for their actions, but as was pointed out earlier that covers a great many things. Do we criminalise drinking, smoking, overeating or unhealthy eating, gambling, incurring and/or not paying off large credit card debts, spending the rent money on a new wardrobe etc.? There are a great many irresponsible acts we commit on a daily basis. I believe it would be great if we, both as individuals and as a society, were more responsible. But as Lowie said, that doesn't mean I think those things should be illegal.

    As for your comparison, I wouldn't equate deadbeat parents with Rosa Parks. Of course, I wouldn't categorise men who were forced into fatherhood and refused as deadbeats.
  9. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Because Rosa Parks did something because she felt it was her "right" and we all think of her as a hero/whatever you want to call her.

    So I'm asking if you think deadbeat fathers are heroes because they aren't waiting for a piece of paper from the government to claim their "rights".
  10. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, how many deadbeat fathers have gone through the work to make sure that they've officially relinquished any legal rights they would have as a father, which I consider to be a key point between saying "I officially remove myself from this" and "I don't feel like dealing with this".

    Generally speaking, what Rosa Parks was addressing was a different matter. A better analogy would be if I think people who smoke marijuana are heroes for violating the law rather than waiting until it's legal. Which I don't.
  11. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    All of the things you mentioned only directly affect the individual doing them.


    Nobody is forced into fatherhood. A baby is created. It exists. It's a fact.

    You can't just say "not it" and it's over, because the baby still exists and has to be taken of.
  12. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    1) There isn't a process through which a father can relinquish his responsibilities.
    2) What does dealing with red-tape have to do with anything?

    No, Rosa Parks is a perfect example. The reason you want to say that she isn't a perfect example is because it highlights how absurd your position is.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    No, no it isn't.

    Laws that were based on racial segregation had nothing to do with any actions one took in life and entirely on conditions of one's birth.
    Whereas on the topic at hand, it is strongly tied to one's desire to have sex prior to wanting to have kids.

    You don't get to just misrepresent positions, and then try to create false analogies and say I have to argue in favour of them. The absurd part is trying to equate deadbeat dads to Rosa Parks, yes, but the absurdity is coming from you, not from me.


    I think it would be absurd to compare women that had abortions before it was legal to Rosa Parks as well, but that doesn't mean that therefore abortions shouldn't be legal.
  14. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    What point are you making here?

    Well, I think if someone is doing something I think they have the "right" to do, then I am all for them.

    Just as I would have been for Rosa Parks, I would think that you would be for deadbeat dads.

    I don't see what's so false about my analogy.


    Again, I would have supported women who had abortions when they were illegal, because I feel it is their right.

    In the same way, do you support deadbeat fathers?
  15. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I support that fathers should be able to, in a narrow window, renounce any legal right AND responsibility of being a father. They're not doing that. In addition, many of them leave after the birth, which is rather opposite of what I'm saying.

    They're not doing what I think they should be, so I'm not going to support them as heroes.

    Women who got abortions prior to it being illegal were not on the same level of Rosa Parks, at least as it relates to women who CHOSE to have sex, and then wanted an abortion. There was a level of choice there. Whereas Rosa Parks was challenging a system of discrimination within the legal structure of the time.
  16. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    And to doing anything to hush the female and make her go to sleep.

    [face_whistling]
  17. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    For the record, I don't believe Rosa Parks belongs in this discussion at all. As Lowiee has been trying to get across: it is absolutely the wrong example to attempt to draw a comparison to. In fact, I don't know that there IS an example from which we can draw a comparison when arguing whether or not a man should take responsibility for his part in creating life.

    Having said that, I don't see how anyone can argue that a man who chooses to ignore or "opt out" of his parental responsibilities (whether a nurturing role or just financial) would NOT be a deadbeat dad. Men have the choice to have sex or not. If they choose to have sex, they run the risk of becoming a Dad. This is nothing new; we've known about this sexual "side-effect" for about 200,000 years (give or take a few millennia, depending on your theological beliefs).

    It just so happens that our society today strongly supports the idea that both parents be responsible for the care and well-being of a child whenever possible. Anyone who argues against this is arguing against the care and well-being of the child, not for the financial independence of the man.
  18. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I think there's a way to combine the Lowbacca policy proposal with better overall public health - reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, with something like this:

    If a man provides a condom and wears it in a sexual encounter with a woman, he can later opt out of the financial burden of fatherhood from an unwanted pregnancy by offering and providing payment for an abortion or if the woman refuses abortion, for HALF the costs of OBGYN care and labor and delivery and well child care up through giving a child up for adoption. At that point, the unwilling father is relieved of all future responsibilities and rights relative to the child.

    As evidence, we require an affidavit signed and dated by both parties (and, optimally, notarized) in advance of said sexual encounter:


    I,[First Name, Last Name, DOB, address of female] and I [First Name, Last Name, DOB, address of male] do hereby aver that we are about to use (or have used) the following approved and scientifically validated birth control method, [name of birth control method], during sexual intercourse on this day of [date of sexual encounter]


    A "day after" affidavit would probably work too for getting it notarized.

    If a man relinquishes responsibility for birth control, he can still rely in good faith on the positive assertions of a woman who claims to be using birth control pills, patches, IUDs, etc., for the same effect.

    Failure to take responsibility for birth control in any of the above ways and the man loses his option to buy out his fatherhood contract.
  19. Darth_Smileyface Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2004
    star 2
    "Having said that, I don't see how anyone can argue that a man who chooses to ignore or "opt out" of his parental responsibilities (whether a nurturing role or just financial) would NOT be a deadbeat dad. Men have the choice to have sex or not. If they choose to have sex, they run the risk of becoming a Dad."

    Cheveyo, you haven't said anything here that isn't also true for women, yet they still have an option to opt out. Without being branded as deadbeats, I might add. And don't tell me the difference is that in one case a child is born and in the other it isn't. A man has absolutely no control over that decision, why should he be held fully responsible for its outcome?

    "It just so happens that our society today strongly supports the idea that both parents be responsible for the care and well-being of a child whenever possible. Anyone who argues against this is arguing against the care and well-being of the child, not for the financial independence of the man."

    Not true at all. It so happens that in my personal life I've had to fight very hard to remain a part of my children's lives. I believe that both men and women SHOULD be responsible for the lives that they create. I just don't think it should be illegal if they choose not to.

  20. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    The man is never 100% fully responsible. It takes 2. By virtue of his biology and societal role, however, he will never have the choice to abort a pregnancy. (This is, of course, not true... in the past men actually did have control over whether the woman would keep the child or not. In some societies, this is still the case. Of course, they also had the girls murdered to avoid pesky next of kin problems. In today's society, it really plays up to how powerful the man and his family are; if he's powerful enough, the woman can be "persuaded" into abandoning the pregnancy.)

    My point is that this is not about male vs female rights. This is about societal norms. If we lived in a society where the community raised the children, then the dad's would be off the hook. Many people, however, view this as a type of socialism, and freak out at the idea of communities "gettin' all up in dehr biz'ness!"

    This is a product of society, and as a dad, I think any man who has fathered a child but refused to contribute to their life in whatever form is a dead beat.
  21. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I think the contract might be a problematic part, but I'd absolutely back the initial fiscal cost element. I know I've pitched that as part of it in the past, but don't think I ever got that far in this thread.
  22. urgent_jedi_picnic Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    Agreed. But I think the question here is - should it be illegal to be a dead beat?
  23. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The advantage of a signed affidavit is that it's an intervention in the seduction process, an imposition of careful consideration into the flow of careless, spontaneous sex.

    I don't have anything against spontaneous random sexual encounters between consenting adults, but an unwanted pregnancy often is the end result of a chain of bad decisions where a small amount of intervention might have spoiled the mood a bit but created a better outcome.

    Alcohol is still one of the great social facilitators of sexual intercourse. I'm speaking from memory here as I'm now married and so of course no longer have sexual intercourse. Alcohol helps overcome people's barriers to asking for, and offering up consent for sexual intercourse while at the same time impairing the decision-making process.

    One possibility would be to include a general blank affidavit form in every package of condoms. Another would be for singles bars and dance clubs to keep a stack of blank affidavits by the exits and bathroom doors.
  24. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    As long as this society continues to maintain that it is the responsibility of the parents to care for the child, then yes, it should remain illegal. I should mention that I do recognize the granularity of the individual experience; however, my position on the whole of the matter revolves around the base argument, where the initial recreational act in question was consensual between the two adults. I should also mention that most laws also recognize the granularity of the individual experience.

    What I find disturbing is that the bottom line to this argument is all about the father's financial responsibility. It used to be that if a dad didn't want to have the kid, the financial bit was the least he could do (the "most" being to actually suck it up and participate in the raising of the child). It's been argued that the mother "only has 9 months of hardship", but the dad has "18 years of financial hardship". That's comparing health to money, and that is appalling--though given the society we live in, it's not at all surprising.

    It is my understanding that a man who commits a violent crime against a woman that results in pregnancy is not financially responsible for the child, should she carry it to birth. Perhaps the alternative to paying for 18 years of child support is to concede to statutory rape, be forever labeled as being convicted of a sex-crime, and be in the national database.

    I'm sure women would be interested to be aware of the men who have fathered children but not taken responsibility for them. ;)
  25. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Has it been suggested in this thread that it's possible that
    - any single-sided decision about whether or not to have an abortion is essentially unfair, and that a government should make a mediator available for these cases?
    - it's actually good for everyone involved if the man is not relieved of any burden when it's decided there will not be an abortion?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.