Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Contract for men's reproductive rights?

Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 11:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was thinking about a possible legal contract where a impregnator (who desires an abortion) and a women (who wants to keep the baby) could reach an agreement with one of two choices - she keeps the baby but forfeit the mandatory child-support, or she have an abortion as desired by her male partner. The conflicts include
1) No child-support signifies increase in governmental spending to single mothers
2) Verification of weather or not the sex was consensual - obviously rape would not allow choices for women who religiously oppose an abortion
3) Enforcement of this contract is nearly impossible, for the legal process may take longer than the pregnancy if the women refuses to acknowledge the contract
Any thoughts?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When they consent to sex, they create a verbal contract, where the accept the consequences of the procreation. The whole reason we are able to have sex, and that sex is sensually stimulating, is because the natural intended purpose is reproduction. When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

Other consequences include STDs, and popping your cherry.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:25:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM, DanT wrote:
When they consent to sex, they create a verbal contract, where the accept the consequences of the procreation. The whole reason we are able to have sex, and that sex is sensually stimulating, is because the natural intended purpose is reproduction. When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

Other consequences include STDs, and popping your cherry.

Under this logic, you would have to ban contraception. Try again.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
glassplotful
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 2:13:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM, DanT wrote:
When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

If you're implying sex is an act of procreation, then I'm not sure what truth value there is to that statement.

After all, if the male wore a condom the chances of reproduction are essentially zero. Same with the pill. Sex is not necessarily reproduction, and reproduction is not necessarily sex.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 2:13:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 1:25:10 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM, DanT wrote:
When they consent to sex, they create a verbal contract, where the accept the consequences of the procreation. The whole reason we are able to have sex, and that sex is sensually stimulating, is because the natural intended purpose is reproduction. When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

Other consequences include STDs, and popping your cherry.

Under this logic, you would have to ban contraception. Try again.

Not really. Having sex would mean you accept the risk of reproducing, but it doesn't mean you can't take steps to reduce it.
glassplotful
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 2:25:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:29:54 PM, Delucha wrote:
I was thinking about a possible legal contract where a impregnator (who desires an abortion) and a women (who wants to keep the baby) could reach an agreement with one of two choices - she keeps the baby but forfeit the mandatory child-support, or she have an abortion as desired by her male partner. The conflicts include
1) No child-support signifies increase in governmental spending to single mothers
2) Verification of weather or not the sex was consensual - obviously rape would not allow choices for women who religiously oppose an abortion
3) Enforcement of this contract is nearly impossible, for the legal process may take longer than the pregnancy if the women refuses to acknowledge the contract
Any thoughts?

It seems to me that it depends almost entirely on whether the male was trying to have a child or not before the impregnation is discovered.

If the male was trying to have the child, it only seems fair that he should then support the child financially, even if during the time the pregnancy is discovered he suddenly wishes to back out. He must take responsibility if he consented to procreation.

However, if the male was not trying to have the child and took the appropriate precautions, it doesn't seem fair that he should pay any child support at all if the female becomes pregnant. While it may sound like sinister logic, hear me out:

There is visual confirmation that a male is preventing pregnancy- the condom. The female can visually confirm that the male is wearing the condom; she can see the condom and realize that the male does not want to procreate. However, female pregnancy prevention is much harder to detect. There is no visual confirmation. The male must rely on the word of the female- "did you take the pill?" is the common question.

There is no way a male can confirm with 100% accuracy that a female is taking the right precautionary steps to prevent the pregnancy, whereas the female can confirm with 100% accuracy that the male is taking the right precautionary steps to prevent the pregnancy.

So, if the female lied about taking the pill, or perhaps forgot, or was mistaken, why should it be the male's fault? Why should he pay for a mistake that is obviously not his responsibility and that he was trying to prevent in the first place? He never consented to anything.

Perhaps you can comment on my solution. I'd love to hear feedback.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 3:19:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 2:25:38 AM, glassplotful wrote:
At 4/19/2013 11:29:54 PM, Delucha wrote:
I was thinking about a possible legal contract where a impregnator (who desires an abortion) and a women (who wants to keep the baby) could reach an agreement with one of two choices - she keeps the baby but forfeit the mandatory child-support, or she have an abortion as desired by her male partner. The conflicts include
1) No child-support signifies increase in governmental spending to single mothers
2) Verification of weather or not the sex was consensual - obviously rape would not allow choices for women who religiously oppose an abortion
3) Enforcement of this contract is nearly impossible, for the legal process may take longer than the pregnancy if the women refuses to acknowledge the contract
Any thoughts?

It seems to me that it depends almost entirely on whether the male was trying to have a child or not before the impregnation is discovered.

If the male was trying to have the child, it only seems fair that he should then support the child financially, even if during the time the pregnancy is discovered he suddenly wishes to back out. He must take responsibility if he consented to procreation.

However, if the male was not trying to have the child and took the appropriate precautions, it doesn't seem fair that he should pay any child support at all if the female becomes pregnant. While it may sound like sinister logic, hear me out:

There is visual confirmation that a male is preventing pregnancy- the condom. The female can visually confirm that the male is wearing the condom; she can see the condom and realize that the male does not want to procreate. However, female pregnancy prevention is much harder to detect. There is no visual confirmation. The male must rely on the word of the female- "did you take the pill?" is the common question.

There is no way a male can confirm with 100% accuracy that a female is taking the right precautionary steps to prevent the pregnancy, whereas the female can confirm with 100% accuracy that the male is taking the right precautionary steps to prevent the pregnancy.

So, if the female lied about taking the pill, or perhaps forgot, or was mistaken, why should it be the male's fault? Why should he pay for a mistake that is obviously not his responsibility and that he was trying to prevent in the first place? He never consented to anything.

Perhaps you can comment on my solution. I'd love to hear feedback.

I agree, but would take it much further.
The father can agree to back out of fatherhood completely. This means he has no visitation rights, he is not next of kin, he has no claim to any assets (like a child actor), etc.

It is essentially the same as the mother giving the child up for adoption, except it is the father. Or perhaps the better analogy would be the father is having the abortion.

As to the OP's concern with this, if the father is unwilling to pay or unable, there is no additional strain on government. Furthermore, if this was a possibility, the mother might give the child up for adoption and/or abort, since she will be unable to live off the child support.
My work here is, finally, done.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 3:40:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 11:29:54 PM, Delucha wrote:
I was thinking about a possible legal contract where a impregnator (who desires an abortion) and a women (who wants to keep the baby) could reach an agreement with one of two choices - she keeps the baby but forfeit the mandatory child-support, or she have an abortion as desired by her male partner. The conflicts include
1) No child-support signifies increase in governmental spending to single mothers
2) Verification of weather or not the sex was consensual - obviously rape would not allow choices for women who religiously oppose an abortion
3) Enforcement of this contract is nearly impossible, for the legal process may take longer than the pregnancy if the women refuses to acknowledge the contract
Any thoughts?

This is essentially "male abortion" or "financial abortion", Google it.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 10:29:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 2:13:33 AM, glassplotful wrote:
At 4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM, DanT wrote:
When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

If you're implying sex is an act of procreation, then I'm not sure what truth value there is to that statement.

After all, if the male wore a condom the chances of reproduction are essentially zero. Same with the pill. Sex is not necessarily reproduction, and reproduction is not necessarily sex.
The only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. Condoms fail, as does all forms of birth control; read the label.

If you jump out of a plane with a parachute, you accept the possibility the parachute won't open; you accepted the risk, and decided to jump anyways.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 10:33:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 1:25:10 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/20/2013 1:06:33 AM, DanT wrote:
When they consent to sex, they create a verbal contract, where the accept the consequences of the procreation. The whole reason we are able to have sex, and that sex is sensually stimulating, is because the natural intended purpose is reproduction. When you consent to acts of procreation, you consent to reproducing.

Other consequences include STDs, and popping your cherry.

Under this logic, you would have to ban contraception. Try again.

Not true. Just because you accept the risk does not mean you can't try to minimize the risk. So long as it is possible (a probability greater than 0%), there is the risk it can happen; you may minimize the risk you are comfortable in taking, but you are still accepting the risk.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 12:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is essentially "male abortion" or "financial abortion", Google it.

I've read it, but I don't feel like I got any satisfying solution to anything.

The 'Male Abortion' ('Choice for Men') Argument in the United States argues,
"no matter what a woman does, she is 'on the hook' - emotionally, financially, physically - and must account for it ... yet these men still somehow feel entitled to opting-out legally based, funnily enough, on that fact! Men and men alone should be protected from these 'consequences'"

and an article on Male Abortion Rights argues,
"Women should not have default right to male commitment and resources in order to enable their 'choice'" If women have the choice of complete ownership over the fruits of the labor of their body then men deserve the same rights over the fruits of our labor and sole property as well"

Essentially the opposition of men's rights is arguing that since women are vested in pregnancy merely for having an ovary - a notion, to my male-biased brain, that sounds as if women feel victimized by the whole notion of femininity - and so the current law stripping the rights of men are only in place to compensate for the terrible burden the world has bestowed on the women.

Given that fact pregnancy is a mere component of collectivistic gain - much like the concept of taxation and draft - that is (or used to be) a mandatory cooperation to the society by an individual. Under the umbrella of "individual rights" Americans are gradually stripping the importance of societal obligation - no longer are the collectivistic gain the most important aspect of the society. The problem with our law regarding the male abortion is that it bestows the cost of pregnancy (again, something that is ingrained in humanity to gain as single collective entity) to an individual - male impregnator.
I believe this is not just; if an the society wants women to gain individual rights by stripping away her social requirement then the society should pay for the consequence. ie. in a hypothetical situation where a society decided to not tax a guy because he feels as if it's his "individual rights" to not pay tax, it does not make sense for the government to tax his girlfriend twice - instead, the tax should be increased .000001% in order to compensate for the one individual.

That is why I want a solution. It is not possible to enforce the reasoning above if there were no practical solution. Most people are debating weather or not the MRM's stance is based on "equality," but we can not move on if we can't find a practical solution where it is possible for MRM to effectuate its idealism.
That's why I asked the question.