I think men should have a "pill" to take...but with how easy and readily available condoms are...a lot of guys still don't bother use them, even knowing full well the potential consequences of NOT using them. I suspect the same would be true of a male "pill". Hell, you can even get free condoms from baskets in the public restrooms at the DMV here. Every state office public restroom has them. It's a case of "oh, it's not going to happen to me."...and then they cry foul when they find themselves fathers to be. It's so dumb that most men are more concerned about who they give their credit care number to than where they put their sperm. Trusting either in the wrong person can be very costly.
Article: Shouldn't Men have a choice too?
- Thread starter Jvesti
- Start date
No, they aren't different.
Do men know that when they have sex a pregnancy can result?
Yes.
Do men know that abstinence or the use of condoms is the way to prevent pregnancy?
Yes.
Do men know that it is ultimately the woman's decision whether or not to have the baby if she becomes pregnant?
Yes.
Do men know that by law they will be required to pay child support for any child resulting from their choice to have sex with a woman?
Yes.
Again...if a man does NOT want to have to pay child support for a child he did not want he NEEDS to wear a condom or not have sex at all. If he has unprotected sex and a child is born as a result it is HIS OWN FAULT for being CARELESS and IRRESPONSIBLE. It is his future and HIS responsibility to protect HIS interests. It is NOT the woman's responsibility to protect HIS interests. If a man trusts his future and wallet with a woman who claims to be on birth control and isn't, he made a bad choice and will have to pay for it for 18 years.
You ALL KNOW THIS stuff.
So, why, again, is it that men STILL have unprotected sex with women when they don't want kids?
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,640
- Reaction score
- 4,717
Here's another choice:
http://www.canlaw.com/legalforms/paternitykit.htm
It's a legal form to opt out of paternity. Should she get pregnant, the man is financially responsible for nothing.
http://www.canlaw.com/legalforms/paternitykit.htm
It's a legal form to opt out of paternity. Should she get pregnant, the man is financially responsible for nothing.
Hey, that article sum's the painful reality of it all very nicely:
This contract is about
FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR MEN, AS WELL AS WOMEN.
You must realize, when it comes to pregnancy
Women Have Complete Control
The law in parenting is entirely one sided in favour of mothers and women.
Men have no rights whatsoever when it comes to children.
Women control all aspects of birth control.
Only they know when they are ovulating.
Condoms are unreliable.
Women have been known to retrieve the sperm from a condom in order to get pregnant.
Women have been tricking men into marriage and support by getting pregnant since Eve.
Women who decide to get pregnant can easily obtain a lifetime of child support from the man they target.
The fact that the sire/father did not want a child is not even considered by the courts. This is dead wrong and does not reflect today's reality.
Women have the ability to control when and if they get pregnant. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.
Women have the ability to control whether or not to carry the foetus or abort. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.
Women have the ability to keep the child after birth, or give it up for adoption. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.
Sayno'
Jvesti
Master Don Juan
The fact of the matter is this. Outside of the womb the woman has total rights of what she'll do with the child. If she wants to keep em, the man is obligated, if she doesn't she can.
You see the man has no choice in the matter its as simple as that. While the female does OUTSIDE of the womb.
This is why I propose that no one should be obligated to a child as in child support. This will instill responsibility that if one individual were so inclined to have a child they would be responsible over that child's future.
If there were irresponsible people involved then adoption would be the alternative.
The wipe out beuroternity aka the gov't financially supporting a baby. Why do you think the welfare queens pop out criminals? Because they can, they aren't held accountable and dont suffer on their poor choices.
You see the man has no choice in the matter its as simple as that. While the female does OUTSIDE of the womb.
This is why I propose that no one should be obligated to a child as in child support. This will instill responsibility that if one individual were so inclined to have a child they would be responsible over that child's future.
If there were irresponsible people involved then adoption would be the alternative.
The wipe out beuroternity aka the gov't financially supporting a baby. Why do you think the welfare queens pop out criminals? Because they can, they aren't held accountable and dont suffer on their poor choices.
Pilot
Don Juan
"Walk a mile in the shoes of a single mother trying to support your kid/s before complaining."
I'm not even going to go there...
I'm not even going to go there...
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
WYLD: Perhaps, but one is proactive, the other reactive. It's a much different task to put on a condom in the heat of the moment (reactive) than to simply swallow a pill in the morning (proactive). It's arguable what the more difficult task is, to remember to take a pill in the morning or to apply a condom at the appropriate time.
But in the latter situation there are at least 2 people aware that a condom should be on prior to intercourse; is a woman equally an accomplice in her own pregnancy if she consentually has sex with a guy without a condom? They both know the assumed risks, however a woman forgetting to take her pill isn't reviled as an 'idiot' or negligent as a man not putting on a condom. Taking her birth control is up to her and rarely would a guy be certain on a daily basis that his partner was faithfully taking her pill. In fact to even ask about it would be presumptuous and bordering on rude if it's a casual encounter. When a man and a woman fail to take the precaution of putting on a condom they're both aware of it. When she fails to take her pill either accidentally or intentionally, she is the sole party responsible for that pregnancy, but in either case she decides the course of the man's life should this occur.
The obvious answer is to put men in control of the birth - wear a condom and I agree with you. However the nature of mens birth control is reactive and even in the case where a man has the condom in his pocket, he can still be thwarted by her only saying, "don't worry about it, I'm on the pill" ; the control shifts the accountability never does.
But in the latter situation there are at least 2 people aware that a condom should be on prior to intercourse; is a woman equally an accomplice in her own pregnancy if she consentually has sex with a guy without a condom? They both know the assumed risks, however a woman forgetting to take her pill isn't reviled as an 'idiot' or negligent as a man not putting on a condom. Taking her birth control is up to her and rarely would a guy be certain on a daily basis that his partner was faithfully taking her pill. In fact to even ask about it would be presumptuous and bordering on rude if it's a casual encounter. When a man and a woman fail to take the precaution of putting on a condom they're both aware of it. When she fails to take her pill either accidentally or intentionally, she is the sole party responsible for that pregnancy, but in either case she decides the course of the man's life should this occur.
The obvious answer is to put men in control of the birth - wear a condom and I agree with you. However the nature of mens birth control is reactive and even in the case where a man has the condom in his pocket, he can still be thwarted by her only saying, "don't worry about it, I'm on the pill" ; the control shifts the accountability never does.
The man most certainly DOES has a choice in the matter. He can either NOT take his d*ck out of his pants or wrap the damn thing up. It's really quite simple. He should be wearing a condom to protect himself from STDs anyway...
You insure your car to protect your wallet from the costs of an automobile accident.
You insure your home to protect your wallet from to costs of a fire, flood or natural disaster.
Why can't you protect your wallet from an unwanted pregnancy but putting on a freaking condom?
Rollo...what about STDs? The pill doesn't protect against those. And missing one pill once in awhile won't throw the effectiveness off. She'd have to miss several pills on a regular basis to make the pill ineffective. But that's neither here nor there...
We ALL need to take responsibility for our own protection from unwanted pregnancy and STDs. We all know the risks involved and we all know how to best prevent things we don't want happening from happening. I have no sympathy for anyone who is careless and irresponsible about birth control who finds out there is an unwanted pregnancy. Oh well...they knew the risk and they chose to be irresponsible. Now they are accountable for the outcome, end of story.
Wyldfire. Answer this question, if it takes two to make a child, and a woman accidentallly gets pregnant, why should the man pay child support if he doesn't want it? Why do you feel that the male should have absolutely no power in these situations?
Remember, I'm talking about a woman that keeps a baby against a man's wishes. Not "Oh my husband left me with the 3 kids"
Remember, I'm talking about a woman that keeps a baby against a man's wishes. Not "Oh my husband left me with the 3 kids"
First off...I left my ex husband, not the other way around. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The man is responsible for helping support his child...whether he wanted to have that child or not. That child is STILL his responsibility. He helped make it right along with the woman. He could have avoided it all by wearing a condom. He has the power to prevent pregnancy when he has sex with a woman...he either doesn't have sex with her or wears a condom.
So you want a man to support whatever decision the woman makes, even if it is against his wishes, and then STILL pay her afterwards? Why shouldn't she be responsible for her actions when she decides to bring a child into the world that will not have a father, and raise it herself?
What about the mother's responsibility to make sure that there's a stable family for her child, and not bring one into this world that is only wanted by one of the two people?
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it to. You also expect that men are just going to sit idle and let women do this to them?
I don't know, but if my feeling is right, I think the balance is shifting when it comes to this subject in society.
Your condom argument is wearing thin. It seems to be your "old faithful". The sentance that you think justifies everything. She could have just used some form of contraceptive as well. There's a lot more for women than men, you know.
Yep, good point. I've seen so many women have 3-6 and more children and then complain whine and nag when it was their fault for choosing to have children with a neurotic, badboy-bpd, type of personality....
Women have far more rights when it comes to reproduction therfore, does it not stand to reason that she should also bear the brunt of responsibility as well?
No?
See, with greater freedom comes greater responsiblity, so the onus should lay upon the female.
But we all know it will be a cold day in hell before society deems it necc, to hold them truly responsible.
Personally, I just shake my head and laugh when I listen to all the excuses that women make for their poor choices, I have zero sympathy for them as well.
Sayno'
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
Is it? I would think this only cements my argument here that much further considering it takes a considerable amount of negligence for a woman to miss several pills on a regular basis to 'accidentally' become pregnant. One could also argue that even a couple engaging in condom-less sex could still be realatively confident that a woman wont get pregnant even if she's missed several pills regularly. Again my point being that it takes effort to become pregnant. Even without any birth control at all and timing my wife's ovulation cycles for our sex it took us 4 months to conceive our daughter. This is why I laugh at the accidental pregnancy excuse so common these days. If a woman wants to become pregnant she can do so with impunity and contrive any excuse she'd like about accidents, but the guy is an 'idiot' for not wearing a condom and taking responsibility for his actions, even if he's led to believe she's taking control of her contraception. Yet he is the one penalized both financially and socially because of her choice.
STDs aren't the topic of this thread, and obviously a man having casual sex must be careful in his promiscuity, but rarely is a ONS a frame for accidental pregnancy, even the fireman in this article had to have a 4 month fling while he was separated from his wife to get the woman pregnant.
I expect BOTH the woman and man to take responsibility for the innocent child...THEIR child.
She is being responsible by having the child rather than murdering it. She did not make that child by herself and she shouldn't have to support it by herself. It takes TWO people to create a life.
If a man doesn't want a child then he should either refrain from sex or use a condom. He KNEW sex can result in pregnancy when he stuck his penis into the woman's vagina without a condom on it.
No, you seem to want men to be free to behave irresponsibly and never have any consequences for that irresponsibility. You also want women to sit idly by and allow men to be equally responsible for the unplanned pregnancy but bear none of the burden. You also seem to want women to murder unborn children and live with that torment the rest of their lives just because the guy doesn't want to pay child support. Too bad...he could have abstained or worn a condom. He had choices.
This won't ever change legally. If you father a child you are going to have to be financially responsible for that child...period. If you don't want to become a father you wear a condom. It's really quite simple and there is NO EXCUSE for not protecting yourself against unwanted pregnancy if you don't want to be a father.
Condoms are the only form of birth control that protects not only against unwanted pregnancy but also against Sexually Transmitted Diseases. This is why EVERYONE who doesn't want either a child or an STD should use condoms.
On top of that...Every human being is responsible for THEIR OWN BIRTH CONTROL. If they leave it up to their sex partner they are basically handing over all control of whether or not they will become a parent into the hands of the other person. It's like giving power of attorney to the other person. Not very bright thing to do.
You can argue this unti the cows come home and it won't change anything.
The reality of the situation is that men have one chance and one chance only to make sure they don't become a father against their will...right before they have sex. They have three choices. They can abstain from sex and be 100% certain there will not be a pregnancy. They can use a condom and be almost 100% certain there will not be a pregnancy as long as they use it properly. They can not use a condom and risk becoming a father when they don't want to.
If a pregnancy results...the man has no choice on whether or not that child will be born. He cannot get out of paying child support. He KNOWS these things. Since he KNOWS these things, it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or likes it or not. That's his reality. If he doesn't want a kid then he needs to put on a freaking rubber or keep it in his pants...that's all there is to it.
Re:
Quite honestly, we're speaking of logical terms in an emotionally constrained view of the world.
While a woman takes pains not to get pregnant because it would ruin her "freedom", should the right beau come along, she wouldn't feel touch of pain at becoming pregnant at his expense, as he is getting the "priviledge" of fvcking her.
Most girls I've met don't want to be pregnant since the right "piggy bank" hasn't rolled up yet. However, should a guy qualified enough become available it wouldn't be above board for her to throw caution to the wind and begin an accidental family. More than often not, than only ones I know of getting prego are the ones planning it, or the girls who've decided they didn't like the real world and would instead play "homemaker."
-----------------------------------------
I do know a goodly number of women 'miss' pills, either on accident or without thinking. Girls I knew who got pregnant, didn't realize that anti-bacterial drugs counteract the effects of the pill and diminish its effectiveness during the time of illness. Usually this was from some infection and the prescribed medication had a canceling-out effect on the pill.
A-Unit
Quite honestly, we're speaking of logical terms in an emotionally constrained view of the world.
While a woman takes pains not to get pregnant because it would ruin her "freedom", should the right beau come along, she wouldn't feel touch of pain at becoming pregnant at his expense, as he is getting the "priviledge" of fvcking her.
Most girls I've met don't want to be pregnant since the right "piggy bank" hasn't rolled up yet. However, should a guy qualified enough become available it wouldn't be above board for her to throw caution to the wind and begin an accidental family. More than often not, than only ones I know of getting prego are the ones planning it, or the girls who've decided they didn't like the real world and would instead play "homemaker."
-----------------------------------------
I do know a goodly number of women 'miss' pills, either on accident or without thinking. Girls I knew who got pregnant, didn't realize that anti-bacterial drugs counteract the effects of the pill and diminish its effectiveness during the time of illness. Usually this was from some infection and the prescribed medication had a canceling-out effect on the pill.
A-Unit
The pill doesn't work right for some women. I know a couple of women who were very responsible about taking their pills and still got pregnant. One of them was married and had 3 kids with her husband...all of which she was religiously taking the pill. She had cervical cancer that kept coming back and because of the treatments and how sick she always was, she was seriously trying to avoid getting pregnant. It didn't work for her.
Yes, some women intentionally get pregnant. Some men intentionally get women pregnant too.
It all comes back to the same thing, though...
We are ALL responsible for our own birth control. Even if a woman is on the pill...with how frequently men accuse women of getting pregnant on purpose to "trap" them, you'd think common sense and basic logic would tell them to use a damn condom. No matter how the issue is painted, there is NO denying that the vast majority of men who become fathers against their will could have avoided it just by using a condom.
