Skip to main content

Men Want a Choice in Unplanned Pregnancy

Share |
Submitted by Jill on Tue, 2006-03-07 17:00

Matt Dubay feels he should have had a choice in becoming a father. Instead of taking precautions such as condoms or helping his partner pay for birth control or lobbying for a horomonal contraceptive for men he wants to have nothing to do with the child his ex chose to keep.

Dubay feels he should have the legal right to choose not to be financially or otherwise responsible for his child, leaving the mother with 100% of that burden. Men can already refuse to provide physical care for their children and it is all too easy (but illegal) for them to simply not pay child support. Now this man, with the backing of the National Center for Men, feels he should have the legal right to opt out of any responsibility for his actions whatsoever.

With women's right to legal abortions currently being whittled away in the US, this ridiculous lawsuit only places another constriction on women. Women who cannot abort (like those in South Dakota) have two choices: keep the child or put it up for adoption. While adoption is the right choice for some it isn't for every woman. However, the choice to keep a child will become that much harder to make if the mother knows she will have to be the sole provider for an unwanted child.

It is an economic reality that many women are unable to financially support a child. Being forced to raise a child is also a huge time commitment, one that will cut into her ability to continue school or work, assuming she can afford childcare, thus even further lessening her economic independence. This garbage can only hurt women and their children.

But hey, why should a man have to deal with a kid he didn't want? It's not his fault the birth control failed is it?

(Original comments to this entry can be found here.)

Comments

Not the Whole Story

Sun, 2010-11-07 11:49
Anonymous

Well the fact of the matter is that the woman (in the vast majority of places in the United States) can arbitrarily decide to abort the baby, no matter the feelings of the man on the subject, and any time someone interjects that the man should have a say in the life of his baby he or she is shouted down as a misogynist. It seems that many woman want to be able to abort the baby without the man's consent, but also to make him pay for it if they choose not to. This is the current system more or less, and it stinks to high heavens. Women cannot have it both ways. Either the man gets a say in whether or not the baby is to be aborted, and is thus a party to the babies future and bears some responsibility for him/her, or he does not, and thus should have to bear no responsibility for him/her. Can't have your cake and eat it too. As you said, "it takes two to tango."

One of the biggest problems

Mon, 2010-11-08 09:37
Heather Corinna

One of the biggest problems with presenting it this way is that it dismisses the fact that pregnancy is ONLY happening in one person's body, not in both bodies. It will only change the body of one person lifelong, and only one person will also be held MOST responsible, practically and culturally.

Child support statutes did not just come from women (not even close: take some time and look up the history), but even if they had, men who have co-created pregnancies being legally obliged to supply some income to support a child is pretty hard to compare to women being legally obligated to provide that support and more, and to women, again, being the only people in whose bodies pregnancy occurs.

Men DO get a choice in all of this: they can choose to to have the kinds of sex which create a pregnancy if they do not want to risk having to be responsible in any way. It's an incredibly easy choice to make, and one that has no major consequences when it comes to choosing not to have intercourse. All that means is that someone isn't going to be able to have a certain kind of sex at a given time.

It can be pretty hard to understand the difference if a pregnancy has never happened inside your body and as an inseparable part of your life, not just your finances, so I understand it can be tricky to wrap your head around. But can you see how different this is, and how trying to make the kinds of easy comparisons you are here aren't sound?

As well, it's SO important to remember that the laws and policies around this are ultimately about a CHILD, not about the parents. So, this idea this is some man vs. woman battle, or framing it that way, is deeply problematic, something that the Supreme Court strongly agreed with: http://bit.ly/adFIYm

This --

Mon, 2010-11-08 09:48
Heather Corinna

This -- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03... -- is an old op-ed, but this is also an old post/story.

While I personally don't agree with some of the sentiments in it (including the way it's massively simplifying social change around this issue), it says some things and presents some things I think might be of interest to folks still wanting to have this conversation about this case.

But again?

Sat, 2009-07-04 15:37
Heather Corinna

It's not just women making the choice to risk pregnancy via the one/kinds two kinds of sex which pose a risk of pregnancy. Men who absolutely don't want children and don't want to risk parenting or paying child support get to make the VERY easy choice of simply not having intercourse.

So, this is not just about women choosing partners carefully. This is never about just one party when we're talking about consensual sex, but two.

And of course in making decisions about what to do with a pregnancy a woman is considering what resources she might have, which are going to include those of whatever man was involved with creating that pregnancy. There's nothing wrong with that, and to leap to the idea that anyone asking that question must be looking for sources of cash is more than a stretch. That simply is not the way you'll find most prospective parents, of any gender, thinking.

Lastly? I don't agree that it's always better for a couple to stay together. Some couples are terrible for one another, some together-families are horribly unhealthy, and those issues cannot always be worked out, especially if both parties do not want to. As well, people can co-parent well without cohabitating, being married or being romantically involved any more. Children -- and I say this as a lifelong educator and advocate -- need emotionally healthy homes with positive relationships around them: toxic relationships don't help them any, even if they might give one or both parents a better financial situation.

I understand the two scenarios you have experienced which you feel brought you to those comments, but painting people with a broad brush based on experiences with just a few is never sound. For instance, we know there are many, many men who rape, but I'm not about to treat or talk about all men as rapists because some are.

You know, you make some very

Sun, 2009-07-05 14:54
Christian (not verified)

You know, you make some very good points that I can't argue with and I appreciate your insight. When it's personally affecting you it can be hard to separate one's feeling from the reality. For the most part I was only pointing out situations where child support can be abused and potential unwarranted, every case has it's own nuances and in the end I would probably consider it a necessary evil.

Anonymous, I just wanted to

Sat, 2009-07-04 08:30
Heather Corinna

Anonymous, I just wanted to add a few factual bits to your comments:

According to a 2005 U.S. Census, "47.3% of custodial mothers (as "obligees") received all child support that they were owed and 77.5% received some. Additionally, 46.2% of custodial fathers (as "obligees") received all child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some." In other words, even when it is NOT optional, the majority of custodial parents, of either gender (and as you can see, it's pretty even) do not pay the child support the court orders, which is generally an amount which could not support a child all by itself. Ultimately, when support isn't paid, it's a child who gets hurt more than anyone else. But I think we can see that when most don't pay it when it is legally mandated, assuming we'd see MORE financial support from a parent of any gender if it was not legally mandated isn't a sound assumption. Too, child support is not just about pregnancy that happens outside of marriage. Additionally, child poverty is actually a very serious problem in the states and has been for some time: around one out of every four children in the states live in poverty, and DO go hungry.

And I think we need to remember, as adults, that we have more choices than children do by a serious long shot, including the very easy choice, and one which does us NO harm, of not having the kinds of sex which create pregnancy risks when we do not want to take ANY risk of a pregnancy. Intercourse isn't the only sex there is, after all. Opting out of that really is an easy, harmless choice.

Per birth control for men, it would be more equitable, save that the troubles companies who have been trying, for many years, to develop hormonal methods for men like women have frequently report that they cannot get enough men to volunteer for the clinical trials needed. So, the disparity there isn't about women: women have always signed up for these trials in large enough number.

I hear a lot of what you're saying here, and also have agreement around some of what you are saying. I, perhaps obviously, am not okay with statements like mothers seeing men as "cash cows," just like I'm not okay with phrases like "deadbeat dad." Trying to simply a very complex issue with sexist language or approaches? Never helpful, in my book. But I think the biggest thing to bear in mind is that the ultimate disparity, one no one chooses, is that it is only women who can and do become pregnant. And, thus far, we can't change that one. I'm very pro-choice myself (I also work part-time at an abortion clinic), but not every woman wants to choose abortion or feels she can live with that choice, and that's one of those things that is much harder to understand if you have never been pregnant yourself.

Thanks for your reply and

Sat, 2009-07-04 10:08
AnonymousOne (not verified)

Thanks for your reply and thanks for the stats on child support. Actually it's pretty close to 50% for both sexes(close to a majority) which I'm actually surprised by, and interesting to remember that in many cases men also receive support payments. Please excuse my comment about the cashcow, but I work with a guy who has a child that the mother of has two other children from two other men, she hasn't married any of them and collects support from all three, and in my case my ex takes every opportunity to rachet up my payments and I end up having to fight her on every issue regarding money because she always feels that she's entitled to it when she is not. And yes I'm sure your right most men probably wouldn't pay if they didn't have to, because as you have pointed out, most that are ordered to pay still don't, and that goes for the women too. And while yes, some do go hungry, personally in my case(and my friends) my children have a deep support network and will never starve. The ones that will go hungry were probably born into poverty to begin with, which is really a whole other side to the issue. What I find a bit problematic about the child support issue is that it can and does sometimes function as enabler. I think we can all agree that a family that stays together is a good thing and it is certainly cheaper to maintain one household instead of two. Couples should focus on solving their problems and staying together instead of having the state provide an easy way out. In my case,myself and my ex are both worse of financially, because of our split and who suffers from that-the children, so the child support that she receives from me just helps her maintain a lifestyle she chose to pursue. Another problem that it creates is that it adds more embitterment to an already bad situation, having to pay a monthly stipend to someone that has caused a lot of grief in your life isn't exactly rewarding, and for the most part the kids don't see it-(the money). But in regards to the base issue, about the men having a say in unplanned preg thing, I think it could play a role too. Imagine a women who has become pregnant by surprise or unintentionally, let's just say that it was a one night stand, where both parties assumed the risk. When trying to make the decision of whether or not to keep the baby, what if an element to that decision were "well, if I kept it I could get some money from him to help me"? Is that right? No. And while abortion is always a difficult choice to make and I completely agree you that I would never be able to fully understand how hard a decision it would be, it think more women may chose their partners more carefully and maybe wait until they had more of a commitment from a man before putting themselves at risk for becoming pregnant. I think the realities of child rearing may become more apparent and more women might chose not to continue with, or get into, ill-conceived pregnancies, that many times(not always) end up hurting them, the child, and the man with who they had it with.

Fallacious reasoning, inaccurate statements, & double standards

Thu, 2009-07-09 17:50
TIW (not verified)

"women may chose their partners more carefully and maybe wait until they had more of a commitment from a man before putting themselves at risk for becoming pregnant"

How about "men may choose their partners more carefully, and maybe wait until they had more of a commitment from a woman before putting themselves at risk for creating babies"?

"women might chose not to continue with, or get into, ill-conceived pregnancies"

How about "men might choose to not get into ill-conceived pregnancies"?

And if you want to say such things about people, why not start with yourself? Let's see, some selfish guy who chose his partner very careLESSly, who did NOT wait until he had commitment or full reason to think his partner would abort at his command, who chose to start an ill-conceived pregnancy, who wants unhappy couples to be trapped together, who thinks his ex is bad for wanting money, and who thinks nothing's wrong with him for wanting money.

In the case that women shouldn't be entitled to receive child support if they choose partners who don't want to keep child but made one anyway, men shouldn't be entitled to NOT pay child support if they choose partners who do want to keep a child.

Before you tell women to choose "better" partners in terms of commitment, look at your own history of choosing partners.

Your anti-contraception trash is pretty weak too. If you're too tired to get out of bed to get your condoms, then you better be too tired to engage in risky sexual activity. If you find yourself thinking "It's too much work to fetch condoms NOW" then add "It will be even more work to deal with babies LATER." It's YOUR choice:

1) a little work now getting up for condoms
2) a lot of work later taking care of babies
3) no risky activities

No one forced you to pick Option 2. If you TRULY had the best of intentions, you would have picked 1 or 3.

No birth control for use during sex is 100%. You can get well over 99.999% using some methods though, and you obviously didn't. If the lady forgot the pill the past few days, oops, honest mistake, but no big deal if the man got a vasectomy. Or, if the man was afraid that the lady might someday forget her pill, it doesn't matter because she uses patches or rings instead, after the couple talked it over and agreed those are more reliable given their situation. Or, it's impossible for the lady to forget, because the man has his watch set to the same time every morning before they leave for work, and he reminds her when the alarm goes off.

As for "archaic," did someone say that to you before? Do you avoid anything that anyone called "archaic"? Plenty of people still abstain from risky activities, and even if you were the only one this century to still do so, it's an option for you. If everyone else who lived this decade jumped off a cliff and not breaking your spine was called "archaic"...

While I have nothing against killing a clump of non-feeling cells, I still think abortions are not fun. As with many similar medical/surgical procedures, it can carry tons of risks (including the patient's death), cause physical pain that lingers a long time, disrupt daily living, etc. It's not just a matter of paying cash for it. And as with dealing with any humans, you might end up with medical staff who are ill enough to lack empathy, who never learned to respect others (or themselves), who just go through the motions of a job they hate so they can pay the bills, etc. If anyone I was close to, who would do as I advised, decided on having an abortion or other risky procedure, I would insist they go to an excellent facility, even if it meant driving for hours or even flying. Other than cancers and stroke, the leading cause of death in the US is from infections transmitted to a patient while hospitalized and hospital medication error (eg someone receiving 4mg instead of 4mcg, nurse confusing the names of two medications). "The operation was a success, but the patient died because the hospital was a failure."

Some places insist on not just looking at resumes, but on hiring only the most compassionate, thorough, competent, patient, etc professionals who really love their work. I can almost guarantee the place you wanted your ex to get her abortion at is not one of them. One interesting read is http://upalumni.org/medschool/ : Heart Failure - Diary of a Third Year Medical Student by Michael Greger, MD. When I tried to read it, I couldn't finish the "Obstetrics/Gynecology - Miscarriage of Justice" chapter. Not saying people should avoid medical care (indeed, people usually don't see doctors enough), they should just avoid bad medical "care," and that takes extra work.

And trust me, if someone asked me to have a similar procedure done on me so they could save some money every month, I would demand payment far higher than then money they would save ;) I only have one body and while I might, for example, sacrifice an inch of intestine for enough money, it would cost you! Not just the cost of the procedure, screenings, medication, etc, but the time (how about I charge $150/hour that it takes away from other things I could be doing?), risk of death (even if it's a 1 in 10,000 chance, if I value my life at, say, 5 trillion dollars, that works out to 500 million dollars), discomfort, etc.

One thing that worried me was your claim that the kids mostly don't see the money. If you suspect the neglect of any child, it should be reported immediately.

In the end men don't have the same rights/control

Fri, 2009-07-03 18:46
AnonymousOne (not verified)

The fact that I am right now in this situation definetly gives me some insight into this situation. As far as the birth control issue- that's something you almost need to throw out. It happens,you don't always use birth control, maybe your too tired to get out of bed to get your condoms, maybe she forgets to take her pill or something was used in correctly. The best intentions can fail and sometimes do. And abstinence is a bit archaic. The real question that couples should discuss is what would they do if the women would become pregnant, because about one half of all pregnancies are unplanned and many times, at least this time there was never any discussion about getting pregnant, or what we would do if that became the case. Anyway, she has decided to have the baby. I was against that and asked to have an abortion. Which by the way I believe to be a very rational way of dealing with an unintended/unwanted pregnancy. If it weren't for the insane belief in much of this country that a zygote, and with time, a fetus is a human life I believe more people would conscientiously chose it and consequently there would be less poverty, better, more stable families and less emotional problems in this world, not to mention maybe a bit less of us around (overpopulation). Taking the stigma away from it would probably help the women that do eventually have some emotional problems- post abortion. Having raised two children already(works in progress) I can definitely say that the actual impact of having a child has a much more profound impact on one's life than not having it. So I'm not really sure what the point of the right to lifers is except to make some women feel guilty about a tough decision that they had to make- nobody would want to have to go through an abortion by choice or see someone they love have to go through it. Giving the man the choice to opt out of child support, should be allowed, child support can hurt a man, but it is hardly the issue.
Having a child and becoming a father or a mother carries a huge emotional commitment. Most children, at least in this country, won't go hungry, but what they do end up lacking is a stable home, happy parents,and proper guidance. Many women chose to abort their pregnancies for very good reasons, a man cannot opt out of being a father, although he may have some very good reasons to do so. I believe that most men, like most women, would take great pride in being a good father(or mother), if they could. The problems start way before that however; the first one being that women, and I'm not sure why this is the case, seem to have a much greater offering as far as birth control,why isn't there some sort of pill for men? There's a disparity there. Also waiting to have sex until your married is not exactly the norm and we have total sexual freedom both men and women, what is often forgotten is that the result of that freedom may mean pregnancy and it's there that the equality ends and that's because it's her body, it may be your baby but it's in her body and maybe your not ready to be a father or don't want to but you don't have a choice. Given the fact that up until than you both have the same freedoms and responsibilities and together you decided to exercise them or not, it is wrong, but a reality that a man can be removed from the ultimate decision. Being able to opt out of paying child support for a child being brought into this world that a man did not want, especially if the parents were never married or lived together, would be a step in the right direction. I don't think every man would chose to opt out of this. But if a woman chooses to have pre-martial sex without any commitment, and decides to have a child on her own than she needs to accept this responsibility and all that that brings, and not see the man as a cash cow. In fact I think child support is many times an enabler to the breaking down of good families and good men, and I have witnessed men that have been "trapped" into becoming income streams for women because the law allows it, without regard to the situation or how it came about. With equal freedom there needs to be equal responsibility and that is not the case.

@ Men Do Have Choices

Wed, 2009-06-17 20:57
Anonymous

I agree, but bear in mind that spermicidal lubricant doesn't provide much in the way of additional pregnancy prevention, although it DOES irritate the vagina, making the female partner more prone to STIs. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

And oh Lord am I absolutely SICK of the whole "Women are conniving succubi who'll go to desperately lengths to incubate your seed 'cause they're that obsessed with you and/or want to bilk you out of child support money" trope. Bonus points if you throw the word "rape" in there. Enough already, "Men's Rights" groups. It's old. Fight for more and better male birth control options if you really want men to have more control over their fertility. Lord knows I'd support such an effort a skillion zillion percent. It's too bad that men's rights groups seem to be a lot more interested in demonizing women than in helping men in any real way.

Tina: do you think, then,

Wed, 2009-06-17 15:49
Heather Corinna

Tina: do you think, then, that those men who don't want to risk being parents but who also a) choose to have the kinds of sex which carry those risks, and/or b) do so also choosing not to do what THEY can to protect themselves are somehow in no way accountable or responsible?

"No means no," by all means, is relevant, but not when men are choosing to take the risk of something, especially something which both doesn't impact their body, and through which two other lives separate from theirs are impacted. If men choose to do their part in creating pregnancies, why aren't they at least as responsible as women are for tending to the results? Why, if a man chooses to take those risks, is only the woman accountable for paying for the child she only had half a part in creating, or for paying for and managing any choice with a pregnancy which a man also chose to risk?

In other words, how seriously can we take a man -- like Matt, here -- who says he absolutely, positively does not want a pregnancy, but who both chooses to have sex where that is possible AND chooses NOT to use any method of birth control to prevent one? A man who is really serious about not wanting to risk being a parent or having any part of a woman's pregnancy either a) doesn't have intercourse with women or b) gets a vasectomy.

It's also perhaps worth asking where you're coming from with some of the things you are saying here: who is talking about women entrapping men, or choosing to remain pregnant to manipulate men? For sure, that's something some women may do, but the idea that that is representative of all women who become accidentally pregnant is absolutely fallacious. Same goes for presenting seeking out child support as revenge: the reason most women seek child support is to take proper care of children. It's incredibly tough financially being a single parent, and children need shelter, food, clothing and other essentials to survive. And the idea that women seek to have children or child support to become financially stable is a very strange notion to me: are you aware of what raising children costs, and of how infrequently child support even pays for a child's needs? The idea most child support payments could someone fill a mother's pockets is pretty out-of-touch.

I also have to say that I deeply resent the term "rape" being used in this, particularly as a rape survivor. Helping someone pay for an abortion in a pregnancy I created with them, or paying child support for a child I took part in creating is something I personally would have VADTLY preferred to being raped.

Men shouldn't be held accountable

Wed, 2009-06-17 12:26
Anonymous

I, as a female, feel that all women are responsible for their actions, and if they chose to get pregnant by wanting a baby than they should not force a man to pay for the child. When a man clearly states over and over that he does not want to be a father, or that he is not ready to be a dad, and clearly says no, than that means NO!!! Women shouldn't rape a mans rights for something they want. They shouldn't do these things to entrap a man to be with them, or just because the guy looks good and they want to have a cute baby. Women who want to destroy a man because the man doesn't want her anymore, want to go to the courts and make him pay for something he Plainly said no on, is wrong. People think of women as weak, and fragile, but the forget they use this as a force and getting away with bring children in this world just for the gain of some kind of financial stability. Men shouldn't be held accountable for something they don't want.

By Tina

It's irresponsible of Matt

Tue, 2009-06-16 10:02
geremy_q

It's irresponsible of Matt to get his ex pregnant and then pretend he should have a choice in keeping the baby. I think the choice was already made when Matt got the girl pregnant. If she decided to have the baby without asking him that means she can handle it without Matt's help.
Geremy, pregnancy stages specialist

I think there are a few instances in which men shouldn't have to

Wed, 2008-11-05 15:54
Anonymous

take responsiblity.
1) If they're raped (including statutory)
2) If they were informed by their partner that the partner was taking birth control, and later discovered that the partner had been lying. As unlikely as this seems, I think it happens more often than one might like to think.

Imbalanced world

Mon, 2008-12-22 16:47
Anonymous

Seriously It has happened to me, the girl I was intimate with was on the pill. It didn't work, too low dose, missed pill, what ever reason; she is pregnant... Knew I don't want a second child and is keeping it any how, what the hell am I supposed to do. I care about her as a friend but under no circumstances wanted to raise a family with her and she knows that. There has to be some form of recourse.

Men Do Have Choices

Sat, 2008-05-24 18:35
Anonymous

It irks me when male reproductive rights groups complain they dont have choices. They do...the difference is the timing when that choice happens. For men, they have the choice BEFORE sex either by using condoms, abstaining or having a vasectomy. All are highly effective methods. Many men resonate that condoms dont often work. The fact is that a properly used condom, combined with a spermicidal lubricant, is just as effective as the best Pill on the planet. Vasectomies, again are highly effective as long as patients make the follow-up appointment to make sure the vasectomy took. Abstinence is 100% guaranteed effective. If Mr. Dubay have taken responsibility and took his own percautions (in his case, continuing to use condoms), he would not have found himself in that situation.

Responsibility is a Fact of Life

Wed, 2008-04-23 11:54
Anonymous

I think this mentality stems from the myth that women lie to "trap" men into marriage or commitment. This is indeed a myth. Many women - due, in fact, to their intimate knowledge that pregnancy will affect their body - DO talk about birth control with their partners. What happens in situations where, after mutual discussion and agreement, the couple decides not to use birth control? If the woman then gets pregnant (this is a clearly known risk), is it OK for the man to back out and legally deny responsibility when her only "solutions" involve one of two paths, neither which is a simple choice: abort the baby (from which follows a lifetime of emotional pain) or have the baby, either to raise it or put it up for adoption (which both also carry tremendous emotional, financial and other considerations). Until men can physically experience pregnancy IN THEIR BODIES I do not think that it is fair to give them the right to deny responsibility for pregnancy. I do resent the few women that do lie to their partners, but I stress that the MAJORITY of women do not behave in this way. The reality is that women bear the burden of pregnancy. To give men the right to legally deny responsibility of any kind is a slippery slope that tempts abuse. Legal precedent would open the door for any man to simply change his mind and lie his way out of supporting a child he played half the role in creating. This does not establish a situation of equality but rather one where men will be even further removed from the responsibility of pregnancy than they already are. If they don't experience the physical, bodily changes that accompany pregnancy and society also gives them an escape from the emotional and financial impact, they will have true freedom in a system where women are shackled to fate and forced to trust men who have may or may not be trustworthy. How can one take that risk?

as always

Mon, 2008-04-07 04:57
Anonymous

i think a man should take responsibility if he fathered a child. If he can decide that he didnt want one, then he can decide to put on a condom. It is all to common of a man to run out a women who is bearing their child. Women and men sometimes dont think of the consequences while their having sex. That child should not be punished because their mother or father wasnt responsible enough to have control and take care of business. That's like everybody wants to throw a party but afterwards no one wants to help clean up. I think that its becoming harder and harder for kids. Instead of having laws to protect these babies dumbass parents, we should have laws to protect the innocent babies from their wacked out parents and they obviously are not considered the child in the situation.

The matter is not the woman.

Wed, 2008-03-12 19:42
Anonymous

The matter is not the woman. It is an innocent person who didn't ask the man to have sex knowing he doesn't want a child . By keeping a pregnancy, the mother choose to save the life of an innocent. And since that innocent is not responsible for the parents actions, he/she should be taken care of by both the man and the woman...his/her parents....

What About Adoption?

Fri, 2008-04-04 19:15
Anonymous

The only problem with that is that sometimes a child's birth parents are not the best people to care for them.Just because people get pregnant doesn't always mean they should be parents.

Why shouldn't he have that legal right?

Thu, 2008-02-14 16:37
Anonymous

Why shouldn't he have that right? What if the mother does have access to abortion (or the father offers to provide the financial means for such access) and still chooses to bear and raise the child? What if the father paid for hormonal contraception and the mother failed to use it correctly or chose not to do so? (For years, I took primary responsibility for birth control in my relationship, because biologically, I was the one who would get pregnant and therefore I had a greater stake in using it correctly.) Women can also choose not to provide financial or physical support...that's called adoption. When a woman chooses to give her child up for adoption, and the father objects, he is almost always perceived as selfish; if he ultimately wins custody, the mother is seldom required to pay child support (after all, she maturely and unselfishly wanted to place the child with a lovely, middle-class nuclear family). Women choosing to keep their children shouldn't be relying on support - financial or psychological - from former partners who have clearly expressed a preference for abortion.

@why they shouldn't have the legal right

Thu, 2012-04-19 10:33
Anonymous

As everybody pointed out before, there are two reasons men shouldn't have the right and women should:-

1) It is THEIR BODY.

2) If you absolutely never wanted a child, why didn't you go for vasectomy? Where I come from, women always get invasive surgeries to prevent children after marriage(India, no divorce and you marry only once and no more than 2 children), and men STILL refuse to go for vasectomy- EVER. In fact, the govt. GIVES money to men for vasectomy. Do they do it? NO, they still don't. Are they responsible? YES. Who do they blame, like you(whatever your gender is)? WOMEN. So, you did it and now have no right to complain.

3) NO BIRTH CONTROL IS 100% safe. NONE. Even if you use multiple methods, you can STILL get pregnant. For instance, there was a couple in India whose wife had gotten her surgery done(they call it "surgery/operation" here, because they don't want to discuss sexuality)
AND he used a condom for STDs and his wife STILL got pregnant. He sued the company and the doctor and was informed politely that no birth control is 100% safe. You DO NOT SEE MEN ON THE STREETS FIGHTING ABOUT THIS! Do you know why? Because this time the man "owns" wife, in that he is the husband, so the kids are HIS and he doesn't really mind. And because this time he can't really blame the woman. So, he blames a company, but that didn't work out so he shut up.

Also, let me note: That even in the above case, as in almost ALL relationships- married or otherwise, men usually contribute ONLY THE MONEY. My father is a wonderful exception and there are exceptions but MOST MEN JUST PAY. So, it natural for a woman to want a guy to cough up some money. And before you start calling me names, HOW many men help with the babies? Change nappies, bath them, feed them? How many cook food for them? How many help with the HW? How many dress them up, drop them to school? How many go to parent teacher meetings? How many men even bother to have a relationship with children that isn't based on discipline and tough talk? Check out world stats: Less than 25%. Yes, Or maybe 35% if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The only thing most men do is pay money. SO, that is traditionally the male job and they should be aware of it, just as women are taught to be aware of the fact that they should take care of birth control since they give birth to kids and kids are their responsibility because it is their body. How about realizing that paying support to the kids is a male responsibility, so men should always take care of the birth control because it is their money. And so they should feel guilty when they shrug away the responsibility and not discuss it.

4) Let us not even mention the fact that A LOT OF MEN do not even want to pay money for the kids they sired off their EX-WIVES! MOST men, in fact. They claim that these women are gold diggers. Well, you are a mature person, you didn't know she was a gold digger before you got married? If you aren't mature enough to know that, then why did you get married? Now live with your choices. You don't get to- whats the phrase- cut your cake, and eat it too? It all boils down to the thing: THE WOMAN isn't with the guy for whatever reasons anymore (bcoz he broke up with her, or she broke up with him) so he doesn't want to pay her. Period. It is the whole ownership thing. The rest are all blah blah blah. See below.

5) If she were married to you, then you wouldn't mind raising her kids (and actually yours too.) At least not to this extent. When they get into a marriage, apparently men become responsible- that is they start accepting their responsibilities in case they have kids that are unexpected. How about doing that whenever you have sex? Can't afford kids? Don't have sex.
Why do you object now? What is it that really frustrates you? That you get a kid when you don't want it? She didn't either. That she isn't "yours" and will be seeing many other men later on and you pay for the baby that isn't apparently yours? YES. THAT IS WHAT ANNOYS most people- that they aren't married and they were in it for the "free" sex, without any responsibility. men have always had this "right" (not being responsible is a right), and women had all the responsibilities. Now, men need to be responsible too and that rankles. Read above again for gender roles with a baby and what male, female responsibilities are. most men will behave in these stereotypes and the rest will never consider having this whole debate because they are good people.

6)IT IS THE MEN WHO MOSTLY WANT SEX. IF WOMEN HAD THEIR WAY, WE WOULD WAIT A LOT. This is another reason why men should be the ones held responsible. Women are usually in it for love and men are for love too. But they ARE the ones to want sex. And that is the truth.

I could go on about how ridiculous these men(and women) are.

ONE EXPERIENCE FORM MY REAL LIFE NOW:

I was recently in a 2 year relationship with a guy. It has been 8 months since we broke up. I live in India and MOST men here are virgins till 25. Men get married late and most(90%) people have sex only with ONE partner in their whole life. Guess what? Men also do this "choosing" thing- which is why we have so few children born out of wedlock or single moms(none actually, the trauma makes them give the kid away anonymously. They usually drop the kids in temples or ashrams, if they don't get abortions.) If "only" women did the abstinence, there would still be kids, obviously. (It isn't an ideal situation btw- the guy still goes scot free and the girl suffers all the trauma. She may even be killed by her own family member for "honour" but in this situation, it makes my point. The general belief here is that "good" men don't have sex with their gf's until they are married.)

MY STORY
But my bf wanted to have sex. I didn't. I am not going to elaborate on why because it is MY body. But I did try. it is not like I am averse to having sex, but I do want to do it with only one partner my whole life like all other Indians. But still the main reason why I didn't "give in" is because WE AREN'T CAPABLE OF FEEDING A CHILD IN CASE WE HAVE ONE since we are students. I wasn't sure about abortion and they are risky medically for women and I didn't want them. I am aware of the risks, so I chose to go with the safer option. I refused to put out.

What did the guy do? He cried and stressed that if I loved him, I would do it, pressurized me and told me it was no big deal, and we would use contraceptives, it would be fine yada yada. Tried to do it 5-6 tmes before I realized that he was

    ULTIMATELY REFUSING TO LISTEN. SO WHO WAS THE ONE IN THIS RELATIONSHIP WHO SHOULD HAVE BORNE THE KID'S COST? This is what happens in ALL situations.

The difference between me and most women is that I talk about my rights and knew the info about birth control and abortions, etc AND was brave enough to END THE RELATIONSHIP with the guy over the issue rather than risk it. Brave because I am hurt. Brave because both of us are hurting and still in love with each other after 8 months but we will never be together because I refused to put out. Brave because it was HIS CHOICE TO WANT SEX. (I love masturbating btw- just throwing it in so you don't tell me that your wife/gf wanted it, and my case is different. Keep convincing yourself of that.) I will ALWAYS feel guilty and I am afraid of never meeting a guy I loved as much as him. Most women would cave. We are human and give in. After even put out has connotations that she gives you the right.

And DO NOT TELL ME that most women need to be like me if they don't want kids. You see, I don't mind kids. It is the men who apparently don't want kids. So how about that? I have sex with you to keep you happy and when I get pregnant, it is my fault?

    A MALE'S CHOICE TO ABSTAIN FROM SEX IS A LOT EASIER THAN A FEMALE ENDING THE RELATIONSHIP AND FEELING SAD, LONELY AND GUILTY. No wonder women chose to put out.

What did the people do? THEY BLAME ME FOR BREAKING THE POOR GUYS HEART. OH what a wretched woman I am. I will rot in hell for hurting the man so.. I am even a slut because I chose to end the relationship and will now date many other guys and this was "JUST AN EXCUSE".

A muslim(and you how much they freak over premarital sex. Enough to stone women to death in THIS century.) told me I needed to understand the guys perspective. Seriously? So it is STILL THE WOMAN'S FAULT? And don't go on saying that you don't believe that, because that it still what happened whether you believe it or not. And it is still what every other girl would be made to feel like, whatever the country. I was still made to feel that I had done a bad thing by not having sex with the guy who loved me so much. And he did love me. Not "in his own way" but truly. Deeply. I will always cherish the guy. But if I had decided to have a sexual relationship and we had a child- IT WOULD SUDDENLY BE MY FAULT! How? It is really bizarre how the human mind works, right?

This is what happens in

    ALL relationships.

The men want sex. Women do it to make them happy. They may enjoy it if they are lucky, or they go through their WHOLE lives thinking it is a duty, never enjoying it. And you are STILL BLAMING THE GIRL? SERIOUSLY!

    You are damned if you don't, you are damned if you do!

More like This

You already know that no method of contraception is 100% effective to prevent pregnancy when you're engaging in sexual activity which presents a risk of pregnancy. You probably also know, however,...

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.