Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » Roe V. Wade for Men (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Roe V. Wade for Men
spinnersis
Neophyte
Member # 18568

Icon 1 posted      Profile for spinnersis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, I just read this on CNN and I am disturbed. It's about a court case wherein a man's ex-girlfriend had assured him that she had a medical condition that prevented her from becoming pregnant. She got pregnant anyway and he wants to opt out of paying child support. The article is sketchy about details. It doesn't say whether he used any form of addtional protection or not.
CNN

This appears to be a nasty attack on women's rights disguised as an issue of equality. I would like to hear other's thoughts.

-Anna

--------------------
The enemy is the tyranny of the dull mind. -Tom Robbins, Even Cowgirl's Get the Blues

Posts: 31 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, if a man tells a woman he had a vasectomy when he did not, and she becomes pregnant, is he then ever denied custody or visitation if he wants it? (And even that is barely relevant, since he was still not denied the right to put a condom on.) More to the point, would it be fair to require him to bear the child in his own body were the shoe on the othe foot?

Ugh. I have so much to say about this, but this whole day has been one of those where the Bad News in the world just won't give it a darn rest.

Really, I don't even have an objection to this guy taking his case to court: I think purposefully lying on this women's part was crappy. I DO have an objection to putting a child's welfare in danger over it though, and I sure the hell do have an objection to co-opting the name of a case about ownership of our bodies to make it about ownership of their wallets (especially since, heck, given the state of affairs for women in the world, many of us don't have EITHER, thank you very much).

More later. My queendom for something good in the news today.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm, Miz Scarlett, I thought you were pro-choice? If you are a feminist and consistent, then you should be pro-choice for men too -- that is, choice for men to abort their parental responsibilities.

Please explain Spinersis, how is this an attack on women's rights? If anything, it is an attack on men's rights. It's the woman who is coercing the man, through the government, to do something he doesn't want to do, which is to pay child support. I thought USA was a free, democratic country?

You see, women have a post-sex option to opt-out of parental responsibilities, millions of women do it every year by having an abortion. But just not by abortion, by adoption (even sometimes without the biological father's knowledge), and by legal abandonment (in designated areas). Men don't have a post-sex option to opt-out. A man is stuck for 18 years paying 20% of his paycheck for a child he never wanted, is that fair? Where is HIS CHOICE? Why should the man be enslaved to a woman's choice to have the baby? If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, why should he be liable for 18 years of support? Or put another way, why should autonomous women, making independent decisions about their lives should expect men to finance their choice?

It would only be fair if the man has the legal choice to opt out as the same time frame a woman has the legal choice to opt out by having an abortion. THAT IS A FEMINIST POSITION; THAT IS EQUAL OR AT LEAST AS CLOSE TO IT IS AS YOU CAN GET.

If you truly believe that the government should stay out of our personal lives, that people shouldn't be subjected to coercion by the government, then you would be for Choice for men.

Of course, before Roe women didn't have a legal choice so men shouldn't have a legal choice either. That's equal. But today women have all the choices, men don't have any choices. That's unequal.

And please don't give the "men should keep their zipper up if they can't handle parental responsibilities" retort. That sounds awfully similiar to the pro-life retort "women should keep their legs closed if they can't handle parental responsibilities". But of course, that is sexist, right?

If a man doesn't want to pay, let him have a legal choice not to pay. It's his business and not yours or the government's. If you think it is wrong for a man to dodge parental responsibilities, so what. You can't legislate morality. His decision should be between him, his god, and his accountant. It is, and should be, a personal decision. These anti-choicers want to prevent the legal right for men to choose. They want to reduce men into ATMs. They want to control men's reproductive choice. They want to punish men for having sex (and believe me, 18 years of 20% of your paycheck taken away against your will just for having sex is punishment).

Does this rhetoric sound familiar?

[ 03-11-2006, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I do believe Miz Scarlet is pro-choice, yes. But i think you're stretching the term 'pro-choice' to be something it isn't.

First of all, the whole coercion aspect of it is wrong. I don't think you're going to find one single person here who thinks otherwise. It is WRONG to try to trick someone into becoming a parent. That much we can agree on.

Unfortuneatly, it is hard to give equal rights in something that is in itself NOT equal. Women have all of these 'post sex options' (and we'll get back to that) because women are the ones either expected to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort. Her body, her choice. When men get to be pregnant, they can get to decide what to do with the pregnancy.

Men have a choice when they consent (and this is important) to have sex with someone; to use protection or not to use protection. It appears in this case that protection was not used. That was his choice as much as it was hers.

Now, back to these 'post-sex options' ... or choices, if you will. I see you live in the United States. I'm sure you're aware now that one of your states has made abortion illegal and that there are many others looking to pass the same legislation. And i'm sure you're aware that there are also issues regarding the availability of emergency contraception. Believe it or not, the grass is not always greener. Women do not have all of these choices you seem to think they have.

It does seem, to me, like just another way of removing a woman's right to choose. Do you really think that knowing she would not have any financial support would not affect her choice? You really cannot be that naive. In withdrawing support, you're influencing her to make the decision in your favor.

And so, i'm against it. Very against it. Call it anti-choice or anti-feminist or whatever, the fact of the matter is that men HAVE a choice and it is hardly anyones fault but their own if they choose not to use it.

[ 03-11-2006, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: LilBlueSmurf ]

--------------------
Nursing is a work of heart!
~ unknown

Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think you misunderstood my argument.

I never said anything about a man should have any say in a woman's choice to carry to term or not. The woman has the ultimate decision and that's fine. But just as the man have no say in the woman's choice to carry to term, the woman should have no say in a man's choice to pay child support. A woman can hold too much control over a man's life by coercing him to pay child support through the government.

You say men have a choice when they consent to have sex. But consent to sex doesn't equal consent parental responsibilities for women, why should it not be the same for men?

Who cares if the man didn't use protection, he still shouldn't be 'punished' by being coerced to pay child support, just as we don't 'punish' women for not using protection. But let's assume he did use protection and she still got pregnant, should he still be coerced to pay child support? Or it should it only be for men who don't use protection?

If it is her body, her choice, then it's her problem if she has the baby, not the biological father's if he wants no part of it. The man shouldn't be dragged into her unilateral decision for 18 years. I even propose that the father should pay for the abortion if he wants to opt-out, but if she still has the baby, then the father should have the right to be legally free of all responsibilities. That was her choice, so she goes at it alone. Logically, that seems fair.

Child support laws take away a man's right to choose. In a free, democratic country, people shouldn't be coerced to do something they don't want to. You may disagree with a man opting out, but that's not yours, any woman's, nor the government's decision to make for men. That should be a personal decision. If he wants to pay, fine; if he doesn't want to pay, it's still fine. It should be his legal choice. No one's morality should be imposed on him.

I am trying to understand how this is another way to take a woman's right to choose (it's actually the other way around). Even if the man tells the woman he impregnated he wants nothing to do with her and the baby, she still has the ultimate choice to carry to term or not. So please clarify.

And I will call your position anti-choice and anti-feminist, because it is. In this case, a woman's choice is overriding a man's choice, that is very sexist.

Your anti-choice attitude in regards to this issue, which many so-called pro-choicers have, actually weakens the pro-choice case. But many don't see it, oh well.

Bottom line: if you can't coerce women into motherhood, then you shouldn't coerce men into fatherhood.

[ 03-11-2006, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You have failed to address the last part of my last post -- In allowing men to opt out of paying child support it will affect a womans decision in carrying a pregnancy to term and/or keeping the child. To me, this is taking away a womans right to choose because her choice may be dependant on whether or not he feels like supporting the pregnancy he helped create.

If i'm understanding you right, you're equating bodily choice (right to abortion, etc) with financial choice and they're just not the same. If you think people have to agree with all choices to be pro-choice you're sadly misguided on the core meaning itself.

If it is her body, her choice, then it's her problem if she has the baby, not the biological father's if he wants no part of it.

Who's problem is it if she has to have an abortion (and okay, pay for the abortion -- are you going to pay for "pain and suffering" too? Or days missed from work?)? Or carries it to term and has to go on bedrest? Or has the baby but it's breech and has to have a c-section (major surgery)? Or what if she suffers from postpartum depression after she has the baby (and well say she put it up for adoption, just so it's less of a problem)? Right, it's hers, right? Because she chose ... Except not, because she didn't get herself pregnant. It was not her choice alone to have sex, which resulted in the pregnancy. THIS is why 'my body, my choice' does not equal 'my wallet, my choice'. Sorry.

This isn't about punishment and i never said anything about it so i'm not sure why you brought it up. If there's anyone here bringing anti-choice arguements into this it is you.

[ 03-11-2006, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: LilBlueSmurf ]

Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It may affect the way a woman would choose, but the choice is still ultimately her own. So I don't know how it is taking away a woman's right to choose. You are making a stretch by saying that.

It's really taking a man's right to choose away when the woman's choice overpowers his own.

If a woman gets pregnant by a man that is a deadbeat, then she should have talked to him about the 'what ifs' before they engaged in sexual intercourse.

All the problems associated with pregnancy has nothing to do with men. She consented to sex knowing what she might have to go through. So why should the man be liable for 18 years because nature is unfair?

Just because nature isn't equal, doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be equal. Granting men the option to opt-out is as closest it can get to being equal.

I'm bringing up anti-choice arguments? I say women should have a choice to opt-out; I say men should have a choice have a choice to opt-out. How is that anti-choice? That seems very pro-choice to me. Both parties should have the ULTIMATE CHOICE OF THEIR DESTINY. Women do, so should men.

There are only 2 ways for heterosexual men to absolutely avoid parental responsibilities: 1) practice lifelong celibacy or 2) get a vasectomy. Those are two options that are not realistic for a horny young man.

If you were truly, truly a feminist, then you would be for choice for men just as you are choice for women. That is as symmetrical it can get.

[ 03-11-2006, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It may affect the way a woman would choose, but the choice is still ultimately her own. So I don't know how it is taking away a woman's right to choose. You are making a stretch by saying that.

By that token, you can either pay the child support or go to jail. But hey, it's your CHOICE! This is what we call being between a rock and a hard place. Not much a choice, is it?

If a woman gets pregnant by a man that is a deadbeat, then she should have talked to him about the 'what ifs' before they engaged in sexual intercourse.

I really cannot even believe you're going to use that as an arguement. Lets turn it around, shall we? If a man does not want to pay child support, he should have talked to the woman about the 'what ifs' to ensure that she would abort or put the child up for adoption before they engaged in sexual intercourse. Ideal, yes?

All the problems associated with pregnancy has nothing to do with men. She consented to sex knowing what she might have to go through. So why should the man be liable for 18 years because nature is unfair?

They have to do with men because women do not get themselves pregnant. And again, this arguement can easily be turned around. Men know when they consent to sex that should it result in a child, he will be liable for support for 18 years. But maybe he should've thought about this before sex ... ?!

Just because nature isn't equal, doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be equal. Granting men the option to opt-out is as closest it can get to being equal.

I don't believe this will ever be equal. I think this is going the wrong way in even trying to be 'equal'.

I'm bringing up anti-choice arguments? I say women should have a choice to opt-out; I say men should have a choice have a choice to opt-out. How is that anti-choice? Both parties should have the ULTIMATE CHOICE OF THEIR DESTINY. Women do, so should men.

Suggesting that children are punishment (or suggesting that this is what i'm suggesting) is an anti-choice arguement. I never said it, i never meant it, and i'm not sure why you brought it up. Again, men do have CHOICE. They have the CHOICE to use protection. In choosing to waive that CHOICE, they are choosing to provide for the child. (And yeah, accidents happen. See above to talking to your partner about the 'what ifs')

There are only 2 ways for heterosexual men to absolutely avoid parental responsibilities: 1) practice lifelong celibacy or 2) get a vasectomy. Those are two options that are not realistic for a horny young man.

You forgot masturbation. And really, when it comes between a horny young man and financial support for a child that didnt' ask to be born, i'm going to choose the child 110% of the time. I hardly pity the poor horny young man. I just can't do it.

If you were truly, truly a feminist, then you would be for choice for men just as you are choice for women. That is as symmetrical it can get.

Again, you can question my pro-choice and feminist stance all you like. I (obviously) do not agree with you. I do not agree that this is 'symmetrical' or 'equal' or 'fair' and i don't think it ever will be.

Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"By that token, you can either pay the child support or go to jail. But hey, it's your CHOICE! This is what we call being between a rock and a hard place. Not much a choice, is it?"

Okay, I'll just accept you are not for freedom and liberty for men. Reproductive choices for women, reproductive responsibilities for men... Gotch ya.

"I really cannot even believe you're going to use that as an arguement. Lets turn it around, shall we? If a man does not want to pay child support, he should have talked to the woman about the 'what ifs' to ensure that she would abort or put the child up for adoption before they engaged in sexual intercourse. Ideal, yes?"

He wouldn't have to talk her about the "what ifs" if he had the legal option to opt-out wouldn't he? But if the man is strongly anti-abortion, then he should discuss with the woman if she would abort their offspring, since it is her ultimate choice.

"They have to do with men because women do not get themselves pregnant. And again, this arguement can easily be turned around. Men know when they consent to sex that should it result in a child, he will be liable for support for 18 years. But maybe he should've thought about this before sex ... ?!"

Men shouldn't be liable for support for 18 years. That's what I have been arguing about. A man shouldn't dictate over a woman's choice, a woman shouldn't dictate over a man's choice. That seems pretty fair to me.

"I don't believe this will ever be equal. I think this is going the wrong way in even trying to be 'equal'."

It can be more equal if men have the option to opt-out. Men have the legal choice to opt-out; women have the legal choice to opt-out. That seems as equal as it can get. It doesn't take much logic to see it.

"Suggesting that children are punishment (or suggesting that this is what i'm suggesting) is an anti-choice arguement. I never said it, i never meant it, and i'm not sure why you brought it up. Again, men do have CHOICE. They have the CHOICE to use protection. In choosing to waive that CHOICE, they are choosing to provide for the child. (And yeah, accidents happen. See above to talking to your partner about the 'what ifs')"

Women ALSO have the choice to use protection. Yet, they still has the legal choice to opt-out. Men don't. Let's assume the man did use protection, should he still be coerced to pay child support? Yes or no?

"You forgot masturbation. And really, when it comes between a horny young man and financial support for a child that didnt' ask to be born, i'm going to choose the child 110% of the time. I hardly pity the poor horny young man. I just can't do it."

I get it. Women can have all the free loving sex they want without facing any parental responsibilities, but for men it's too bad for them if the woman chooses to have their babies. Such a wholesome feminist you are. The baby didn't have to be born, she could have had an abortion. But she still chose to have the baby, so she deals with it -- that's her problem.

Can you imagine people telling women who don't want to get pregnant to masturbate instead taking the risk of having sex? They would be called backwards and sexist. I guess it's only okay to say that to men.

"Again, you can question my pro-choice and feminist stance all you like. I (obviously) do not agree with you. I do not agree that this is 'symmetrical' or 'equal' or 'fair' and i don't think it ever will be."

Apparently you are not pro-choice for men and not consistent to what feminist stand for so....
Face it, you want the government and women to control men's lives. So much for respecting the autonomy of individuals.

[ 03-11-2006, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I'll just accept you are not for freedom and liberty for men. Reproductive choices for women, reproductive responsibilities for men... Gotch ya.

Umm ... Yeah, that's totally not what i said, and i'm sorry you feel that way. If you actually knew me, rather than just taking my thoughts on this one arguement alone, you'd know that couldn't be further from the truth, but however ...

He wouldn't have to talk her about the "what ifs" if he had the legal option to opt-out wouldn't he? But if the man is strongly anti-abortion, then he should discuss with the woman if she would abort their offspring, since it is her ultimate choice.

Oh good ... If we get everything all lined up nicely they won't have to talk to each other at all. Zero responsibility for anyone!

Men shouldn't be liable for support for 18 years. That's what I have been arguing about. A man shouldn't dictate over a woman's choice, a woman shouldn't dictate over a man's choice. That seems pretty fair to me.

A man's choice in 'opting-out' of paying child support will affect the womans choice to continue the pregnancy or not. This is a mans choice affecting a womans choice. Why is it fair one way but not the other?

Women ALSO have the choice to use protection. Yet, they still has the legal choice to opt-out. Men don't. Let's assume the man did use protection, should he still be coerced to pay child support? Yes or no?

They have the choice to opt out because we're talking about choice over bodies, not choice over wallets. Bodies =/= finances no matter how you slice it. If the man did use protection and it failed, too bad. If the woman used protection and it failed it's no less fair if she gets pregnant anyway.

I get it. Women can have all the free loving sex they want without facing any parental responsibilities, but for men it's too bad for them if the woman chooses to have their babies. Such a wholesome feminist you are. The baby didn't have to be born, she could have had an abortion. But she still chose to have the baby, so she deals with it -- that's her problem.

Wow, you really have a way of twisting words don't you. For the record, i don't appreciate it and this will be the last time i address a comment of this nature.

Can you imagine people telling women who don't want to get pregnant to masturbate instead taking the risk of having sex?

Actually, we DO tell women who do not wish to take the risk of becoming pregnant to masturbate instead of partnered sex. Is this really the only thread you've visited? It must be. You really don't know this site at all.

Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Umm ... Yeah, that's totally not what i said, and i'm sorry you feel that way. If you actually knew me, rather than just taking my thoughts on this one arguement alone, you'd know that couldn't be further from the truth, but however ..."

I'm sorry but if you are not for choice for men, then it's hard to see you are for their freedoms and liberties. You know, kind of like what pro-choicers say to pro-lifers about women.

"Oh good ... If we get everything all lined up nicely they won't have to talk to each other at all. Zero responsibility for anyone!"

Yup, women can have sex with absolutely no zero responsibility, it should be the same for men.

"A man's choice in 'opting-out' of paying child support will affect the womans choice to continue the pregnancy or not."

So what!? Again, the ultimate choice still belongs to her. The man's choice to opt-out may affect her choice to carry to term, but it will NEVER DICTATE HER CHOICE. Her choice dictates a man's choice though. See the difference?

"They have the choice to opt out because we're talking about choice over bodies, not choice over wallets. Bodies =/= finances no matter how you slice it. If the man did use protection and it failed, too bad. If the woman used protection and it failed it's no less fair if she gets pregnant anyway."

A man coerced to pay child support for 18 years with 20% of his paycheck just for having sex is a pretty huge TOO BAD. So much for sympathy for men. So much for being for men's rights. That is kind of parallel to the SD court banning abortion, which is like saying "you had sex, you knew of the consequences, you are pregnant so have the baby... too bad".

"Actually, we DO tell women who do not wish to take the risk of becoming pregnant to masturbate instead of partnered sex. Is this really the only thread you've visited? It must be. You really don't know this site at all."

But they don't have to, they can have sex with all the men they want as many times as they want without facing coerced parental responsibilities. So it should be the same for men. I am for equality.

[ 03-11-2006, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(Just lost the post I'd added here, so the Cliff's Notes will have to suffice until I'm back from boxing.)

I do agree that there will come a point when we will have to revisit child support laws, when we reach a point where men and women do have social equality, EVEN though there is a third party involved here, so framing this as a battle between men and women alone is fallacious.

Thing is, we're not at that point. A great many women in this world and this country don't even get to choose when they have sex in the first place. Socially and culturally, women bear far greater responsibility with ANY reproductive choice they make than men do. (Heck, if we could work it out so we all just got a choice as to whether to have all of that responsibility or just the responsibility to write a check, I know what I'd be choosing.) The wage gap remains very firmly in place. The amount of agency overall men have, in all things, remains greater than that of women. And obviously, when it comes to reproduction, just by nature alone, you're correct: it will never, ever be equal. Women will always bear the greatest brunt of all aspects of reproduction and in many cases, of parenting.

So, if you're for equality, are you working for those things -- to pass the ERA, to be rid of the wage gap, to end rape and sexual coercion, to end the idea of women as male sexual property -- so that we can even get to the point where all things that CAN be equal really are? Where women DO have very real equality with men so that it WILL be time to reassess things like the current child support policies? If not, you're not arguing for equality: you're arguing for yet one more privilege for men to add to all those already in existence.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Women ALSO have the choice to use protection. Yet, they still has the legal choice to opt-out. Men don't. Let's assume the man did use protection, should he still be coerced to pay child support? Yes or no?
Just to be sure: You ARE aware, yes, that the most reverisble, most effective, and most cost-effective form of birth control there is is vasectomy, correct? And that there could very well be BC methods for women that surpass that, if only the men in charge were invested in developing it instead of developing drugs like Viagra, yes? That as of right now, federal medicare DOES cover Viagra, but no longer covers birth control? That emergency contraception STILL is not easily available to most women in this country, and only for ideological reasons, and primarily via male lawmakers and the guy heading our country right now?

FYI? You'll want to stop using "coerced." It makes you sound histrionic. Let's try "legally enforced," eh? because men ARE legally enforced to do so, not "coerced." Calling it what it is, rather than spinning it helps keep an argument sound.

If a man had a vasectomy, waited the required period before having sex, and the sex he had with a woman was absolutely consensual on her part, do I think it'd be fair not to require him to pay child support, even WITH the cultural gender inequalities we have now? Sure, I can go for that.

But it'd be a moot point, because in that case, there would be no child to pay support for in the first place.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A couple more things, now that I'm back from teaching:

quote:
Hmm, Miz Scarlett, I thought you were pro-choice? If you are a feminist and consistent, then you should be pro-choice for men too -- that is, choice for men to abort their parental responsibilities.
First of all, I don't intend to be abrasive, but -- especially at my age and given how long I have lived in this world as a woman and worked actively with these issues, for women AND men alike -- I don't put up with young men defining my feminism or feminism on general for me or telling me how to be feminist. I won't engage it: you're welcome to have whatever opinion about it you like, but I give absolutely no weight to what you think about how I, or any woman, should be feminist.

I can assure you that I'll become a lot more concerned with men's rights in this regard -- understand that I have done a good deal of work with human rights issues in my life, and have made plenty of contributions even most men themselves have not, for men and women alike, so I also won't be represented as being unconcerned with men's rights overall -- when women are no longer an oppressed class. And when I really see men, as a whole class, truly working to end women's oppressions rather than continuing to just be concerned with furthering and protecting their own privilege, I'll be a lot more responsive to a man telling me I need to be taking care of them more than women already are and have been.

Until the time that we do truly have gender equality, it's triage as far as I'm concerned: I'm going to concern myself first and foremost with the people in the most danger and injury, with the greatest need, and with the least agency. The people with the most agency are more than capable of taking care of themselves and their needs first: after all, they've done so for centuries just fine, obviously.

quote:
Of course, before Roe women didn't have a legal choice so men shouldn't have a legal choice either. That's equal. But today women have all the choices, men don't have any choices. That's unequal.
Clearly, you aren't all that aware of -- or you're choosing to ignore -- how many choices we do or don't have. Even if we dismiss ALL the restrictions that have been placed on abortion during just the last few years, even if we dismiss the bills coming up right now in at least ten states to ban abortion in those states, we hardly have had "all the choices." Even before all of these current restrictions and bans/proposed bans, the majority of counties in the US do NOT have an abortion provider. At least a quarter of all American women are raped: again, we don't even have the choice to have sex or not all too much of the time (of course, not having the choice even once is too much of the time). Birth control methods which could be freely available to us are not: birth control which could be affordable for us is not. Many states have laws and policies which restrict the choices and human rights of married women when it comes to sex and reproduction.

Today, especially if we look even further, to global issues, women have nothing CLOSE to all the choices, even if we limit the sphere of this to sex and reproduction. And that absolutely IS unequal, and child support enforcements don't even flirt with tipping those scales.

[ 03-11-2006, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Miz Scarlet ]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kitka
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 22756

Icon 1 posted      Profile for kitka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Women can have sex with absolutely no zero responsibility, it should be the same for men."

This is no argument of equality - it's a specious argument at best.

Men do not incur a responsibility nearly as vast as that of women, when it comes to pregnancy.
Women are responsible for caring for their bodies when they're pregnant, paying for additional medical care, ensuring their own comfort while their bodies undergo massive change, and then providing for a baby when it's born.

Doing this alone is a hundred times harder than when you have a mature and caring partner to help you. Ergo, alimony.

This lawsuit gives men carte blanche to run away from problems they create through dint of their carelessness. Birth control pills and condoms in tandem are incredibly effective... but women still get pregnant because either they or their partners aren't vigilant.

Men are just as responsible for women when it comes to preventing pregnancy. Sex is an act where both parties are complicit.

You make it sound as if women are getting pregnant in droves and forcing poor schmucks to surrender their earnings. That's not the case. I'd guess that either you or someone you know is knee-deep in alimony payments.

Posts: 455 | From: New York, NY | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkChild717
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 139

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DarkChild717     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm going to add just one small thing to this boiling cauldron.

I'd like to point out something that we recognize here often, and that is there is no one form of birth control that is 100% effective. All forms have failure rates. This is why we suggest doubling up to give that extra sense of security.

We recognize and understand that anytime a man and a woman particpate in partnered sexual intercourse, there is a chance, however small, that pregnancy might occur. It must be realized that in choosing to have sex, those involved are choosing to accept responsiblity for what might happen.

Going back to the original case, flatly, that man chose to have sex, and in doing so accepted responisiblity for what may happen. I do think that the woman also did wrong, in convincing him she could not get pregnant, but regardless, both ultimately made their choice to have sex. Even if pregnancy weren't an option, STDs would be. How would this converstion go if he was suing her because she gave him an STD? Would the conversation blame one or both partners for failing to consider using condoms? Because that is ultimately a choice to be made.

I'd have to hear more information on this case only before I truly decide where my opinions lie.

--------------------
Caylin, Scarleteen Volunteer
Love Scarleteen? Donations keep us around for you. So give a little! (Or a lot. Whatever works for you.)

Posts: 2789 | From: The Evergreen State | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(Just a reminder to everyone: please do not make or engage in personal attacks here at the boards. Thanks!)

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Per more information, one thing that's really worthy of note is that the organization who recruited this guy has been looking for a guy like him to make a case with for more than twelve years.

That tells us a whole lot, right there. Someone ending up in this situation likely happens more than every decade or so, for certain. But it sure doesn't happen as often as women are raped. It sure doesn't happen as often as women actually USING some form of birth control -- even when, as was the case with this man, their male partner is using none -- have a BC failure and become pregnant. It likely doesn't even happen as often as a woman needs an abortion to save her life or health.

I think the biggest problem with this case is it equating child support issues with reproductive rights, with the wonership of one's BODY -- and that's not the same as the wonership of one's bank account. It's a far, far different issue, and one that is far less about human rights than Roe Vs. Wade was.

"Dubay told her he wasn't ready to have kids, according to the legal complaint."

Right there, even if I remove the comparisons to Roe V Wade, is where I say stop. Why? Because someone who is that clear on not being ready to have kids, for whom it is an absolutely 100% no issue, uses a method of birth control no matter what. There have been cases where women have tried for damages above child support when men have lied about vasectomies, and I'd say the exact same thing in those cases: if someone absolutely does not want to be a parent, I am not going to buy that they are truly in earnest about that if they do not do everything in their power to use effective birth control that is easily and readily available to them. And men can get condoms absolutely everywhere, they're cheaper than anything women can use, and they do not require convincing a partner to use them.

Again, I am not, by any means, unsympathetic to this man per his partner lying to him, if in fact she was (I say that only because I haven't seen a piece with an admission from her yet, and there are plenty of pregnancy flukes that happen with women who have been informed they are infertile). Not at all. But nothing I have read on this strikes me as being about reproductive rights: rather, it strikes me as a public catfight between two adults, ABOUT two adults (and not about the welfare of the child) who both made lousy choices, which is being misrepresented as something far larger (and in which it's entirely possible this guy is actually being exploited, as well, by the men's rights group using him as a means/scapegoat to finally make their case).

In any event, here are a few more pieces on the case, for those interested:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603100166mar10,1,1462426.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35924
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm

If you do some digging, you'll also find a good deal of commentary from men who have actually been actively working with reproductive rights issues, for all people. And, no big surprise, very few of them are in support of a case like this, and most of them agree that men have a very easy, painless way to make a reproductive choice: by choosing either not to have procreative sex -- which is utterly painless and carries ZERO serious consequence -- or by choosing to use effective birth control available to them.

(Also, if you do a little digging about Feit and his organization...well, they don't come out smelling like roses. For instance, their home page states that violent domestic assault occurs just as often with female perps as males, and that's just completely out of line with reliable data on these issues, even from as conservative a department as the BoJ for the U.S.)

[ 03-11-2006, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Miz Scarlet ]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mz Scarlett, you are making it seem like women face gross inequalities and oppression. Yes, that may be true in some countries in the world, but not in the western world. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the women-are-the-victims rhetoric. Women in the western world live on average 7 years longer than men, I never heard of an oppressed group living longer than their oppressors. The wage-gap between men and women does exist, but it is not due to discrimination as claimed by many feminists, but do to factors such as continuation of work and the type of jobs they choose. When all those factors are controlled for, women are compensated as much as men. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

I am really trying not to upset anyone, but I also believe the 1 out of 4 women have been raped statistic is greatly exaggerated. The statistic comes from a survey by Mary Koss that has been discredited by several researchers. But I won't delve into it.

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, if you cared to, you could look up far more than one source for rape statistics which. Heck, start with the U.S. Department of Justice's yearly reports. Heck, look right here in this thread where you're posting, where I can say that I know at least two of the five of us who are women who have responded here are sexual assault survivors, one of us -- myself -- the survivor of more than one assault.

Women do face gross inequalities and oppressions, here and abroad. The wage gap is not simply about the factors you describe: even in the few female-led fields there are, more times than not, men in those fields are paid better or given more comprehensive benefits.

And the life expectancy bit is just silly. The reason women live longer than men is incredibly complex, and a lot of it has to do with biological issues (estrogen, for instance, protects against heart disease) as well as the fact that it's been shown that women often simply seek out and heed medical advice from their physicans more than men do. To boot, if you've done any viable study on oppressed people -- by race, by class, be gender, you name it -- you know that general health and quality of life are often far more telling issues than actual lifespan is. As well, if you've been keeping up with information on the differences between men and women's lifespans, as well as male and female public health, you'd know that male life expectancy has been improving at a faster rate than women's for some time now.

Flatly, your abject dismissal of very easily identifiable and proveable inequalities -- and not just from feminist sources -- makes it pretty clear that any discussion of these issues with you is going to be fruitless, because you're either uneducated in terms of them, or simply unwilling to acknowledge them for your own reasons. Coming in here and telling women how to be or not to be feminist, how to address their own reproductive rights or not, when you've just made it patently clear that you dismiss both basic feminist theory as well as the reality of women living in the world -- as well as your participation in only this thread -- makes it pretty clear that actual discussion with you per this matter or anything related is likely of little value to anyone but you.

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I guess we will never see eye to eye on this issue. I am libertarian, I believe the government should stay out of our personal lives. The government is indeed intruding on men's personal lives by shaving 20% of his paycheck for 18 years against his will, or throwing men in jail for missed child support payments. It looks like coercion to me.

"Men do not incur a responsibility nearly as vast as that of women, when it comes to pregnancy.

Women are responsible for caring for their bodies when they're pregnant, paying for additional medical care, ensuring their own comfort while their bodies undergo massive change, and then providing for a baby when it's born."

Women don't have to stay pregnant, they get an abortion. Easy as that. I even propose that men should pay for the abortion if he wants to opt-out, but if the woman still chooses to have the baby, then the man should be free from any responsibilities. I really can't see how anyone with objective eyes can see this is pretty fair.

I don't believe a man's choice ends at having sex, because it doesn't end when the woman has sex. The argument that men should keep their zippers up if they can't handle the responsibilities is awfully similiar to the pro-life argument that women should keep their legs closed if they can't handle the responsibilities.

Consent to sex doesn't equal consent to parental responsibilities. Well, for women it doesn't, it should be the same for men. Just because a man chooses to have sex doesn't mean he should be obligated to take up fatherhood, just as a woman who chooses to have sex isn't obligated to motherhood. Millions of women every year dodge, shirk, opt-out, whatever you want to call it, parental responsibilities. It's not the government's business, it's her personal choice, fine. But the same argument can be applied to men. It's a man's personal choice, the government shouldn't intrude on his personal life.

Suggesting men who don't want to take up parental responsibilities to get a vasectomy is not a viable solution. The most promiscuous time of a man's life, I believe, is in his late-teens and early 20s, far too early for a man to have a vasectomy. He may want to have children later on in life. I don't even think doctors would perform it men at such a young age. There are only a few doctors that know how to perform reversals, not to mention the procedure is pretty costly.

Maybe I am not explaining on my argument very well. Because looking at the issue objectively, I see the man's right to opt-out argument as impeccable. Please read this column by Leanne Bell at -- edited, see explanation below -- She explains the argument much more clearly.

[ 03-11-2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Miz Scarlet ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(First of all, I edited out that link because the very top of that page links to a nudie site. Per our guidelines, that is absolutely not appropriate here. And Leanne Bell? Come on. I hardly think a marriage apologist with such quotes as "Everything a woman values most in life can be directly attributed to her husband's penis," is exactly an objective or sound source on matters like these.)

quote:
Women don't have to stay pregnant, they get an abortion. Easy as that. I even propose that men should pay for the abortion if he wants to opt-out, but if the woman still chooses to have the baby, then the man should be free from any responsibilities. I really can't see how anyone with objective eyes can see this is pretty fair.

Thing is, it isn't as easy as that. Even saying that is so completely offensive, I hardly know what to say. I've helped financially care for children I have had absolutely no part in creating -- heck, I've taken care of one of my parents -- and even in doing so at a poverty level myself, and in having experienced all sorts of care of children, and pregnancy, and abortion, given a choice, I'd be choosing a payment rather than being pregnant or any of the options available to me in being pregnant. And therein lies part of the crux: men get to choose that, very easily, with no pain or hardship whatsoever, save not getting laid when they might want to sometimes. Would that we had such an easy choice.

Abortion is by no means easy. It isn't easy to acquire, it isn't physically easy, it isn't emotionally easy, and even when a woman does choose to abort, her body and mind go through things due to hormones, due to cultural issues which can go on for months, and for some years, and are rarely anything one'd call easy. And becoming pregnant at all isn't a nonissue, either. Pretending it is, or claiming it is only makes you look ignorant or obstinate.

quote:
Consent to sex doesn't equal consent to parental responsibilities. Well, for women it doesn't, it should be the same for men. Just because a man chooses to have sex doesn't mean he should be obligated to take up fatherhood, just as a woman who chooses to have sex isn't obligated to motherhood. Millions of women every year dodge, shirk, opt-out, whatever you want to call it, parental responsibilities. It's not the government's business, it's her personal choice, fine. But the same argument can be applied to men. It's a man's personal choice, the government shouldn't intrude on his personal life.
Are you unaware of laws about abandonment and negligence, or do you just think that we are? Women do not by any means just get to choose to opt out, and no, you don't get to come back by saying they always can with abortion. Even if all women wanted abortions, not all women can have them. And part of reporoductive rights are -- even if abortion WERE something you could do with the ease of a drive-through, which is hardly is -- allowing women NOT to choose to abort, even if the reason for doing such is that they do not want to abort, rather than wanting to parent.

Women most certainly do have all sorts of legal obligations affixed to their wombs and to parenting. Stating they do not is simply a falsehood.

quote:
Suggesting men who don't want to take up parental responsibilities to get a vasectomy is not a viable solution. The most promiscuous time of a man's life, I believe, is in his late-teens and early 20s, far too early for a man to have a vasectomy. He may want to have children later on in life. I don't even think doctors would perform it men at such a young age. There are only a few doctors that know how to perform reversals, not to mention the procedure is pretty costly.
Vasectomy is absolutely a viable birth control solution. Actually -- and again, I'm going to assume you just simply haven't done the research or done any work with these issues, which should kind of incline you to give pause to spouting off on them -- even WITH a reversal, the cost is still less than the cost of most BC methods for women of a relatively close effectiveness rating for the span of their reproductive life, and carries FAR less complications and risks than women's methods of a nearly equivalent effectiveness -- like tubal ligation or IUD use -- do. And PLENTY of doctors do reversals: in fact, I'd venture it's safe to say that at this point in time, and likely even more so over the next few years, it's easier in many areas to find one of THOSE doctors than an abortion provider, if you want to cling to your idea that abortions are so easy to get. Too, all that's required age-wise is that a man be a legal adult: and that's totally workable per pregnancy rates, since even most pregnancies that occur with minor-aged women are via men over the age of majority.

And as already mentioned, several times, by more than one person, condoms are everywhere, easy to use, cheap and there's no reversal required. When used properly and consistently, they are astonishingly effective. And if you want to pick a bone about condoms with me, I'd suggest you don't. As someone who over the years has counseled more young women than I can think of with serious STI complications due to male partners who refused to wear condoms and were coercive about sex, and as someone exeptionally well versed in the pros and cons for all genders of every method of birth control under the sun, I can assure you it wouldn't be a wise place to go.

By the by? I feel comfortable saying that you're hardly looking at this objectively. I don't belive any of us could entirely, because it's just far too loaded, so I'm not sure what you think it'd net you to even make that claim. But a lot of the statements you have made are nothing close to objective.

[ 03-11-2006, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Miz Scarlet ]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kitka
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 22756

Icon 1 posted      Profile for kitka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"... awfully similiar to the pro-life argument that women should keep their legs closed if they can't handle the responsibilities."

Perhaps I'm off base, but the main brunt of the pro-life argument is that unborn children are entitled to full protection under the law, thus making abortion murder. Many pro-choice women (and men) advocate safe sex. It's not just a "pro-life" issue.

Consent to sex does equal consent to responsibility for women, whether it's parental or not. At the very least, consenting to sex comes with a variety of responsibilities for both parties, regardless of gender.

The "government" doesn't force men to pay alimony.

As other responders to this thread have suggested, the case in question isn't representative of the actual question of reproductive rights. And for the record, Miz Scarlet didn't suggest that men get vasectomies in order to avoid getting women pregnant.

Posts: 455 | From: New York, NY | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, let's just agree to disagree. It seems like this is going in circles. I wholeheartedly believe the government should stay out of our personal lives. It's sickening that a woman's unilateral choice can have so much control over a man's personal life for 18 years. You would expect something like this from a totalitarian government, not from a free, democratic society.

I definitely support Dubay in his right to abort parental responsibilities and the Men's groups that back him. I will certainly be following this case closely hoping the courts acknowledge a man's right to choose.

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
By all means, if you wish to let your arguments go, do so, especially considering how very little of the actual information you're willing to examine or address. Frankly, I personally would prefer, and I think it's safe to say that we all would, that the discussion was more about the original post at this point.

But.

quote:
It's sickening that a woman's unilateral choice can have so much control over a man's personal life for 18 years.
I will not let that stand as if it were fact. (Flatly, I'm having a hard time letting the strange idea that the U.S. is currently a free, democratic society stand as fact, but that's a whole different ball of wax, now, isn't it.)

Women are held to laws and cultural standards per child abandonment which men are not and never have been. Women do not have anything CLOSE to full reproductive rights and agency over their own bodies here. Women are the ones who are pregnant in the first place, and women have far less agency to choose not to have intercourse with men in the first place, even those who are NOT raped or coerced into sex. Women do not even have the agency to control these laws, or men bound to them, in the first place: ALL laws made which effect us are, and have always been, primarily made by male lawmakers. All these laws are primarily enforced by men. And this whole works is not simply a battle between men and women, or about women controlling men: how tremendously sad and how completely telling it's being framed that way.

And more to the point, men HAVE a very, very easy choice to make per reproduction, and even with this case alone, the man in question CHOSE, freely, without any force or pressure to do otherwise, NOT to use birth control which was and is readily available and easily accessible to him. He had an easy choice, he made a poor one because, from all we can gather via the available information, his desire to get laid without using birth control outweighed his desire not to be a parent. If this woman was in fact, knowingly dishonest about her fertility status, that sucks, and that's a horrid thing for anyone to do, but sexual partners of all genders lie to one another all the time, and very often, one or both parties suffers as a result. Often, at least one party has their life impacted in a difficult way. But a choice was very much able to be made by this man here: he was not without choice.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Perhaps I'm off base, but the main brunt of the pro-life argument is that unborn children are entitled to full protection under the law, thus making abortion murder. Many pro-choice women (and men) advocate safe sex. It's not just a "pro-life" issue."

Allow me to clarify. I hear many pro-lifers use the argument that women shouldn't have sex if they can't handle the potential consequences: "keep your legs closed if you don't want to get pregnant". This is very similiar to the argument that men shouldn't have sex if they can't handle the potential consequences: "keep your zipper up if you dno't want to pay child support".

"Consent to sex does equal consent to responsibility for women, whether it's parental or not. At the very least, consenting to sex comes with a variety of responsibilities for both parties, regardless of gender."

Consent to sex doesn't equal consent to PARENTAL responsibility for women. Telling a man he should pay child support for 18 years because he took a risk by having sex is awfully similiar to telling a woman she should have the baby because she took a risk by having sex. In my opinion a man paying 18 years of his paycheck for a child he never wanted is far more cumbersome than a woman going through 9 months of gestation.

If you look at it from an moral angle, I don't see why men can't opt-out. What's more morally repugnant, a man dodging parental responsibilities by not paying child support, or a woman killing a human life by having an abortion? The former is illegal, the latter is legal.

"As other responders to this thread have suggested, the case in question isn't representative of the actual question of reproductive rights. And for the record, Miz Scarlet didn't suggest that men get vasectomies in order to avoid getting women pregnant."

I'm sorry but it's just not realistic for all men to get a vasectomy who want to avoid parental responsibilities. Do you really expect 18 and 19 year old young men getting vasectomies? Doctors are reluctant to perform vasectomies on young men, especially young men who have no children. Many young men may want to have children later on, do you know that there are only few doctors able to perform reversals? Do you know that it is costly ranging from 5k - 20k? Did you know that the success rate of reversals are not 100%? It's ironic that those who spout people should do what they want their bodies are suggesting men should have surgery performed on them.

[ 03-11-2006, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's ironic that those who spout people should do what they want their bodies are suggesting men should have surgery performed on them.
Now, that's just plain funny coming from someone who in nearly EVERY post he has made at these boards has suggested that women should "just have an abortion." It's even more funny for someone who has noticed aruments are circular, but somehow not noticed -- though everyone else has -- the circular, disjointed arguments are his own.

NO ONE has suggested that vasectomy is the only option for all men who do not want children. It has been suggested as a viable OPTION. In fact, the only person who has suggested that there is only one option, a surgery, for people who do not want children, buddy, is you, and that's your suggestion that abortion for women is that answer.

If that sum of money -- for vasectomy and reversal -- seems outlandish to you, you have clearlly never done the math as to what birth control and sexual healthcare costs for women during the span of their reproductive life, especially if you factor in the costs of pregnancy and childbirth. And as someone who has never been pregnant -- and probably also never supported someone financially long-term, given your age, you truly have no call saying which is more cumbersome or difficult. Once more, you're also dismissing data given to you just because: 18 and 19 year old men are NOT the men who are responsible for the majority of pregnancies in the states (it's been 25-29s, with the next groups just above and below still over the age of 20, since at least 1960, as documented by the census and CDC, should you actually be interested in the real ages). I understand that it would be convenient if they were for you to make a point, but they are not. This is the case with a lot of data that has been given in this thread, and dismissed or misrepresented.

You suggested you'd cease your arguments here given you have no designs on really looking at viable data or in any way listening to others: I'm now suggesting you do same.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I like Karen Decrow's, the former President of NOW, statement: " Justices.... dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or put another way, autonomous women, making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

It's really too bad many feminists, who are not for women's rights over men's rights, don't support it.

[ 03-11-2006, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Vizion24 ]

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If we were verbally speaking, I gotta say that I'd earnestly wonder if you were deaf.

No one here, so far as I can tell, has yet suggested -- actually, you haven't given us the chance to even get there and discuss it -- that it is necessarily fair or proper that WHEN women CAN be fully automonous, make independent choices, and unilaterally choose to become pregnant and remain so, for men to be required by law to pay child support.

(I'm also fairly certain that no one here but myself has even identified herself as a feminist.)

What HAS been said is that stating this issue is equivalent or identical to the issue of women having ownership of their own bodies, and what and whom resides in them and for how long, is not apropos and is also, to some of us, deeply offensive.

[ 03-11-2006, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Miz Scarlet ]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
May I ask, do you consider yourself a feminist, meaning you are for equality of men and women under law?

I see parallels between Roe and men opting out. The freedom won for women in Roe v. Wade means more than control of her body, but control of her reproductive life, and control over the decision of when to become a parent. But there are so many men who have no control over their reproductive life.

If a woman has the unilateral decision, then she should have the unilateral responsibilities.

I hear some pro-choicers akin coerced gestation to slaverly. But that same logic, one can akin coerced child support to slaverly -- 18 years of hard labor or extra hours for a child you never wanted.

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This will be the last post I make to you directly, for the record, primarily because you just are not listening or thinking things through, and making it a bit impossible for other users to come in and discuss the case, rather than argue with you.

quote:
But there are so many men who have no control over their reproductive life.
The CHOICE to have sex or not is almost ALWAYS available to men. Men are so, so rarely raped by women (most male rape victims have been raped by other men), and when they are, it's rarely intercourse. So this, again, is simply a false statement. There are very, very FEW men who have NO control over their reproductive life, and one part of WHY Roe passed is because even the simple choice over whether or not to have intercourse is, in fact, NOT available to MANY women, quite conversely.

quote:
If a woman has the unilateral decision, then she should have the unilateral responsibilities.
If she truly did, from start to finish (which would include, among other things, ready, feasible access to 100% effective birth control methods which were safe for her to use and her use of them was culturally supported, and her male partner ALSO chosing to use same for himself), I'd have very little argument with that, if any. And I think you're more than intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying without my filling in all the rest of the blanks there.

I'm not about to define my feminism for you, or again, have you define it for me (or presume there is one defintion of feminism). because one last time, I would like for this thread to be about the case in question, not a personal interview of anyone who isn't in agreement with you or a discussion about feminism.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vizion24
Neophyte
Member # 27858

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vizion24     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If the option of abortion didn't exist, then I believe men should be coerced to take on parental/financial responsibilities for the child. Since women didn't have the option to opt-out, neither should men.

But as the law stands today, women have all the options to opt-out. As a matter of fact, millions of women do it every year by having abortions.

In discussing this issue, it seems a lot of people are one-sided and readily bash men for wanting to opt-out, calling them irresponsible. They say he shouldn't have had sex if he couldn't handle the consequences. Um, what about the women? How come no one bashes them for opting out by having an abortions. They also had sex and knew of the consequences. If dodging parental responsibilities by not paying child support for men is irresponsible, can't the same be said about women who dodge parental responsibilities by having an abortion? If men who ditch parental responsibilities are called "deadbeat dads", can't women who dodge parental responsibilities be called "murderous moms"?

When will the one-sideness and sexism end?

Posts: 13 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Karybu
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 20094

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Karybu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the option of abortion didn't exist, then I believe men should be coerced to take on parental/financial responsibilities for the child.
It isn't "coercion". It's the law. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your state representative - we can't help you.

quote:
But as the law stands today, women have all the options to opt-out.
Well, in South Dakota at least, women have essentially just lost that option. And it is really close to being taken away in a lot of other states, if not at least placed under a lot of restrictions.

Really, as Miz Scarlet already said, you seem totally unwilling to listen to any of the logical arguments presented by anyone here. So unless you're willing to do so, please refrain from posting the same thing time and time again so that other users can have a discussion about the article in question.

[ 03-12-2006, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: karybu ]

--------------------
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." -Arundhati Roy

Posts: 5799 | From: Canada/Australia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Also, refering to women who've had abortions as 'murderous moms' (or suggesting that this should be acceptable) is a real good way to get this thread closed and/or get yourself banned. Please refer to the user guidelines you agreed to when you signed up if you are confused as to why this is unacceptable here.

--------------------
Nursing is a work of heart!
~ unknown

Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkChild717
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 139

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DarkChild717     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For those of you just turning in, this debate began with an article reported on CNN.com.

That article had few details, so Miz S provided three additional articles:
Chicago Tribune
Kaiser Family Foundation
BBC

In essense, a man was told by his girlfriend that she was infertile and on birth control. She got pregnant, and chose not to abort. The man is suing to stop child support payments. He has his arguments, she has hers, and the child ends up with the short end of the stick.

So, as much as discussing the far reaching ramifications have been, what are the opinions on THIS specific case?

--------------------
Caylin, Scarleteen Volunteer
Love Scarleteen? Donations keep us around for you. So give a little! (Or a lot. Whatever works for you.)

Posts: 2789 | From: The Evergreen State | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

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.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3