the seahorse is the only male animal that gets knocked up
Dear Em & Lo,
The way I see it, there is simply no such concept as male reproductive rights. If your girl gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby, congratulations, you’re a dad! Pay up, sucker. If you want to keep it but she wants to abort it, tough luck — there goes your progeny. The only thing a dude can do is rubber up and screen for sexual partners with similar values.
We get it, the baby’s growing in the woman’s body, and ownership is 9/10ths of the law. But come on, now. There’s got to be some kind of reasonable compromise. I don’t have an easy answer to this, and I doubt anyone else will either. Men will continue to get a raw deal here. But could you open the topic to discussion?
— Cat Amongst the Pigeons
Consider it done! What do you think, do we need male reproductive rights? And if so, what would they be? Let the debate begin (no throwing things, please) in the comments section below.
Thank you Spes, you bring up some excellent points in your comments as well!
I think you have a great point, Doug.
I think people need to stop grand-standing about the sanctity of unborn life. The law has clearly upheld a woman’s right to choose, this issue has no bearing on whether or not you’re pro life or pro choice. It doesn’t matter what you think is right or wrong, it only matters what is. And what “is” right now is a massive disparity between father’s rights and mother’s rights when it comes to supporting a child. Like I said earlier, the father should have the right to know if someone is carrying his child and plans to give birth to it. I know a few people who, while admittedly acted stupidly when they were younger, were served “surprise” warrants for child support payments years after the child they never knew about was born. I would go so far as to say that the father not only has the right to knowledge of his child, he also should have the right to disown it for, say, 6 to 8 weeks after finding out about it. If he chooses that route, of course, he would have the same rights as the mother who put her child up for adoption; meaning he would not be allowed to contact the child or the mother in any way and the child would not be legally granted the knowledge of his father’s identity until the age of 18. That’s parity.
Bottom line is that even with the best intentions guys get screwed. Only guarantee is to get a vasectomy, and store up some juice in this fridge for when they’re ready to father their own kids.
oh – and by the way – do not give me that ”its my pussy and my responsibility” garbage – it takes 2 to tango and if the mom is pro-abortion and the dad is not – let the dad have some say in the matter and if the dad says to let the baby live then let it live.
i wholeheartedly agree with lee. the baby is the innocent one in the matter. the baby SHOULD NOT, REPEAT NOT, be given a death sentence it DOES NOT DESERVE!!! the father should be allowed to adopt the kid or put it up for adoption.
I didn’t read any of the previous comments…but I’m a girl and I’m thinking of the baby’s sake because I do not agree with abortion…if the mother wants to abort and the father wants the child, he should have the right to make the girl have the infant and then give him up to the father to take care of! The child should have a chance at life…not decided by the mother to just end its life…
Hi,
Original poster here. Let me begin by agreeing with what Johnny said before – maybe male “parental” rights would have been a better way to put it than “reproductive” rights. Obviously I’m not suggesting that women’s bodies should be legislated.
But I do perceive an unfair imbalance of control over the future once once sperm and egg meet.
In the event of an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, women basically have three chances to make it all go away:
1. morning after pill
2. abortion
3. adoption
While none of those options may appeal to some women as individuals, the options are there. Men have no such “make it all go away” option. With one trip to the doctor, a woman can erase what she considers to be a mistake. Whereas the guy is stuck with whatever she decides. No fair.
And for all you, “shoulda thought of that before you had unprotected sex” folks… there’s a HUGE percentage of the population who would consider it your just deserts if you took proper precautions and got pregnant anyway. “Should have waited till marriage, as God intended,” they’d say. No one likes to take responsibility when they fuck up, and everyone wishes for mercy when they do.
… you are in control of your own sperm… ’nuff said!
I think what a lot of people are missing is that a child is a lifetime commitment from both parents, and right now the man has no say in it. You can argue that he should have used protection or just not had sex, but that’s like saying abstinence education works. People are going to have sex, they always have and they always will. What about the cases where the woman is willfully negligent of birth control because she wants to have a child or specifically wants a child with this man. We can ignore it, but sometimes women prey on men by poking holes in the condom or not taking their birth control then railing the father in court for child support. They actually advise professional athletes to never trust a condom they didn’t purchase themselves for just this reason. These women are despicable, and certainly not representative of the greater population, but the simple fact that it CAN happen means there needs to be something on the books requiring that it cannot.
No woman should ever have to carry a child she doesn’t want or abort a child she does. Ever. To require a woman to carry a child to term or have an abortion is absolutely inhumane and an insult to personal rights. However, I feel the father has a right to know who is carrying his child and when it’s due. If he is not present at the appointments, the office should have to notify him by both mail and telephone. This not only prevents predatory women who do not care about their children from cashing in on famous fathers, but it also lets teenage boys know if they’re going to be a fatehr before it’s too late. The notification would be moot, though, if the woman has an abortion. The father need only know if she is keeping the child. When he receives this notification, and if he does not want a child, his recourse should be what would be equivalent to a “male abortion.” This would mean that for a fee, (I would say 1000-2000 that the mother receives) he waives all his parental rights and is not responsible for any part of the child’s welfare. This doesn’t just mean not paying though. This would mean that he CANNOT see the child, he is not allowed in the mother’s home or his child’s school or daycare without her consent and the mother is not allowed to bring the child to his home or work without his consent. This means all rights as a father are waived, ALL rights.
The final say in bringing the fetus to birth is the mother’s. This should not handcuff men in a lifetime of child support if they did not want the child.
Talia. Yes, I did voice that opinion. And yes, I’ll stand by it. I must admit, I am amused that you seem to think that I am a man. I’m not. Sit down, sweetheart, this is a real woman talking who is isn’t stupid, just one that believes in personal responsibility.
Granted it takes two to conceive a child in the natural order of things, and preferably it takes two to properly raise a child. BUT if a woman insists on carrying an unwanted child to term after the father explicitly stated that he wants nothing to do with the child, then she should be fully responsible for the care of the child. Yes, financially, too. (And if she can’t handle it financially, she should get an abortion. To do otherwise is just plain cruel, selfish, and abusive.) She wouldn’t have to worry about the finances of a child if she chose to abort. I believe if a man supports aborting the child, then he should pay for at least half of the expenses accrued.
And I’ll agree that if a man does want to come around in ten years because he realized that he made a mistake and now wants to be apart of the child life, he should have that option, too. NOT because he’s earned it or somehow deserves it, but because at that point the child should have a say in whether or not it want’s to know it’s father.–My dad skipped out on me when I was an infant, and then decided to come back into my life when I was 12. We no longer speak, but at least I stopped being a child wondering why daddy didn’t want me and had the chance to discover that he’s just an ass. A child shouldn’t be robbed of the chance to know their father because a woman’s foolish, stubborn pride. However if he is an abusive ass, or has the propensity to harm the child, then by all means keep him away.–Should a guy pay back-child support if he want’s to be a part of the child’s life later on? Sure, that would be fair. One could also apply such to a woman if she choose to carry the child to term, gave it up to the father because she didn’t want motherhood, and then decided to come back later. Equality, folks.
A man should NEVER EVER have the right to dictate, or even lawfully influence, what happens to a woman’s body concerning pregnancy, but neither should he be stripped of his right to choose fatherhood.
And to reiterate, both parties need to take personal responsibility for their choice to have sex by protecting themselves and discussing pregnancy along with STDs BEFORE having sex. And what’s so wrong with being a bit choosy about who you have sex with? Why does screening your potential partners such a bad thing? I don’t see how the ‘inconvenience’ of screening is too much to deal with, when it could save one from so much grief.
And stop with all this BS of ‘she poked holes in the condom’. Come on guys, don’t tell me you’re incapable of supplying and putting on your own condom. What a cheap cop-out.
@Meg
Hadn’t heard that, but it’s good to know.
I’m in a pretty good monogomous relationship at present, but if she ever decided to break it off, I’ll know I can help salve the seven-year itch. 😛
No, Katie. Just no. IDK how it is where you live, but here, people have the right to bodily autonomy, and women are considered people. We can (and probably should) talk about pre-conception and post-birth parental rights for men, but I’m not going back to the kind of society where women’s bodies are considered the property of men just because they are in a relationship. Marital rape was only outlawed a few short decades ago — why rush back so soon?! Your own personal anecdote, btw, doesn’t come close to what you’re suggesting. You *chose* to ask for input, and, as you say, it was still your decision in the end. That is a completely different animal.
@ Frank: take heart, I’m sure you’ve heard but if you haven’t, they’re working on a version of Depo for men. 🙂
It seems to me that it took two to produce a pregnancy,and it takes the commitment of the two people involved to raise and support the infant from the start of birth. Yet I’m to believe and think correctly of ‘That the male has nothing to say about,the termination of the pregnancy,because of a womens right to have the final say in this matter. I have felt for the longest time that people should be required to get an issued license to have a child through sexual relationships,be them married or not. Also if I may add,that this is a severe break down of our society in the rearing of our children through neglecting our responsibilty as parents in teaching values. So for the lack of our elected leaders to use some common sense,they put everyone in the same illiterate class,so we all can be held back. People “we are not all created equall as humans, and never will there be a “Law” that will ever make that work. Only in America
I meant *paternity* test, not pregnancy test, on my last comment up there.
I don’t think a vasectomy should be a man’s only form of reproductive rights. Should a woman’s only form of protection be tying her tubes? Sure, pregnancy is pretty hard to get when you’ve gotten the procedure, but it doesn’t discern between the right to have children and the right not to have children. I think you have to have both before you can say men have reproductive rights. Vasectomy covers the latter half, and after you have all the children you want, I think it’s a great idea.
But what about those of us who want to have kids, a family, and the like? I don’t think waiting until after you’ve tied the matrimonial knot is a good solution, either. The recent post:
https://www.emandlo.com/2009/10/dear-em-lo-hes-mr-perfect-except-for-the-sex/
shows what might happen when you wait until after your married to discover a rather important aspect of your partner. I’m really glad I didn’t wait until I was married to have sex. It’s a natural part of a relationship as it develops, and why forcibly stunt the growth of a relationship like that? Because you know what else is risky? Agreeing to spend years of your life with someone to build a relationship that might not last the rest of your life.
I wish there was a clear answer to what we should do to ensure male reproductive rights, but I know that, “just keep it packed in” or, “if someone tricks you it’s your own fault for not seeing through it” are at best shoddy answers.