men want out of unplanned pregnancies

[nickel]

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

[molecularfire]

Some people are just slime...

[PoorAvatar]

Isn't that what most men do anyway. I kinda like the idea.

[mcs328]

Well I can see where there are special cases where a man may want to opt out. Maybe the contraception failed to work or is someone was evil enough save the used condom and use the contents to get preggo. I mean there are really special circumstances.

[cheapie]

guess what....accidents happen. if you want to guarantee that she won't get pregnant, don't have sex. short of that, there's always a chance of getting pregnant or contracting a disease.

i'm far more concerned with custody inequalities.

[zenbooty]

Dude this whole thread is giving me deja vu. Even the responses. Has this been discussed before?

[Nija]

Dude this whole thread is giving me deja vu. Even the responses. Has this been discussed before?

[LPMiller]

i'm far more concerned with custody inequalities.

me too. It's not about the fathers rights so much as the lack of rights for the kid. Don't want to worry about it, don't screw.

[blueindian]

Dude this whole thread is giving me deja vu. Even the responses. Has this been discussed before?

there is no spoon.



but there is a lame ass lawsuit pending.

[Merlin]

Don't want to worry about it, don't screw.
I think that kind of misses the point. As the one fella said women have the ability to engage in sex and then have some ability to manage the consequences. Men don't. We are stuck going along for the ride the woman chooses regardless of our wishes. She wants an abortion and you don't - too bad. You want one and she doesn't - again too bad.

And women have been using getting pregnant to trap a man since the beginning of time (I know, an ugly stereotype that clearly does not apply across the board but we all know it does happen. And in the case sited above she got pregnant after telling him she couldn't). Shouldnt' the playing field be leveled somewhat?

[johnnymk]

I think that kind of misses the point. As the one fella said women have the ability to engage in sex and then have some ability to manage the consequences. Men don't. We are stuck going along for the ride the woman chooses regardless of our wishes. She wants an abortion and you don't - too bad. You want one and she doesn't - again too bad.

And women have been using getting pregnant to trap a man since the beginning of time (I know, an ugly stereotype that clearly does not apply across the board but we all know it does happen. And in the case sited above she got pregnant after telling him she couldn't). Shouldnt' the playing field be leveled somewhat?


:stupid: It's called the double standard, and there's a ton of them.

[LegendKiller]

I agree with Merlin. If women have all of the rights and can stick somebody with the responsibility, how is that equal protection?

[nickel]

i see what Merlin is saying, but the bottom line is if you don't want to become a parent don't have sex.

[LegendKiller]

i see what Merlin is saying, but the bottom line is if you don't want to become a parent don't have sex.


If it only were that easy.

How can somebody say "If you don't want to become a parent, don't have sex, men. However, women can do whatever they want and force men into it".

It gives women all of the rights and men none. As far as I can tell, that's a double standard and could be a violation of civil liberties.

[welfareloser]

i agree in theory, but here's the problem: do you *really* want to do anything that would allow a man to force, cajole, or otherwise push a woman toward an abortion? i'd honestly rather see sex with 5-year-olds legalized.


there was one good point by the woman who lamely called the whole thing "un-PC." personal responsibility... every man should trust only himself and use protection no matter what. if he had sex, he should knwo there is a chance, no matter how small, that a baby will result. simple. if he wants 100% assurance, there's abstinence and vasectomy. he's not powerless. a doc telling a woman she'll "never" have kids... yeah. docs aren't always right. even more inportant, women don't always accurately remember what a doc said "highly unlikey" and "probably won't be able" sound pretty durned awful to a woman who wants kids someday, and can quickly become "omg i'll never have kids." and... people lie. a lot. especially when sex is involved. duh. personal responsibility. if *HE* is absolutely against having a child to support, then *HE* needs to absolutely take control of preventing it. period. end of story. when merlin says "men have no control" ... i say... the man already gave up his control to the woman, and that's his own damned fault. he didn't have to.

now, current laws do need some updating... i wish this lawyer had chosen a better case to open the door on this issue. for example, the child of a marriage should not necessarily be supported by the dude if a paternity test proves the kid belongs to someone else. that's a no-brainer, imo... talk about some laws that need to catch up with technology.

now, there is one situation where i think a man should be able to get out of all financial responsibility for a pregnancy he caused ... that's when it can be *proven* that the woman went out of her way to sneak his sperm to her egg while feigning protection... like the case of the blowjob where the woman disappeared into the bathroom and gave birth 9 months later. she FORCED the pregnancy to happen despite his good faith efforts.

now, if they were both in the same boat, using some protection (or none) but it happened anyway (as it is wont to do) ... he's no less culpable than she. and while it is a shame that she has more say, and more control... i just don't see a good way around that.

[nickel]

If it only were that easy.

How can somebody say "If you don't want to become a parent, don't have sex, men. However, women can do whatever they want and force men into it".

It gives women all of the rights and men none. As far as I can tell, that's a double standard and could be a violation of civil liberties.
i didn't expect everyone to want to hear what i just posted, but it is the bottom line.

[Merlin]

and while it is a shame that she has more say, and more control... i just don't see a good way around that.
I agree. While I see the playing field is clearly not level I don't see a good solution. Giving a guy the ability to just make a declaration and walk away is too easy. But the current situation where he is stuck abiding by and paying support for someone else's decision is not right either.

Sorry folks, I don't have any bright ideas. I just know something is wrong.

[Jeffbx]

i see what Merlin is saying, but the bottom line is if you don't want to become a parent don't have sex.


Yes, and if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive. And if you don't want to die a horrible fiery death, don't live in a flammable house.

Accidents happen all the time. Of course prevention of the incident is the best way to avoid the situation, but it's really not that simple nor that black & white.

Like WL mentioned, this was a lousy case to start with, but there certainly are situations where this should be a consideration - men who are tricked into having kids, or forced to pay for kids that biologically are not even theirs. There are rare instances where women use men to get pregnant against his wishes, and there needs to be an avenue for those women to have to take full responsibility for that action.

I agree that accidents are the responsibilities of BOTH parties. But in certain situations where there is malicious intent on the part of one person, that person should be held fully responsible.

[Memo]

Even in non malicious cases the laws aren't fair. Also, I don't think unwanted pregnancies are really accidents. People don't accidentally have sex. Sex is like a gamble when you're not looking to have a baby, even with protection, and some people just lose. Anyways..

If a woman becomes pregnant she can either abort or keep the baby. If she keeps the child she can choose to impose a lifetime of child support on the man, even if it's not what he wants. If she aborts the child when the man wants it she is emotionally scarring the man as well. She is forcing her wishes, maliciously or not on a man and is forever impacting the rest of his life.

A man, on the other hand, can NOT impose his wishes on a woman in the case of a pregnancy. It's pretty much a one way thing where they guy always gets the short end of the deal. The law is not fair.

That said, I don't really think there's a way to fix it.

[Cubsfan]

A man, on the other hand, can NOT impose his wishes on a woman in the case of a pregnancy. It's pretty much a one way thing where they guy always gets the short end of the deal. The law is not fair.
I guess I'd say life isn't fair either then. The man's pretty much done after he has his fun. The woman's got nine months of being sick, health risks, etc... So maybe it should be law that women can poison the men so that they get as sick as the women... :D

[LegendKiller]

I guess I'd say life isn't fair either then. The man's pretty much done after he has his fun. The woman's got nine months of being sick, health risks, etc... So maybe it should be law that women can poison the men so that they get as sick as the women... :D

Being sick for 9 months isn't the issue. Being poor for 18 years after having no say in the process is.

[nickel]

Being sick for 9 months isn't the issue. Being poor for 18 years after having no say in the process is.
but you did have a say, (excluding those special cases like where someone saves the condom and impregnates themselves).

[zero2dash]

I can see good points on both sides of the argument but I think the bottom line is - if you want to have sex with someone, you're taking several risks, and (obviously) having sex after the fact is accepting those associated risks. STDs, pregnancies, and the fact that the other person might go psycho and slash your tires when you don't call them the next day. :P

[LegendKiller]

but you did have a say, (excluding those special cases like where someone saves the condom and impregnates themselves).

So, all rights are forfeit after the fact for the men whereas women control everything and maintain all rights after?

Yeah, thats *really* fair and just. There is no other example in the history of common law where this type of double standard exists and has been upheld.

I agree with those who say there is no good solution. However, maintaining that it is a fair case and that it is just, is not looking at it objectively, imo.

[kgsilvas]

Hadn't really thought about pregnancy and child support in these terms before. The guy does have a valid point.

[welfareloser]

So, all rights are forfeit after the fact for the men whereas women control everything and maintain all rights after?

Yeah, thats *really* fair and just. There is no other example in the history of common law where this type of double standard exists and has been upheld.

I agree with those who say there is no good solution. However, maintaining that it is a fair case and that it is just, is not looking at it objectively, imo.

i understand that angle, but i think a more accurate way to look at it is that all rights are not forfeit after the fact... a pregnancy happens in a woman's body. that's as me-and-mine as it gets, and there isn't a guy on the planet who doesn't understand that. that's simply how it *IS*, and the man has every right in the world to base his decisions on those very well-known facts :shrug:

if there is a conflict between the man's and woman's wishes in the matter, of course we have to let the woman decide. calling that unfair is like calling it unfair that women have to deal with pregnancy and men don't. that's just how it is, and no law can make it "level" or "fair", just as no law can do that when one party wants a pregnancy and the other doesn't: no matter what happens, somebody's screwed.

[mcs328]

Isn't that the point of Kanye West's "Gold Digger"? Sorry I'm not that rap centric but isn't one line like "18 years, 18 years, after 18 years found out the kid wasn't his". What happens then...does he get all his child support back?

Again no solution comes to mind but there are cases where men do have a say that involves pushing preggo ppl down stairs trying to induce a miscarriage or just sheet intimidation. Of course that route is illegal and everyone would kick his ass.

[clutchy]

I agree with Merlin. If women have all of the rights and can stick somebody with the responsibility, how is that equal protection?

joint cause. I'm with you!:shakehand


Being sick for 9 months isn't the issue. Being poor for 18 years after having no say in the process is.

excellent point. I'm making the same case here:http://forums.gotapex.com/showthread.php?t=97347


near the bottom.


i understand that angle, but i think a more accurate way to look at it is that all rights are not forfeit after the fact... a pregnancy happens in a woman's body. that's as me-and-mine as it gets, and there isn't a guy on the planet who doesn't understand that. that's simply how it *IS*, and the man has every right in the world to base his decisions on those very well-known facts :shrug:

if there is a conflict between the man's and woman's wishes in the matter, of course we have to let the woman decide. calling that unfair is like calling it unfair that women have to deal with pregnancy and men don't. that's just how it is, and no law can make it "level" or "fair", just as no law can do that when one party wants a pregnancy and the other doesn't.

very true. women are a slave to the species.

Also one of the reasons i don't like abortion. If you don't have it, then the playing field is leveled. Not a whole lot of choices for either person. rape/health exempted.

[welfareloser]

Also one of the reasons i don't like abortion. If you don't have it, then the playing field is leveled.

:spock:

[nickel]

i understand that angle, but i think a more accurate way to look at it is that all rights are not forfeit after the fact... a pregnancy happens in a woman's body. that's as me-and-mine as it gets, and there isn't a guy on the planet who doesn't understand that. that's simply how it *IS*, and the man has every right in the world to base his decisions on those very well-known facts :shrug:

if there is a conflict between the man's and woman's wishes in the matter, of course we have to let the woman decide. calling that unfair is like calling it unfair that women have to deal with pregnancy and men don't. that's just how it is, and no law can make it "level" or "fair", just as no law can do that when one party wants a pregnancy and the other doesn't: no matter what happens, somebody's screwed.
:agree: good perspective.

[Memo]

i understand that angle, but i think a more accurate way to look at it is that all rights are not forfeit after the fact... a pregnancy happens in a woman's body. that's as me-and-mine as it gets, and there isn't a guy on the planet who doesn't understand that. that's simply how it *IS*, and the man has every right in the world to base his decisions on those very well-known facts :shrug:

if there is a conflict between the man's and woman's wishes in the matter, of course we have to let the woman decide. calling that unfair is like calling it unfair that women have to deal with pregnancy and men don't. that's just how it is, and no law can make it "level" or "fair", just as no law can do that when one party wants a pregnancy and the other doesn't: no matter what happens, somebody's screwed.

That reasoning is flawed to me. A woman's body -> woman's decision -> woman's responsibility would fit perfectly right here. But that's not the way it is. It's the responsibility of both parents. So why can't both parents have a part in the decision making process after conception?

[guiseppewv]

That reasoning is flawed to me. A woman's body -> woman's decision -> woman's responsibility would fit perfectly right here. But that's not the way it is. It's the responsibility of both parents. So why can't both parents have a part in the decision making process after conception?

:stupid:

[LegendKiller]

i understand that angle, but i think a more accurate way to look at it is that all rights are not forfeit after the fact... a pregnancy happens in a woman's body. that's as me-and-mine as it gets, and there isn't a guy on the planet who doesn't understand that. that's simply how it *IS*, and the man has every right in the world to base his decisions on those very well-known facts :shrug:

if there is a conflict between the man's and woman's wishes in the matter, of course we have to let the woman decide. calling that unfair is like calling it unfair that women have to deal with pregnancy and men don't. that's just how it is, and no law can make it "level" or "fair", just as no law can do that when one party wants a pregnancy and the other doesn't: no matter what happens, somebody's screwed.

Yes, but the pregnancy lasts about 4% of the timespan of 18 years (sorry, I am a numbers person). From that perspective, a woman's control lasts much longer than 9 months. The effects last 18 years.


If it were only 9 months and thats it, then I would have no problem with reconciling the issue. However, with 9 months only being 4% of the total time that a man has to deal with the issue, I'd say he at least deserves some rights in the matter. At this point, he gets none.

Not saying that I am advocting that women should be forced to anything. From my point of view it is a terrible situation that is completely f'd up for all parties. However, not recognizing the fact that men's rights are completely usurped is just as bad as saying that women should have no rights over their own body. Neither perspective is wholly correct.

[LPMiller]

If it only were that easy.

How can somebody say "If you don't want to become a parent, don't have sex, men. However, women can do whatever they want and force men into it".

It gives women all of the rights and men none. As far as I can tell, that's a double standard and could be a violation of civil liberties.

it is surprisingly easy to not have sex. And if, as a man, I can't insist on a condom and take control of reproduction in that regard, I'm really not bright enough to be just sticking it where ever it fits.

Men being able to opt out of child care would send this country into a total tailspin.

[LegendKiller]

it is surprisingly easy to not have sex. And if, as a man, I can't insist on a condom and take control of reproduction in that regard, I'm really not bright enough to be just sticking it where ever it fits.

Men being able to opt out of child care would send this country into a total tailspin.


There are plenty of countries that do not go into a "tail spin" that do not force men into taking care of their children. Out of wedlock births are not as negative in those countries.

However, I have never advocated the position that men should be allowed to do this. I just think it's a conceptually incorrect way of looking at it, in it's current form. However, it is the functionally correct way of looking at it given our societal norms.

[DarkFury]

it is surprisingly easy to not have sex. And if, as a man, I can't insist on a condom and take control of reproduction in that regard, I'm really not bright enough to be just sticking it where ever it fits.

Men being able to opt out of child care would send this country into a total tailspin.
Condoms break... accidents happen (spillage and whatnot).

If you choose to have sex you can take whatever precautions, but no matter what, nothing is 100% effective and that small percentage will cost you dearly as that is the part you will end up paying for.

Guess you roll the dice... you win alot and you risk alot but when you lose, you can lose big.

I guess from that perspective you basically have to put it in your own hands... (literally) to avoid this situation altogether. :heh:

[johnnymk]

I guess from that perspective you basically have to put it in your own hands... (literally) to avoid this situation altogether. :heh:


Madame Palm and her five ugly sisters...Always faithful and always safe:smash:

[molecularfire]

Man, this thread got busy fast. Sorry for the long post but a lot has been posted that I wanted to respond to... and yes, DF this is my honest opinion... not arguing for the sake of arguing (there are enough people arguing both sides that I don't feel particularly obligated to post anything except my honest opinion).


MCS posted: Well I can see where there are special cases where a man may want to opt out. Maybe the contraception failed to work or is someone was evil enough save the used condom and use the contents to get preggo. I mean there are really special circumstances.
Contraceptions are designed to decrease the risk of pregnancy, not relieve men of the risks. Using contraception does not mean no risk of pregnancy and it should not mean no responsibility for taking care of the helpless life you created. As for women using used condoms, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that it is a common scenario and we can’t make laws that screw up the common scenarios to account for the uncommon ones.

Merlin posted: I think that kind of misses the point. As the one fella said women have the ability to engage in sex and then have some ability to manage the consequences. Men don't. We are stuck going along for the ride the woman chooses regardless of our wishes. She wants an abortion and you don't - too bad. You want one and she doesn't - again too bad...
Yeah, the playing field isn’t equal. It has never been equal and unless science makes some major breakthroughs it isn’t going to be equal. If you’re religious blame whatever god(s) you worship. If not, blame nature. Yes there is a double standard. It was started by physiology and propagated by societies because flat out we can’t change the initial physiological double standard. Women have the ability to bear children, men don’t. Oddly enough I haven’t heard too many men complain about this part… just that as a society we let women choose whether to erase their mistake and not do the same for men. As for women trapping men into pregnancies… I guess if the woman rapes you (don’t laugh, it happens) or she shows up in the middle of the night nude… and you sleep in the nude… and she turns off all the lights and closes the curtains so that it’s completely dark in the room and positions herself so that you bump into her at exactly the right spot while you’re walking to the bathroom to take a leak in the middle of the night then you could have sex without making that decision… but otherwise men do have the choice of making the decision whether or not to have sex. As for women lying to men, come on, what in a relationship isn’t a lie. Both members spend most of the time lying to each other anyways… you have only yourself to blame if you trust anything the other person says.

LK posted: How can somebody say "If you don't want to become a parent, don't have sex, men. However, women can do whatever they want and force men into it".

It gives women all of the rights and men none. As far as I can tell, that's a double standard and could be a violation of civil liberties.

What are you talking about? I can easily say that if you don’t want to be a parent then don’t have sex because well… it really is that simple. Women cannot do whatever they want. If you refuse to have sex with them then guess what, they can’t force you into it (well… I guess they could but there are laws against that). Women if they find out that they are pregnant can choose to bail themselves and the man out by choosing to kill the child. That’s different from what you said.

Welfare posted: i'd honestly rather see sex with 5-year-olds legalized.
Remind me to never let you babysit.

Welfare posted: now, current laws do need some updating... i wish this lawyer had chosen a better case to open the door on this issue. for example, the child of a marriage should not necessarily be supported by the dude if a paternity test proves the kid belongs to someone else. that's a no-brainer, imo... talk about some laws that need to catch up with technology.

now, there is one situation where i think a man should be able to get out of all financial responsibility for a pregnancy he caused ... that's when it can be *proven* that the woman went out of her way to sneak his sperm to her egg while feigning protection... like the case of the blowjob where the woman disappeared into the bathroom and gave birth 9 months later. she FORCED the pregnancy to happen despite his good faith efforts.

In both scenarios, the guy is still bailing out on a little kid to make things more convenient on himself. I know that the majority out there will not agree with me on this but that still sounds like quite a slimy thing to do. In the first scenario if the kid is too young to have grown attached to you and if the identity of the genetic father is known then fine, do the switch-a-roo. If the identity of the genetic father is not known or if the kid has already accepted you as the father… seems pretty slimy to bail out on the kid. As for the second scenario, I think the woman should be jailed on charges of fraud and the kid put up for adoption. Not a great scenario given how over-extended our adoption/foster care system is but it isn’t safe for the kid to be with the woman and despite how much I would want the guy to be a man and make the sacrifice for his child I am not willing to go as far as to force it on him given the cohersion involved.

Jeff posted: Yes, and if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive. And if you don't want to die a horrible fiery death, don't live in a flammable house.

Accidents happen all the time. Of course prevention of the incident is the best way to avoid the situation, but it's really not that simple nor that black & white.

Yes, it is that simple. In our society driving (or taking some sort of mass transit) is something that is necessary… as is living in a house. Sex is NOT a necessary part of life (except for the obvious contraception part). Despite what your penis says, we do have a choice to say no. If we choose to have sex with our without contraception we should accept the consequences of our decision. Saying that it isn't that simple without saying how you can't choose to say no is just a cop-out.

Memo posted: It's pretty much a one way thing where they guy always gets the short end of the deal. The law is not fair.
Physiology isn’t fair and no law is going to change that. I guess the question that we all have to ask ourselves is what is more important to us… our money or the welfare of a child. It's pretty clear to me where the men in this lawsuit stand.

Memo posted: That reasoning is flawed to me. A woman's body -> woman's decision -> woman's responsibility would fit perfectly right here. But that's not the way it is. It's the responsibility of both parents. So why can't both parents have a part in the decision making process after conception?
They do. The problem comes when they disagree on the course of action. There is only three people involved and the third one hasn’t developed enough of a brain to be able to communicate his/her wishes yet. That’s why it should be the law’s job to decide what is in the best interest of the child. The problem arises IMO when the law chooses to side with one or the other person with a voice instead of the one with no voice.

[LegendKiller]

a bunch of quotes'

Lets assume you get into an accident with me. You were at fault, partially, because you were driving. You had the choice to drive or not, you could have walked or taken a bus. Instead, you drove and we had a mutual collision.

However, since you were the one to leave the house first, you are at more fault than I am. Furthermore, you have no ability to escape fault, since it is automatically your fault. Meanwhile, my I will collect money from you for 18 years, even though it was my decision to leave the house also. However, it's still your fault.

That is more or less what we are saying. No matter what, it's "don't leave the house or it's your fault". There is no mutual fault, there is no compromise. There is no sharing of responsibility. It is *ALL* men's fault and NONE of their decision. Furthermore, since it is *ALL* their fault and in spite of it being NONE of their decision, they *STILL* have to pay.

Sorry, but the "Don't go there if you don't want a kid" argument smacks of dismissive apathy. Crap happens and while precautions can be made to avoid 99.999% of circumstances, there are still chances.

Even if it still happens, you cannot say that somebody should give up all of their rights because somebody else has taken them away.


What's really sad about this situation is that if a woman had an abortion and the man wanted a kid, then the man is screwed. If the woman keeps the kid despite the man's objection, he is screwed. Society says it's all the mans fault so he has no rights because he made the decision to have sex and therefore automatically gave up his rights.

[welfareloser]

'

Lets assume you get into an accident with me. ...

However, since you were the one to leave the house first, you are at more fault than I am. Furthermore, you have no ability to escape fault, since it is automatically your fault. Meanwhile, my I will collect money from you for 18 years, even though it was my decision to leave the house also. However, it's still your fault.

That is more or less what we are saying. No matter what, it's "don't leave the house or it's your fault". There is no mutual fault, there is no compromise. There is no sharing of responsibility. It is *ALL* men's fault and NONE of their decision. Furthermore, since it is *ALL* their fault and in spite of it being NONE of their decision, they *STILL* have to pay.

Sorry, but the "Don't go there if you don't want a kid" argument smacks of dismissive apathy. .

huh? all man's fault, and only the man has to pay? wtf?

men pay 20% of their income in child support. the woman pays... as much as it takes to raise that child. she does the raising. etc. how are you coming to the conclusion that the woman is somehow exculpated and responsibility free?!?!?!

"don't go there if you don't want a kid" is not dismissive apathy. we all know pregnancy is a risk of sex, and having sex is like signing a contract accepting that risk. SINCE we already know that, by US law, each person gets to decide for him or herself what s/he does with his/her body, we already know that the woman gets to decide all by herself whether to go with abortion, adoption, or motherhood. again, if he is so freakin adamant that he will NOT be paying for offspring, he can have a vasectomy... that's about as close to 100% as anything gets in this world. otherwise, he has accepted the risks of sleeping with a woman who may not want to abort a child that he helped create...

here's the last thing you left out of your equation: the child's rights. child support isn't for the woman. it's for the child. in fact, it is illegal for me to NOT accept child support for my oldest son, much as i would like to kiss that annoyance goodbye. that's eg's money, and his biological has to provide it. period. doesn't matter that the biological is constantly coming up with new ways not to pay it, and that i have better things to do than "remind" him to do so. PARENTS PAY FOR THE CHILDREN THEY CREATE. that's one of the very basic ground rules of our civilization. i'm still not seeing a durned thing about it that is unfair. again, the only unfair part is that the pregnancy falls on the woman... and, again, men already know that, and can base their decisions on the well-known risks.

[welfareloser]

That reasoning is flawed to me. A woman's body -> woman's decision -> woman's responsibility would fit perfectly right here. But that's not the way it is.

but that *is* the way it is... the man gets to make all the decisions regarding his body. and the woman shares the responsibility for the child it took two to create.


It's the responsibility of both parents. So why can't both parents have a part in the decision making process after conception?

they can. 99+% of the time, they do. most couples (and non-couples, for that matter) come to an agreement one way or the other. but when it comes down to a fight over baby or abortion, and neither side is budging, there's no compromise. you have to pick one or the other. and, (in a vacuum where there is no right/wrong debate on abortion, of course) that choice belongs to the woman simply because of the nature of the beast that is pregnancy.



look at it this way: if there was no such thing as abortion, would you still think it was okay for men to abandon their offspring?

[welfareloser]

and now i must say... upon further reflection, there is a small flaw in my argument. by my own reasoning, a woman knows full well that a man may or may not want a child if she gets knocked up... okay. i'm seeing the inherent unfairness.

anyway. you still just can't change the law. it's as fair as it can get. a kid gets BOTH parents' support. that's as fair as it gets.

so, besides letting men not pay for their kids, our other options for change are to allow men to decide that women should get abortions they don't want, and/or to allow them to decide to force women to carry pregnancies they don't want.

imo, it's less fair (than the current state of things) to allow men to force women to have children they don't want... consider:

- women would be enslaved for 9+ months, and endure permanent changes to their body, and be forced to accept the risks of all the different permanent awful things that can happen as a result. on the flip side, a man forced to pay child support... yeah. it's a percentage of income, and if you have no income, you don't pay anything. that ain't slavery, and it ain't permanent.

- the reality of what happens when women carry unwanted pregnancies. tehy damage the crap out of the fetuses. the data are alarming. for a good summary, read freakonomics.

- there are all kinds of ways to abort fetuses. i know a 73 year old woman who has had 13 abortions, 11 of them self-administered. she was horribly abused, nobody knew it, nobody helped her, despite her best efforts to get help. had the guy known, he would have forced her to have the kids. she eventually escaped, but had to leave her 3 kids with the abuser. she went on to raise 3 more wonderful children. i've met 5 of her 6 kids (one was killed in adolecense) and two of the three she had first are, to put it delicately, unwell. burdens on society. (the other of the first batch is crazy, has been in prison, but is durn near 7 feet tall and likely pretty tough to abuse from the age of 14 or so on... anyway, he's not exactly a productive member of society, but not a burden, either. i enjoy his company... at arm's length, anyhoo ;) ) the two latter children are absolutely delightful, productive members of society. i know, just an anecdote... just sayin. when a woman wants an abortion, it doesn't pay for society to second-guess her, if for no other reason than that society don't know squat about any given individual.

it'd be a less fair situation if men were allowed to force a woman to pay for a child all by themselves, and also if they were allowed to force a woman to have an abortion she didn't want... i'm tired o typin now, but you get the idea, right? :P

[surfer]

Vasectomy doesn't sound too bad...

[welfareloser]

There are plenty of countries that do not go into a "tail spin" that do not force men into taking care of their children. Out of wedlock births are not as negative in those countries.

exactly. that, and welfare is actually adequate. key word in your statement: "other." *this* country would go into a tailspin. a LOT of guys would opt out of paying if it was an option, and we're already shamefully tightfisted with the welfare. honestly, it's just not an option.

[LegendKiller]

and now i must say... upon further reflection, there is a small flaw in my argument. by my own reasoning, a woman knows full well that a man may or may not want a child if she gets knocked up... okay. i'm seeing the inherent unfairness.

anyway. you still just can't change the law. it's as fair as it can get. a kid gets BOTH parents' support. that's as fair as it gets.




Exactly! Men aren't involved at any point. I'd never advocate men controlling women and using them as an incubator. However, all sides should be considered. Then for men to get "locked up" for 18 years due to the woman not considering the man's position isn't completely fair.

From the kid's viewpoinit, it's fair in all cases. Kids need lots of support.

However, I always maintain that the system, while inherently flawed, is the best one for our society.

As far as other countries,who don't have a stigma against out of wedlock, nor child support (AFAIK) do have strong social programs to support the women and children.

Since our society is Puritan in founding and has a very strong continual religious foundation, you still find the "responsibility" factor.

In the end, there is no solution that would work. However, people shouldn't just consider men lame ducks in the whole situation.

[Thesifer]

So if a woman decided that she does not want the kid so she is going to put it up for adoption and the father steps in and says "No I want this child I will take him." The woman has to pay child support right???:umm:

If they even LET that happen, I would be willing to bet that the woman get's to either choose to still put the child up for adoption, or give it to the father and not have to worry about any sort of payment.

Also I have seen too many cases where the mother receives child support and instead of spending it all on her kid and his wellbeing or for Rent /etc. Anything relating to the child, She ends up with a new outfit every month, and a new car. While the kid had the same clothes for two years straight. Etc. I'm an advocate against unmonitored child support. If the Father has to pay, he should be legally allowed to check up on the living conditions and anything else that his child should deal with. Regardless of Custody.

I know all of those statements don't really go together, but just my thoughts on the entire issue. ( That I'm sure no one will read )

[cheapie]

it is surprisingly easy to not have sex. And if, as a man, I can't insist on a condom and take control of reproduction in that regard, I'm really not bright enough to be just sticking it where ever it fits.

Men being able to opt out of child care would send this country into a total tailspin.


agreed. initially it sounds like mens' rights vs womens' right. until you realize the kid is getting screwed because his idiot parents either weren't prepared to handle the responsibility of having a kid, his mom is a coniving wench that is using the child as a tool, or has a loser of a father that is trying to escape the responsiblity for something that he did.

there is no good answer. if you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. if you want to then have unprotected sex. everything in the middle is not the easiest to deal with. :shrug:

[gwilks98]

This is why I was against abortions. No one thinks of the kid's rights. Only their own. I never bought the "my body, my choice" crap. Yeah, well, now the guys are saying, "My wallet, my choice" and you've got two sides selfishly fighting over the control to royally fvck up the next generation.

I almost wish these people were required by law to get neutered.

As far as the Kanye West song goes, here's a tip: Get a paternity test instead of writing an 18 year blank check. No one ever said the high school dropout was smart...



imo, it's less fair (than the current state of things) to allow men to force women to have children they don't want... consider:

- women would be enslaved for 9+ months, and endure permanent changes to their body, and be forced to accept the risks of all the different permanent awful things that can happen as a result. on the flip side, a man forced to pay child support... yeah. it's a percentage of income, and if you have no income, you don't pay anything. that ain't slavery, and it ain't permanent.

- the reality of what happens when women carry unwanted pregnancies. tehy damage the crap out of the fetuses. the data are alarming. for a good summary, read freakonomics.
<snipped horror story>


Consider this: the responsibility for child prevention happens before the child is conceived in many people's eyes. Many people, myself included, feel that abortion is outright murder. How would you feel if someone was going to murder your child and you had NO say in it.

I feel really sorry for your friend and her situation, but I'm not fond of using the rarest of examples and using them as the base for comparison. It sounds more like you'd be treating the symptoms instead of the real underlying problem. If someone's in a bad relationship and needs to get out, get them those means. That's like saying if you're abused, you should get free emergency room visits so you don't bleed to death. You're addressing the wrong problem, and it won't go away until you start fixing the right one.

My bottom line is, if you don't want to have kids, go by a sex toy. Hold yourself accountable if you're going to take even the smallest risk of having one.

[welfareloser]

Consider this: the responsibility for child prevention happens before the child is conceived in many people's eyes. Many people, myself included, feel that abortion is outright murder. How would you feel if someone was going to murder your child and you had NO say in it..


how can you possibly think i haven't considered that? t'ain't news to me, dude. ;) that's just a separate debate. all of my arguments follow from the fact that abortion is legal. if it wasn't, all of my arguments would be moot, anyway.



I feel really sorry for your friend and her situation, but I'm not fond of using the rarest of examples and using them as the base for comparison. It sounds more like you'd be treating the symptoms instead of the real underlying problem. If someone's in a bad relationship and needs to get out, get them those means. That's like saying if you're abused, you should get free emergency room visits so you don't bleed to death. You're addressing the wrong problem, and it won't go away until you start fixing the right one..

uhhh... i'm not addressing the wrong problem. i wasn't trying to address the problem you think i was :shrug: i wasn't trying make a normative statement that abortion should be legal vs. should not be. again... that's a separate debate. and i certainly wasn't advocating an abortion as the best solution. they were tragedies. they were the best solution available to her. do you really think i'd prefer those abortions to getting her the f*** out of her personal hell? obviously that would have been ideal. she couldn't make it happen.

i was making an empirical statement about the reality of the social costs of allowing men to force women to continue pregnancies the women don't want. that's highly relevant to whether or not we should allow men to make the decision instead of women.

and, for the record, other than the sheer number of abortions she had, her situation is hardly one-in-a-million.


My bottom line is, if you don't want to have kids, go by a sex toy. Hold yourself accountable if you're going to take even the smallest risk of having one.

right. no arguments there. prevention is great. but what we're talking about is what to do once it's done.

[theorangeone]

So if a woman decided that she does not want the kid so she is going to put it up for adoption and the father steps in and says "No I want this child I will take him." The woman has to pay child support right???:umm:

If they even LET that happen, I would be willing to bet that the woman get's to either choose to still put the child up for adoption, or give it to the father and not have to worry about any sort of payment.


Well, I don't know about a mother paying child support if the father has custody. However, if there is a father in the picture, he must give his permission for a child to be adopted.

[welfareloser]

Also I have seen too many cases where the mother receives child support and instead of spending it all on her kid and his wellbeing or for Rent /etc. Anything relating to the child, She ends up with a new outfit every month, and a new car. While the kid had the same clothes for two years straight. Etc. I'm an advocate against unmonitored child support. If the Father has to pay, he should be legally allowed to check up on the living conditions and anything else that his child should deal with. Regardless of Custody.

I know all of those statements don't really go together, but just my thoughts on the entire issue. ( That I'm sure no one will read )

i read em ;) yeah, it sucks when momma misuses the kid's money, but allowing the father to dictate the spending is NOT an answer. at all. they couldn't get along to raise the kid, you think that's going to do *ANYONE* any good? huh-uh. the father *is* allowed to check up on living conditions. if he has any doubts, he can throw it before the court - there are plenty of cost-free options for this, since the welfare of a child is involved - and get a social worker on the woman's ass, no problem.

we have limited resources as a society, and we pick our battles. trying to force people who are irresponsible with money to be responsible would be a huge drain on resources, and it'd be a losing battle, to boot. there is recourse for the most egregious cases - crack instead of food, for instance. but if momma has new shoes and baby didn't get his playstation... waddayagonna do? sic a professional financial babysitter on her? let the guy she broke up with call the shots in her household? and in all but the most egregious cases, it's tough to prove that that kid's money didn't get spent on that kid... what if the woman has other kids by another father (which is the case more often than not), and one father is putting in significantly more than the other (what are the chances that any two men make exactly the same amount?) do you give one kid great living conditions that the others don't get? that's why you have the right to determine how your own household allocates its money without interference unless it's very clear-cut that the kids are flat-out in danger.

there's a reason one parent gets custody and the other doesn't - nobody wins in contentious joint custody, least of all the child. my ex had a detailed plan that he explained to friends about how he was going to ask for joint custody of eg, and thus force me to do this and that... boy, was he disappointed to find that joint custody is only granted when both parties get along and agree to it.

and, yes... non-custodial mothers pay child support, same as fathers. ;) you probably haven't heard of it because it's pretty durned rare that a woman doesn't want a kid AND the dad does AND the woman is actually earning money instead of acting like a train wreck.

[molecularfire]

Lets assume you get into an accident with me. You were at fault, partially, because you were driving. You had the choice to drive or not, you could have walked or taken a bus. Instead, you drove and we had a mutual collision.

However, since you were the one to leave the house first, you are at more fault than I am. Furthermore, you have no ability to escape fault, since it is automatically your fault. Meanwhile, my I will collect money from you for 18 years, even though it was my decision to leave the house also. However, it's still your fault.

No, this isn't even in the same universe with what I'm saying. Heck, the analogy is soooooooo friggin far off that I don't even understand what you're trying to say by this. In the scenario of the accident (it's sad when a child's conception is compared to an automobile accident) the two people driving are the only ones involved. Yes there is blame and they can discuss blame till they get bored, I really don't care. This case is of two irresponsible people intentionally performing an act that they know can conceive life and one person complaining because the other person has an option of eradicating said life for their own convenience because they don't have that option if the other person decides to try to raise that life up the best they can of ignoring the responsiblity of helping to raise that life. This is what our discussion is about. You're so concerned about getting an equal piece of civil liberties that you're ignoring the person who is at risk of losing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Cases like this is why the more and more I discuss mass sterilization programs, the more I start to support them.

Sorry, but the "Don't go there if you don't want a kid" argument smacks of dismissive apathy. Crap happens and while precautions can be made to avoid 99.999% of circumstances, there are still chances.

You think "don't go there if you don't want a kid" is dismissive apathy but referring to the conception of a child as "crap happens" isn't?

So if a woman decided that she does not want the kid so she is going to put it up for adoption and the father steps in and says "No I want this child I will take him." The woman has to pay child support right???
Actually, legally the woman does. Unfortunately one thing our society really is unfair on is that unless the woman actually tries to roll the kid up and smoke him/her during the hearing, the odds of the man getting custody of the kid is slim to none. As a result, the few men who care enough to try to get custody of their kid usually have to suck it up and not pursue the money issue in order for the woman to allow them to have custody of their children. IMO, pathetic and what we should be going to court to fight for, not how to best minimize the financial impact of our lack of self control at the cost of a child.

Also I have seen too many cases where the mother receives child support and instead of spending it all on her kid and his wellbeing or for Rent /etc. Anything relating to the child, She ends up with a new outfit every month, and a new car. While the kid had the same clothes for two years straight. Etc. I'm an advocate against unmonitored child support. If the Father has to pay, he should be legally allowed to check up on the living conditions and anything else that his child should deal with. Regardless of Custody.

I agree with most of it except the part about the father being the one to check up and determine how the money is properly spent. Actually the system in place right now does have that option unfortunately men aren't interested in pursuing it on that standpoint. When they question how the mother is spending the money, it is almost always part of their case to decrease their child support payments. IMO, we should have social workers who monitor the uses of child support money and determines which uses are appropriate and which ones aren't... not someone who has a direct vested interest in the issue.

[Jeffbx]

Jeff posted: Yes, and if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive. And if you don't want to die a horrible fiery death, don't live in a flammable house.

Accidents happen all the time. Of course prevention of the incident is the best way to avoid the situation, but it's really not that simple nor that black & white.

Yes, it is that simple. In our society driving (or taking some sort of mass transit) is something that is necessary… as is living in a house. Sex is NOT a necessary part of life (except for the obvious contraception part). Despite what your penis says, we do have a choice to say no. If we choose to have sex with our without contraception we should accept the consequences of our decision. Saying that it isn't that simple without saying how you can't choose to say no is just a cop-out.


It's really NOT that simple, and I'll tell you why: While sex may not be mandetory for an individual's survival (and neither is living in a house or driving a car), it IS a necessary part of life, simply because there is no way anyone will EVER convince everyone to stop doing it for their own safety & the welfare of their potential offspring.

The answer is not, cannot be, and never WILL be, "well, just stop having sex". That argument is irrelevant, because the focus needs to be on the people who ARE having sex and the issues it's causing.

A PART of the solution is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, of course. But thinking that is the final solution is exactly like the statments I made above - unrealistic.

[welfareloser]

i wish the puritan element of humanity would stop and look at history for just a second. throughout the history of civilization, we have relentlessly imposed penalties of varying severity on various sex acts, from pre-marital sex to adultery to homosexuality. guess what... not a damn one of em has put a stop to the behavior, or even significantly reduced it. you'd think that after 10,000 years or so of hangings, nose-slashings, stake-burnings, disembowelings, stonings, beatings, etc, with no noticeable effect, we'd just give up. but no... this is the 21st century, we're smarter than ever, so now we're trying economic sanctions and strongly worded shame-on-you's. yeah. cuz that might finally do it. :heh:

i say again: :heh:

GIVE IT UP, PEOPLE! ;)

[Jeffbx]

Thank you!

I mean for crying out loud, there are people in Africa who are dying by the thousands because of the AIDS epidemic there. They can't even be convinced to use a condom, much less stop having sex. And they dying because of it!

Good luck putting a stop to it...

[gwilks98]

Thank you!

I mean for crying out loud, there are people in Africa who are dying by the thousands because of the AIDS epidemic there. They can't even be convinced to use a condom, much less stop having sex. And they dying because of it!

Good luck putting a stop to it...

There is a *slight* difference in the average education of the african population. That's why there's an epidemic there.

[welfareloser]

There is a *slight* difference in the average education of the african population. That's why there's an epidemic there.

not really the major factor. educating the women does help. educating the men does not. they can be educated out the wazoo, from prep school to phd, with a healthy dose of public information campaigning, and they still think condoms are unmanly and not chasing extreme amounts of extramarital tail is gay. :shrug: it's cultural.

[johnnymk]

When a guy's hormones go ballistic and a nearby willing partner is present, the second brain takes over, negating all previous logic which has been programmed in the first brain.

[LegendKiller]

When a guy's hormones go ballistic and a nearby willing partner is present, the second brain takes over, negating all previous logic which has been programmed in the first brain.


Agreed.

[nickel]

while that is all true it still remains that responsibility for making the baby is shared, and thus so should the consequences.

[Thesifer]

I thought of another idea that would pretty much be fair. The father should have to option to ask to put the child up for adoption, and if the mother decides that she would rather just keep the child instead, then she is accepting the monetary care of the child, and the father loses all rights/visitation and otherwise. To the child.

[molecularfire]

It's really NOT that simple, and I'll tell you why: While sex may not be mandetory for an individual's survival (and neither is living in a house or driving a car), it IS a necessary part of life, simply because there is no way anyone will EVER convince everyone to stop doing it for their own safety & the welfare of their potential offspring.

The answer is not, cannot be, and never WILL be, "well, just stop having sex". That argument is irrelevant, because the focus needs to be on the people who ARE having sex and the issues it's causing.

A PART of the solution is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, of course. But thinking that is the final solution is exactly like the statments I made above - unrealistic.
Sadly enough, I agree with you on this one. I used to believe that people are capable of better than that but that was an old, less jaded me. Humans as a population don't have the self-control and consideration to put another life before their own convenience and pleasure. That said, it does not excuse the people who do choose to have sex (and despite what you may think, there are people who choose not to screw over several lives just to get their rocks off... it is possible) from having to be responsible for the results of their actions. Yes, there is a double standard... unfortunately until men can bear children no law made to account for the baby after it is conceived is ever going to be completely fair... hence the whole mass sterilization idea. Take the responsiblity out of the hands of those who obviously can't and/or aren't willing to bear it.

[nickel]

I thought of another idea that would pretty much be fair. The father should have to option to ask to put the child up for adoption, and if the mother decides that she would rather just keep the child instead, then she is accepting the monetary care of the child, and the father loses all rights/visitation and otherwise. To the child.
that sounds real fair to the child. :(
i would hope to never be that child, and know my father thought that little of me.

[molecularfire]

Not to mention what that would do to a adoption/foster care system that is already beyond taxed out. Unfortunately, I can see many, many men going around impregnating many, many women because this gives them a way out. How is this in any way taking responsibility for your actions?

[Jeffbx]

That said, it does not excuse the people who do choose to have sex (and despite what you may think, there are people who choose not to screw over several lives just to get their rocks off... it is possible) from having to be responsible for the results of their actions.

You said it - a mistake is a mistake, and both parties need to take responsibilities for their actions.

The *only* instance where I can see merit in this lawsuit is where there is a clear understanding that there is no intent to have kids on the man's part, and clear manipulation TO have children on the women's part. Then it's no longer an accident, and the man should have the right to disassociate himself from the situation.

[welfareloser]

that sounds real fair to the child. :(
i would hope to never be that child, and know my father thought that little of me.

well, to be realistic... even if he isn't allowed to take that option, the kid's still gonna figure out how little the father thinks of him. kids are dumb, but not that dumb :P

but... i don't see why you, thesifer, think that that's fair? an economic sanction that would exculpate the wiliing-participant-til-the-consequences-arrived father, and provide pressure against the mother to give up the baby that she wants? i'm missing the fair part... especially when we have a child involved who could use the financial, if not emotional, support of two parents. three people invovled... father doesn't pay, two people get hurt. father pays, one person gets hurt. seems like pretty simple math to figure out which is most fair :P

somebody has to pay for kids. them somebodies be the parents. there's nothing fair about trying to push a woman to give up a child she wants, or about trying to make a kid an adopted kid with all the associated insecurities.

a father can sign off his parental rights to a child and thus avoid payments, but the mother has to agree to it. (my ex was all set to do that til his parents threatened to cut him off if he did... *sigh* )

[InfiniteNothing]

Ahhh if only a male contraceptive pill was available.:(

[nickel]

Ahhh if only a male contraceptive pill was available.:(
brilliant! now there's a solution!
it is definitely being worked on.


The Male Contraceptive Pill
Would you be willing to pop a pill that brings your sperm count down to zero? Or do you feel that, beyond condoms, birth control is mainly a woman's responsibility? A 1997 survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an American health research and education organization, found that more than 66% of respondents (male and female) believed that men should play a bigger role in the choice and use of contraception.
Despite these results, specialists say birth control has remained primarily a female responsibility, which is hardly surprising given the limited options available to men. However, things may soon change: After 40 years of research, the male contraceptive pill is almost ready.

The real question is: Will men use the pill? Would you be willing to use it? Read on to find the answers to all your questions.
What research has been conducted?
Researchers at Edinburgh University's Centre for Reproductive Biology have finally found a way to suppress daily sperm production while maintaining normal testosterone levels. This was not an easy task given that men emit millions of sperm in each ejaculation, while women only produce one egg per month.

From the results of these studies, Organon, a pharmaceutical company in the Netherlands, has developed a pill that is set to go on the market by 2005. The pill has proven to be 100% effective in preliminary clinical trials.

A larger study, involving 120 men between the ages of 18 and 45 from Europe and the United States, is currently underway. The participants have tiny rods implanted under the skin of their arm that deliver a form of progestogen (commonly found in the female birth control pill) to block sperm production.

In order to maintain their sex drive and their "male characteristics," the men receive testosterone replacement therapy injections every four to six weeks over the course of the yearlong study. The results should be available by the end of 2002.

The results of a smaller study conducted in the year 2000 using similar methods showed a completely reversible blockage of sperm production in all 66 participants.

How does it work?
The pill contains desogestrel, a synthetic hormone that is the main component in the female pill, as well as the male hormone testosterone. This combination blocks the production of sperm while maintaining male characteristics and sex drive. As with the female contraceptive pill, it must be taken daily.

In terms of effectiveness, the male pill seems to be the best. In clinical trials, all of the participants' sperm counts dropped to zero, which means that the male pill would be more effective than the condom and even the female pill.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the condom has a failure rate of about 14% under typical conditions, while the failure rate of the female pill is less than 1%. Although the male pill has been proven 100% effective so far, the results of the current clinical trial are necessary before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Can you take it, the side effects involved and will your partner trust that you'll take it every day?
The male pill would also allow for increased pleasure (in comparison to condoms), as well as being a great alternative for couples when the woman cannot take the pill due to serious and unpleasant side effects.

On the other hand, the male pill has certain disadvantages. As with the female version, the man must remember to take his pill every day for it to be effective.

In addition, it does not protect against AIDS and other STDs. Many health professionals worry that its introduction could increase the spread of these diseases by reducing the role of the condom.

Who can take it?
"Any breathing male can be a candidate for this pill. We're not aware of any reasons why a particular male shouldn't be taking it," said Dr. Richard Anderson of Edinburgh University's Centre for Reproductive Biology. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the pill is still being tested.

Due to the lack of protection against STDs, experts hope that it will be used mainly by men in long-term, monogamous relationships rather than for casual sex.

Are there any side effects?
In clinical trials, no major side effects were noted aside from weight gain in a small percentage of men, similar to what most women experience when on the pill. But this pales in comparison to the more serious complications women expose themselves to when taking the pill, such as blood clotting, nausea, headaches, and dizziness. However, we must wait for the results of the current study in order to be certain that there are no other side effects.

Will men use the pill and will women trust them?
An international survey conducted with 4,000 men and women revealed that 66% of the men said they would use alternative male contraceptive methods if they were available -- 75% of the women said they would trust their partner.

In the U.S., a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 71% of American men said they would consider at least one male birth control option. Of these men, 66% would be willing to try the pill.

How much will it cost?
Although the price will not be determined until the pill is ready to be marketed, it should be similar to that of its female counterpart, which costs between $15 to $20 US per month. Depending on the frequency of sexual activity, the male pill could turn out to be only slightly more expensive or equal to the price of a dozen condoms.

Will it affect men's ability to have children in the future?
It is completely reversible. In the preliminary trials, the sperm concentrations of all 66 men returned to pre-study levels within 16 weeks.

Are there any alternatives to the pill?
In addition to the pill, a contraceptive implant will also be made available. As in the clinical trials, tiny rods would be placed under the skin of a man's arm, delivering etonogestrel, a form of progestogen that also blocks sperm production. However, since the rods do not contain testosterone, injections of this hormone would be necessary every four to six weeks. The rods would only need to be replaced every three years, although they could be removed at any time.

Basically, the pill and the implant work the same way. The difference simply lies in the method of administration of the male hormone.

only time will tell...

The new male contraceptives seem quite promising; easy to use, affordable and highly effective. But one important question remains: Will guys really use them? Although surveys show that a majority of men are open to the idea, only time will tell if they will take the leap from theory to practice. But for now, it sounds as though in a few short years, men might be hearing their women ask, "Honey, did you take the pill?"
http://www.askmen.com/love/dzimmer_60/72_love_answers.html

[welfareloser]

ahhh... just what couples needed. something entirely new to fight over! "you go on the pill!" "no, you!" "sexist pig!" "same to you!" :P

i wonder how many guys will say nooooooooo way just based on the fact that it contains a "female" hormone. then again, i wonder how many will be like, "dude, and you get more testosterone to go with it? like, legally? sweeeeet."

[InfiniteNothing]

Hey, who ever doesn't take it pays for the kid. That's my solution. Hey, are there any clinical trials in the US?

[welfareloser]

sounds like they're still in the "one study at a time" phase.

[clutchy]

brilliant! now there's a solution!
it is definitely being worked on.

male contraception



as soon as we can figure what's going on and make sure it's safe i might be amenable to taking it. The thing about women's BC is that it's been around for 50 years and we have a really good idea of what it does to women. Man BC who knows... I'd wait a few years before i jumped on it...

[Memo]

that sounds real fair to the child. :(
i would hope to never be that child, and know my father thought that little of me.

Unwanted children always get the worst deal. That's why I believe in abortions.

[clutchy]

Unwanted children always get the worst deal. That's why I believe in abortions.


I would argue that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There are plenty of people just itching to get their fingers on a baby.

[guiseppewv]

that sounds real fair to the child. :(
i would hope to never be that child, and know my father thought that little of me.


I agree that it is not fair to the kid but women do it all the time.

[molecularfire]

as soon as we can figure what's going on and make sure it's safe i might be amenable to taking it. The thing about women's BC is that it's been around for 50 years and we have a really good idea of what it does to women. Man BC who knows... I'd wait a few years before i jumped on it...
Yeah, we know that OCPs do some really crappy things to women and IMO they are stupid for choosing to use it instead of just not having sex with men but heck, that's their choice. We know exactly what vasectomies do to men though and the side-effects aren't nearly as bad as OCPs for women.



I agree that it is not fair to the kid but women do it all the time.
So do men but it doesn't make it right (for either of us) and IMO we should be doing less of it, not more.

[InfiniteNothing]

Yeah, we know that OCPs do some really crappy things to women and IMO they are stupid for choosing to use it instead of just not having sex with men but heck, that's their choice. We know exactly what vasectomies do to men though and the side-effects aren't nearly as bad as OCPs for women.



So do men but it doesn't make it right (for either of us) and IMO we should be doing less of it, not more.
Well, from a bit of research I learned that the health risks of OCPs have been exaggerated. Sure you increase the risk of some very rare things but 3 X 0.000001 = 0.000003. Compared to the health risks of having a baby, the protection against cancer, and weighing the health benefits of sex, OCPs look like a pretty good deal. Certainly there are a few nuisance side effects but not everyone experiences them. Some go away after like a year. There are ways to tinker with the ratio of the two hormones that can cancel out the nuisance side effects. My general conclusion was that if the harmful side were all that bad more doctors would be encourage the minipill. It doesn't have the estrogen related serious but very rare risk. Instead the doctors lean on the side of fewer nuisances and slightly more reliability and go with the traditional OCP.
If one is concerned about saftey only a nut would constrain himself to public transportation or hermiting himself. You buy a Volvo. Now given the choice between a Volvo and a new car with unknown reliabilty, you still might go with the Volvo unless you wanted to be a guinea pig for the benefit of society.

[guiseppewv]

So do men but it doesn't make it right (for either of us) and IMO we should be doing less of it, not more.

:stupid: I agree.

[Houdini]

Well, from a bit of research I learned that the health risks of OCPs have been exaggerated. Sure you increase the risk of some very rare things but 3 X 0.000001 = 0.000003. Compared to the health risks of having a baby, the protection against cancer, and weighing the health benefits of sex, OCPs look like a pretty good deal. Certainly there are a few nuisance side effects but not everyone experiences them. Some go away after like a year. There are ways to tinker with the ratio of the two hormones that can cancel out the nuisance side effects. My general conclusion was that if the harmful side were all that bad more doctors would be encourage the minipill. It doesn't have the estrogen related serious but very rare risk. Instead the doctors lean on the side of fewer nuisances and slightly more reliability and go with the traditional OCP.
If one is concerned about saftey only a nut would constrain himself to public transportation or hermiting himself. You buy a Volvo. Now given the choice between a Volvo and a new car with unknown reliabilty, you still might go with the Volvo unless you wanted to be a guinea pig for the benefit of society.


Yeah, but the dangers of OCPs go up tremendously when a few somewhat normal risk factors are thrown in, most notably smoking. While the risks are small, one pulmonary embolus is enough for most people. I agree that the pill is a great idea for most cases, as is the patch, etc., but their dangers shouldn't be downplayed as much either, as MF said.

[welfareloser]

Yeah, but the dangers of OCPs go up tremendously when a few somewhat normal risk factors are thrown in, most notably smoking. While the risks are small, one pulmonary embolus is enough for most people. I agree that the pill is a great idea for most cases, as is the patch, etc., but their dangers shouldn't be downplayed as much either, as MF said.

:stupid:

nor should the "nuisance" side effects be downplayed, either. i always scratch my head when i read the inserts... they say something like 10% or 25% (some small #) experience a <10 lb weight gain... all i know is, that seems to be from another planet than the women i talk to. i've asked several nurses and obgyns, and they've all agreed with me, that their experience just doesn't jive with the drug data. everyone i know (except for one, single exception) gains 10-20 lbs. that's beyond a nuisance. they make me nauseous as heck... i'd estimate some 25% of the women i've talked to about the pill experience the same thing, either plain ol nausea and/or moodiness, etc... some form of "don't feel right". that's more than a nuisance. if your gf had PMS 3 weeks out of every four, you'd likely agree ;) and it doesn't go away, not for me or anyone i've talked to, not on a different forms/different doses, not after 6 months, not after a year. :shrug:

but when it there are no side effects, they are a godsend. my sister took them for PCOS (same reason i tried like heck to make them work despite the suckage) and she noticed not a single physiological change. one more good reason to hate her @$$ :P

[InfiniteNothing]

Okay. Not sure if we're still on subject. Let me try and rerail this train. Who knows what the guy pill side effects will be? Could be just as bad. I propose both people take it and then have a free for all bitching contest. First to give up has to take the pill.

On a side note, WL, ever try a minipill? The estrogen side effects go away and so do (correct me if I'm wrong Big H) the risk of T-Embolism. It's prescribed for smokers, I believe. Assuming both your anecdotal and the clinical trials are true, maybe it's something in the water over there that doesn't agree with any pill. I agree with the Big H though. While it's great for most people (I claim offsetting negative and positive side effects), it's not for everyone.

[welfareloser]

Okay. Not sure if we're still on subject. Let me try and rerail this train. Who knows what the guy pill side effects will be? Could be just as bad. I propose both people take it and then have a free for all bitching contest. First to give up has to take the pill.

On a side note, WL, ever try a minipill? The estrogen side effects go away and so do (correct me if I'm wrong Big H) the risk of T-Embolism. It's prescribed for smokers, I believe. Assuming both your anecdotal and the clinical trials are true, maybe it's something in the water over there that doesn't agree with any pill. I agree with the Big H though. While it's great for most people (I claim offsetting negative and positive side effects), it's not for everyone.

yep, tried it. sucked. dunno what my problem is... maybe i'm so hormone-charged naturally, that anything additional is just enough to break me :P


but, yeah, any new drug on the market, i like to sit back and watch other people take it for a few years first... you never know what subtle-but-nasty effect might turn up when 1000s of people take it.

[Merlin]

...they make me nauseous as heck... i'd estimate some 25% of the women i've talked to about the pill experience the same thing, either plain ol nausea and/or moodiness, etc...

You moody? I don't believe it. :hehehmm: