I see a lot of discussion on men and why they need to "step up", but the fact of the matter is that this catastrophe can be blamed squarely on the women's movement.

Women believe they have complete control over their reproductive rights, which is fine, and I largely agree with it, except for the fact that that is then expanded to women feeling they can have a baby without a man's consent. For all the talk of "accidents", cheap and reliable birth control is readily available, and true accidents should be vanishingly rare.

I believe strongly that women should have the right to abort or keep a child. While it is inside her, it is her decision alone. But if she decides to keep it, however, the "father" should have some right to opt out in some cases. Men have absolutely no rights as it stands, and this cannot continue. There should also be a major push to develop a male contraceptive akin to the birth control pill. This should be cheap and readily available, and young men should be strongly encouraged to take it. Men should also be completely removed from responsibility if a DNA test shows he is not the father. Unbelievably, this is not the case currently.

Many young women have a fantasy about having a baby. It's cute, she'll get lots of attention from friends and family. She can dress it up and play mama. This is an irresponsible fantasy that should not be fulfilled at the expense of children and men.

Giving men some rights and control, and removing the meal ticket aspects will drastically reduce the number of single parent households.

While I agree. I also think that there is an undercurrent where women have all the rights if they are not married and men have only responsibilities.

The flip side of that is that there have been cases where a woman has given up a child for adoption over the objections of a father who was supporting that child. Read Osborne v. Adoption Center of Choice. Unless you are married to the mother, you have *no* real legal rights.

The best solution would be men taking responsibilty for birth control. Then they wouldn't have to depend on their partner smart or honest.

Actually, there is a very reliable form of male-controlled birth control. It's called a condom. Want to be (reasonably) sure that you're not going to have an unwanted kid? There's your solution.

I'm not saying condoms don't sometimes fail or break. But these horrible manipulative women you seem to think populate the earth, reproducing solely to spite the men in their lives (the myth of the welfare queen reborn, anyone?), can't lie about whether or not you've put on a condom. And just for the record, condoms are MUCH cheaper than hormonal birth control.

A more important area is to argue equal rights is a key goal of our society.

condoms are not anywhere near as effective as the pill. They are also much less desirable to use, STDs aside, and thus are not the most practical solution. They also break and expire. There have also been cases of women removing sperm from condoms and inseminating themselves. There are also women who sleep with multiple partners and name the richest one as dad on the birth certificate. He then has to prove he isn't the father, and if he doesn't do that in a timely manner, he is stuck for 18 years anyway.

condoms are not MUCH cheaper than hormonal control. Maybe if you have sex once a month. That is not an honest statement at all. The price is not the issue for birth control for the vast majority of people.

My concern isn't just the lack of choice when it comes to reproduction, it is the lack of choice which comes later.

An unwed mother can give a child up for adoption without ever notifying the father and without giving the father any possibility of adopting the child. She can decide to seek child support or to keep the child and have nothing more to do with the father. And if state laws are an obstacle to putting the child up for adoption, she can simply take the child to a state, like Utah, where that is not a problem.

I don't think we can get to the discussion of questions of how these sorts of things should be handled until we understand that for men, unless you are married, you have no rights, only responsibilities.

We cannot talk about what is right for the child when over half of never-married mothers *never* seek child support. We cannot talk about this when over half of unwed fathers hence are denied any possibility of getting to know their children.

Let me share with you a story. I have a friend who lived with his girlfriend until she left him for another man. A few years went by, and she was later diagnosed with severe cancer. He moved down to help her and her four children out (one from a marriage before he met her, one from the guy she left him for, and 2 from a later marriage which she had filed for separation). The father of the second child has stopped paying the child support he owed after six years.

A year went by, and she got better sometimes and worse others. My friend lived outside in his trailer rather than ask for additional space in the house. Eventually she ended up with an inoperable brain tumor and quickly fell to the cancer.

So my friend, being the good-hearted man that he is, looked at the situation. The second child (now 9 years old) had not been supported for three years and the legal father seemed to want nothing to do with her. So he talked to a lawyer about adopting her. The lawyer advised the long-shot of a paternity test.

Guess what? My friend was the father.

Now, who lost here? Did the little girl lose since she was denied a chance to get to know her father before she was 8? Yes.

Did the guy who was paying six years of child support for someone else's kid lose? Yes.

Did my friend lose the chance to watch his daughter grow in those first few years of life? Yes.

My point is-- it sucks to be an unwed father, especially if the child is *not* unwanted.

kuruman:

condoms are not anywhere near as effective as the pill. They are also much less desirable to use, STDs aside, and thus are not the most practical solution. They also break and expire. There have also been cases of women removing sperm from condoms and inseminating themselves. There are also women who sleep with multiple partners and name the richest one as dad on the birth certificate. He then has to prove he isn't the father, and if he doesn't do that in a timely manner, he is stuck for 18 years anyway.

condoms are not MUCH cheaper than hormonal control. Maybe if you have sex once a month. That is not an honest statement at all. The price is not the issue for birth control for the vast majority of people.

LMAO! Do you know that at the hight of fertility a woman has maybe a 20% chance of getting pregnant. It is nearly impossible to get pregnant from removing sperm from a condom and inseminating.

And for your information, when used properly, condoms are 98% effective for preventing pregnancy. Birth control pills are 99%.

Men don't like to wear them because of decreased sensitivity .Also, many men grow feeling that birth control is not their concern. Oooops until it is.

riritt:

What the hell do you know about it being nearly impossible to get pregnant from sperm you scoop from a condom. I'll tell you what you know...nothing. If the sperm gets in the vaginal vault it has a shot at getting to the egg. There are women who get pregnant from anal sex for Christ sake...from sperm that spill out and into the vagina.

Your getting information on reliability from products boxes. Don't pretend to be an expert, or sexpert. Condoms do reduce sensitivity, so men don't want to wear them, so they are NOT a good method of birth control. A birth control that isn't user friendly will not get used as much as it should, and is therefore not very useful. When men get a method of control that they can take as a pill you will see the difference.

ein...you seem to be debating with me, but in fact we completely agree. Can't you tell by reading what I write?

I think we are on the same side. And I don't think either of us is undermining the other's argument.

However, until you say so, I have no way of knowing how you think regarding the (different) issues I am bringing up.

Complimentary vs adversarial :-)

kuruman:

Condoms do reduce sensitivity, so men don't want to wear them, so they are NOT a good method of birth control. A birth control that isn't user friendly will not get used as much as it should, and is therefore not very useful. When men get a method of control that they can take as a pill you will see the difference.

And that's a fact of life. A big big problem in implementing ANYTHING, a new technology, a business policy adjustment, a process change, etc. is if it can be made convieient or not. If it can't chances are it won't be adopted well regardless of weather it "should" or not.

There are in fact several companies working on an easy to use contraception for men. There have been many promising bits of research but not final results yet.

HOWEVER this does nothing to counter the fact that a man who is in fact interested in a real relationship, family and children is not protected in any way by the law in the vast majority of the US.

And THAT is a big big problem...much moreso than effective male contraception...not that it wouldn't be nice...or highly profitable for many drug companies.

I agree SIL

I'm not only focused on a man's lack of reproductive rights. Society needs to see the obvious and scientifically validated fact that fathers are an essential part of child-rearing. Boys need to grow up knowing that fathers aren't an option or just a paycheck. Rather, fathers are as important as mothers.

"LMAO! Do you know that at the hight of fertility a woman has maybe a 20% chance of getting pregnant. It is nearly impossible to get pregnant from removing sperm from a condom and inseminating."

I don't know where you got that but its dead wrong. There is probably enough sperm in a used condom for 20 good attempts. How do sperm banks do it afterall?