Reproductive Due Dilligence

[Aggie]

This is something I've been meaning to post on for a while, but Bob gave me a good launching off point here:

More males need to speak out-- that males should have NO rights once the woman becomes pregnant.  Obligation- yes.  Rights? No.

Given that a man, specifically the biological father for the purpose of this discussion, should have no rights in regards to the outcome of a woman's pregnancy (which I agree with):

Should there be a level of due diligence by which a man can negate / reduce his responsibility as a biological father if an act of heterosexual intercourse leads to pregnancy, or should the responsibility as a biological father be implicit in EVERY act of heterosexual intercourse, regardless of the circumstances?

[anthrobabe]

I think it is implicit in every act.
Sex-- even if for 'recreation'  might lead to a pregnancy-therefore if a male does not want a pregnancy then he must be aware and responsible--no matter what, even if the female says/signs/states that she is 'covered' (ie: bc pill, hysterectomy) and that if she becomes pregnant then he will not be on the hook so to speak. He should not go with this and he must take steps and do all he can do to make sure no pregnancy occurs-this might even mean not having sex.
Sorry- but women make mistakes (forget the pill, diaphragm-use it incorrectly or forget it, and so forth), think they are not fertile, lie (because they think they want a baby to raise alone, or other reason), many other reasons that a woman may not 'be covered'.
So becuase the root biology of sex is reproduction then a man has to understand that he is obligated (on the hook)-- end of discussion.
Being drunk, high, not thinking, not wanting to reproduce is not an excuse----
This does not in anyway negate the womans role-- women must be reproductively responsible as well----- we must be, but sadly many are not; and knowing this males must be responsible every single time they have heterosexual sex.
We are sexual beings- it's not all reproduction for us, we have sex because we like it and that is a great and wonderful thing--- but the biological fact is present in every single act
potential offspring. And the woman may or may not continue a pregnancy, give birth, nurture the newborn-- she does not have to do so, but if she does then the male biological parent will be responsible (even if only held so financially by a court of law).
Abortion on demand should be safe, legal, available and rare---- if we remember that sex has results then abortion will be rare because we will not let conception occur. While I am completely for the right of a woman to on demand have a safe and legal abortion-that does not mean I want to put myself in the position to make that decision for myself so I have to have some level of responsibility for my actions. But not all women are responsible.
Now- I am not talking about the sperm donor situation-- a male that 'sells or gives' sperm to a sperm bank should never be on the hook for a child. Unfortunately not all women see it this way- I don't understand the mentality behind it.
I suppose that a male could make his level of responsibility one of finance only-should he wish-many already do so(some do not do even that and they are the shit heaps of the universe). A human infant needs many people in their life and a male is nice but it does not have to be the biological father-just ask my girls how great uncles are when biological dads have their heads up their rectums.
We have pre nuptial agreements-- what next-- pre intercourse agreements. And then someone will be drunk(or something-- stupid for example) and therefor legally unable to sign the contract.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Does this means that the only safe way to have sex as a man is with an already pregnant woman? 

[Griffin NoName]

No Zono, plenty of us with shrivelled up wombs - or no wombs - or no ovaries - (but get a certifcate) - especially as we live longer nowadays

[anthrobabe]

oh--- help
"can I see your certificate madam"
what is foreplay heading towards

and very funny there sibling Zono(think about and google the Jim Bob Duggar family-that woman is always pregnant, so when is her down time so he can get her pregnant again? they have home births so she must have one and get pregnant again as soon as she can, at least I hope they change the sheets 1st)---- but also, sadly, not funny. now that's a thought we should all absorb.

what is truly 'safe' sex, speaking of non-procration as well as not getting an STD sex.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Does this means that the only safe way to have sex as a man is with an already pregnant woman? 

No Zono, plenty of us with shrivelled up wombs - or no wombs - or no ovaries - (but get a certifcate) - especially as we live longer nowadays

what is truly 'safe' sex, speaking of non-procration as well as not getting an STD sex.

To be fair, many men have had vasectomies.   This ought to let him off the hook, at least with regards to pregnancies*.  Obviously, it would not protect from STD's, but either partner can be culpable in that.


<sub>* to be sure, not all vasectomies are "successful".  Then, the liability ought to fall back on whomever did the procedure.  Would make such procedures MUCH more careful, don't you think?

"I'm safe:  see?  I have my vasectomy certificate right here.  Here's the doctor's certification-stamp, just in case...."</sub>

[Aggie]

To be fair, many men have had vasectomies.   This ought to let him off the hook, at least with regards to pregnancies*.  Obviously, it would not protect from STD's, but either partner can be culpable in that.


<sub>* to be sure, not all vasectomies are "successful".  Then, the liability ought to fall back on whomever did the procedure.  Would make such procedures MUCH more careful, don't you think?

"I'm safe:  see?  I have my vasectomy certificate right here.  Here's the doctor's certification-stamp, just in case...."</sub>

Kind of what I was thinking of as a hypothetical situation to test the premise.  Or how about vasectomy plus a condom (which was checked for breakage afterwards)? 

I'll admit that I'm not quite sure WHAT I'm getting at with this thread - it's more a point to discuss on a theoretical basis - but I would find it somehow disconcerting if making the assumption that a woman has the option of a medically safe abortion to end a pregnancy, she is able to decide whether to take responsibility for an unintentionally conceived child, whereas the man responsible cannot under any level of due diligence (save abstinence) negate responsibility.

I'll repeat again that I'm approaching this from a purely theoretical / philosophical angle in a perfectly fair world, because I am fully aware that in far too many real life situations, the woman involved does NOT have free choice (either way - pressured to keep it or pressured to abort) and also that the stakes are far, far higher for a pregnant woman having to choose between single motherhood (we are assuming that the man responsible does not want any involvement) or aborting a prospective child.  Also acknowledging (AB's post)that in real life there are plenty of rat-bastard men who DON'T show due diligence in the first place and then ditch out on even the bare-minimum of financial involvement, and that women in reality are made bear a far greater burden of responsibility in preventing pregnancies (one of the reasons we are pro-condom and anti-pill at our house - we have little trust for the long term safety of The Pill, not to mention the potential for failure or forgetting to take one).

I think overall it's a roundabout way of putting more responsibility onto the man - in the hypothetical perfectly fair world of the discussion, I make the assertion that if there was a level of due diligence that could negate responsibility for a pregnancy on a man's behalf, no matter how unreasonable, a significant portion men who were truly committed to remaining childless would take that level of due diligence.  Conversely, by establishing such a level of due diligence, it would establish that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS if you do NOT step up to this level.

[Griffin NoName]

In the commons debate it touched on due diligence for women in the sense that an MP complained about women who repeatedly have abortions (eek imagine a limit: ?three a year? tut tut you're going to have to bring this one up -or die of it).

I think there will be a resolution eventually. Everyone wants sex more times than they want it to end in a baby. So separate the two functions. By then there shouldn't be a problem with who has the womb either.

Meanwhile. I don't see any difference between man and woman in the moment of the act (mutual consent assumed), they are equally culpable.

Perhaps due diligence could be addressed by government health warnings on the box? aka on cigarette packets  - cigarettes kill -   Tatoos - in the event this organ inseminates anyone, I am not responsible. May be a problem of fitting all the language translations on.

Once again, I must apologise for bringing the tone of debate down.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Tatoos - in the event this organ inseminates anyone, I am not responsible. May be a problem of fitting all the language translations on.

Once again, I must apologise for bringing the tone of debate down.

Ooooh!  I love that.....'cept that for some, you'd need a magnifying glass to read the warning(s)....

(you can easily tell which, too- just look at his car/truck.... )