Who Has Reproductive Rights?
A woman’s body, a woman’s choice.
This choice nugget of feminist wisdom sounds on its face like a perfectly sensible egalitarian and rational position, doesn’t it?
The trouble is, it’s all just a bit too simplistic. What we’re talking about here is reproductive rights, reproductive choices, and freedoms: for women.
Lets put abortion rights aside for a moment and talk about contraception. For women, there are a number of contraceptive options available. There’s the birth control pill, arguably the most significant, and some people may claim this is what sparked off the sexual revolution of the late 60’s and 70’s. Women able to take direct personal control of their own fertility; I’m in favour of that, it’s a good thing. Everyone should be able to control what goes on with their own body. Even a feminist is unlikely to disagree with me there.
So we have the pill, we also have IUD devices. According to Wikipedia, The IUD is the world’s most widely used method of reversible birth control.
There’s also something called the intrauterine system, this is a long acting reversible hormonal contraceptive device that is placed in the uterus. An IUS has a hormone cylinder that releases progestin.
There’s also the contraceptive sponge, manufactured and sold under a variety of names, its reported effectiveness is between 80 to 90 percent – depending on which manufacturer’s claims you trust.
There are a few other hormonally based birth control methods, namely injection of a synthetic hormone called progestin, given every 12 weeks.
There’s also a birth control patch, similar to a nicotine patch a smoker might use to help them quit. The birth control patch lasts 1 week per patch, which is pretty convenient if you ask me.
Next, there are cervical barriers such as a cervical cap, or a diaphragm.
Also, there’s spermicides marketed under a bunch of different names, and taking the form of foams, creams, jellies, insert able tablets, suppositories, and spermicidal films.
There’s even a nonsurgical method of aborting a pregnancy for a women should she change her mind the next day; the morning after pill. In Canada, it’s sold under the brand name “plan B” and requires no prescription.
Finally, of course there’s getting an abortion. Not legal in all parts of the us, true, but if a women really doesn’t want a baby, get in the car, get on a greyhound, get it done.
That is a lot of options. These are all options for women. Of note is that none of the preventative methods here reduce or eliminate the pleasure of sex. Of additional note, is that these are not options for men.
Men have three options for contraception.
A condom. This is universally available, highly effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and significantly reduces the pleasure of sex for the man.
Next option is vasectomy. Not reversible, requires surgery, so unless a man already has children, prevents him from having a family, should he ever want to, from that point forward in his life.
Third option: no sex.
Those are the three options for men. And it’s not a very appealing array of choices.
In addition to the legal and practical methods available to women of preventing pregnancy, a woman can choose pregnancy, with or without the consent of the father. If a pregnancy is legitimately accidental, use of a post conception method such as abortion or morning after pill is entirely and solely the legal and personal prerogative of the woman. If the man wants to avoid fatherhood, he is entirely at the legal mercy of the woman. If he wants the child, he is still at the legal mercy of the woman. He has no rights.
He doesn’t even have any legal rights in the event that the woman decides to carry to term, and he will pay for that child’s upbringing for the following 18 to 20 years. Even in the event that a woman secretly harvests sperm from a used condom, impregnates herself with it, – the man is entirely without legal rights as to the disposition of the blastula fertilized by his sperm. If you think that doesn’t happen in the real world, your are deluding yourself.
So: A woman’s body, a woman’s choice.
To make that a complete statement, we need to add:
- A man’s body, a woman’s choice;
- A man’s income, a woman’s choice;
- A man’s reproductive options, a woman’s choice;
- A man’s future, a woman’s choice;
- A man’s child, a woman’s choice.
I do not begrudge women any of these options, any of these technologies, or any of the legal rights concerning their own bodies and concerning reproduction. My problem comes from the fact that none of these technologies except for the pleasure-reducing condom, and the future reducing vasectomy – are available to men. For men to control their own fertility and reproductive choices, there are no technologies, no choices, and worse than that, no legal rights.
Men have no legal rights concerning reproduction. None whatsoever.
Human reproduction does not occur in a vacuum, It does not occur without men. Reproduction requires a man and a woman. So, why don’t men have any legal rights?
I have heard that technologies are being developed that enable human reproductions without the use of men or sperm. Some feminists might say: “fantastic, now we can dispense with the need for men entirely”. Does the existence of such a technology make men utterly superfluous? Are we unnecessary and expendable? The answer is yes. Men are no longer necessary for the human race to survive, as long as in that conclusion, we recognize that we are already regarding men as non-human. Any person who truly thinks that the reason for men to continue to exist is simply to facilitate the continuation of the human species, that person looks at men not as human beings, but as appliances. Ladies, we are not appliances, we are human, like you.
If a technology was developed to enable human reproduction without women, would anybody find it acceptable to completely dispose of the female sex? Of course not. Nobody would ever advocate such a thing, because it would be monstrous. However, this though goes forward regarding men. All the men’s rights movement is asking for, no, demanding, is that men are afforded the same rights women have.
I have sometimes wondered if my lack of rights as a man is because, being male; I am regarded as not quite a human? Or because our feminized society simply prefers having a men as a slave caste.
Possibly related posts...
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 at 2:52 pm and is filed under Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 704 views |
Trackback | 
Print This Post
|
I'm a software developer in Vancouver BC. | More from John Hembling
Stumble It!
No shatteredmen if the situations were reversed and the men had the uterus or baby carrying fleshy mass the men would be the one’s with the raging hormones complaining about equality and being indignant when equality is suggested that isn’t actually biased towards the them.
“Whether it was conceived by a couple trying to get pregnant, or by deliberate deception, it is still your child.”
“There’s only one way to avoid responsibility for pregnancies: keep it zipped. If a woman gets pregnant, and you haven’t had sex with her, you’re in no danger of paying child support.”
Funny, deceptions this life changing are usually illegal. Like fraud. Or insider trading.
If it can be proved that the woman falsely stated that she was on birth control of some kind through the use of a recorded audio byte or video (consensual recording, covert is illegal) then she should relinquish all rights to the state, be forced into an abortion (since imposing pregnancy and birth would be similar to imposing torture on another human being) and then be thrown in jail. Better the child never lived a life with that kind of evil human being or be forced into the overcrowded adoption system with many MANY unwanted children. Adoption is not an option because it has been exercised to the limit. If she doesn’t agree to a recording of that kind or a signed affidavit then don’t unzip the pants.
I agree that with spontaneous sex comes consequences (men should not be stupid and be so easily duped, the ones that are duped are not worth anything to society, just like the women we would be throwing in jail) but if you have tangible evidence that the woman perpetrated when I will call fertility fraud then she is as good screwed (literally, metaphorically, and then probably literally again!)
This is not the same as a failure in the birth control, it isn’t 100%, if it happens anyway, get ready to be a father. And these people should be forced to live together if there is no evidence of any type of abuse from either party (women abuse men too, don’t kid yourself) then they should be required to raise the child together in a proper, functional (or at least give the illusion of functional to the child you are trying to raise and not screw up to be like you) household.
If she refuses to give you evidence at all then just refuse to give her your penis. Women want it bad too, it isn’t just men who are sex-crazy animals, women like sex too, depriving them of it if they want it will usually cause them to either leave if their scam isn’t going to plan or give you the evidence because she really just wants sex and really is on the birth control. And wear a condom, stop being a sissy, man up.
I agree with the fact that most contraceptive methods are for women, and some women abuse of that. But men out there should also be aware that it takes “two to tango” like someone else said in this blog already. Part of the reason, is that the medical establishment has for quite a long time, focused on studying the female body for its reproductive capabilities, more than men. The urge to control women’s bodies, to understand their invisibility, and the patriarchal tradition to read women as “walking uterus” have resulted in the development of greater options for women. However, there is a catch to this, contrary to what this website says, current contraceptive methods are not so beneficial for women’s health. There is a lack of research on long term effects of these methods, for example YAS – one of the best marketed and most expensive pills were recently removed from the market because of recently discovered side-effects. So I think that before making judgement claims, it is important to adopt a pragmatic position and look at the whole picture. Both women and men are equally vulnerable when it comes to reproductive rights. And while it is true that some women might use pregnancy to keep a men, it is also true that a lot of men flee because the pregnancy is not happening to their bodies. They dont have to deal with it in the same way that women do, in fact, they cannot even begin to imagine what it is like to have your body change so much for nine months, and even after the baby is born, and even before while taking any kind of contraceptive methods.
The key to address these issues is to not start a war of gender, but rather to foster communication between couples so that there is greater understanding and compassion. If you want to start a war, attack the medical system, attack researchers, pharmaceutical companies who produce crappy -but highly profitable- contraceptive methods that are damaging women’s bodies and giving no options to men. And if men are offended at how often they are “trapped” and forced to provide financial support, then attack a system that continually perpetuates social inequities for both men and women. This article seems to forget the fact that women and men have never achieved an equal social status in our society, and both sexes are being equally hurt by it while only those in positions of power make all the decisions.
To Mr. Knight,
I read you loud and clear. And I agree.
It’s true that custody and support usually go to the woman because of stereotypes like “Women are better at nurturing than men” and “men work and women stay home with the kids.”
I think there may be a biological basis for women being more nurturing – but, if it exists, the “feminazis” have been trying to destroy it for years. They want to be just like men, and pregnancy is about as female as you can get. It’s anathema to them.
I’ll stick to my point. Birth control doesn’t eliminate the possibility of parenthood. It just lowers the odds.
If you don’t want to be a parent, don’t give those little wigglers any chance to approach an egg. Don’t let “tab A” get anywhere near “slot B.” Don’t have vaginal sex.
I know it’s not easy. But if you don’t want to risk having to support a child, and this applies to both genders, then go for the sure thing. Don’t gamble. Abstain.
And I hope I’ve made it clear previously that I think fathers should be included in any abortion decision. But I don’t think a father should have the power to force a woman either to have the baby, or to kill it. That still leaves the power in her hands.
So where does that leave us? I’d love to see a law requiring the notification of all possible fathers. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Ruthie
donnieh –
thank you for the well presented counterpoints – i really do appreciate intelligent debate and discussion on topics like this.
you say that “The state does not have to subsidize her choice.” aside from our disagreement on what it takes to raise a child emotionally, physically, and financially (i wish being “strong and independent” were really enough) i am curious about your correlation between the decline of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and reduction/eliminations of state aid – what study/report are you citing? it’s potentially an interesting relationship i’d like to read more about.
as to your core argument about equal choices, i think i really do get where you’re coming from and it’s definitely a sound and logical theoretical argument. but sadly life doesn’t always reflect theory or ideals.
at the end of the day, carrying a child to term is a 9 month physical, financial, and emotional commitment on the part of the woman. men’s involvement in pregnancy and childbirth is exactly that – involvement. kind of like the old analogy of bacon and eggs for breakfast – the chicken was involved, the pig was committed. for whatever biological/philosophical/religious reasons exist, women are the one’s to physically incubate/carry/produce/birth the offspring. you cannot ignore these biological facts. because the woman has to make the majority of the physical commitment ultimately certain decisions rest with her. her body. if men carried the offspring i would have to concede that certain decisions were theirs to make as well. i look at birth control methods in a similar fashion. although i would prefer my husband to have a vasectomy, i would never dream of imposing my will on another person’s body. it’s just wrong.
i would love to live in a world where these decisions are ALWAYS made jointly with respect to both parties’ beliefs and preferences, but again, at the end of the day, the physical commitment is the woman’s. i do agree that this way of looking at the issue isn’t always fair. it can’t be. and i’m certain there are good people on both sides that are being screwed over. but i truly believe the supreme court understood the implications of FORCING women to be breeders by taking away safe choices.
i agree that presumption of shared parenting would be a good start for a lot of people (those in non-abusive relationships) but again, i’m sure there are people who would find a way around this too. all in all i think one of the best short term solutions would to be to simply evaluate each case as a stand alone case rather than funneling everybody through the same, ignorant, ineffective system we’re currently using. seriously. reviewing each case in terms of it’s own unique qualities and merits would (hopefully) result in fewer unjust abuses. but then again, i’m an optimist.
@ RZ
You wrote, “As far as child support goes, if the baby has your DNA, then you should support it.”
Such statements tend to be directed at men, and not at women.
Why? Because of the presumption that the woman is to raise the child in her home each day, while the man sends cash to her.
How very Industrial Revolution.
I have a better presumption, also in the form of a statement directed at fathers:
“If the baby has your DNA, you should have full custody of your baby so you can raise your baby in your home.”
Women have the right to prevent their baby daughter or baby son from being killed by abortion between conception and birth.
The law needs to recognize and protect fathers’ rights to prevent their baby daughter or baby son from being killed by abortion between conception and birth.
That is the only right way; it is the only way that men and women can ever have equal rights.
I’m disappointed with guys who proclaim that equal rights stops at an equal right to avoid financial responsibility; no, in fact, equal rights begins with an equal right to prevent your child from being killed.
Dear Miss, you assert “it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the guy to be able to say, “screw you lady, I don’t want to be a parent, I’m ‘opting out’.”
Why not? She doesn’t have to be a parent if she doesn’t want to be one (abortion/abandonment (e.g., “safe haven” or baby dumping)/adopt out). Why shouldn’t a man who doesn’t want to be a parent have similar choices? Why does that not make sense?
The state does not have to subsidize her choice. Strong, independent women can do it on their own! Odd thing- when governments eliminate or reduce the support available to unmarried mothers, out-of-wedlock pregnancies decline. Who would have thought?!
The flip side- he wants to be a father, but the woman unilaterally chooses to abort- “Screw you, buddy, I don’t want to be a parent. I’m opting out!” = Constitutionally protected (don’t even have to NOTIFY the husband that either 1- his wife committed adultry and is aborting the child of another man or 2- his child is being aborted). Does that make sense?
I’m probably not the only man on this website that’s sick and tired of such bigoted duplicity.
Presumption of joint physical custody (shared parenting) would be a good step toward reforming the abusive child support system. Capping CS (e.g., for 0% physical custody) at the level of support the state provides for foster parents would be another. But #1 & 2 in my book is eliminating federal Title IV reimbursement to states and repealing the Bradley Amendment.
Just a gentle reminder that child support isn’t about the man or woman, it’s about the CHILD. For a little background on me, yes, I am a woman. I’m also married with a son and my husband pays child support for a child from a previous relationship. There have definitely been times where I would have liked to see the money stay in OUR pockets for OUR child, but it’s not his daughter’s fault. And while I agree that the system is in DESPERATE need of change, it is the system in place for now. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, consider lobbying for real change.
I can TOTALLY appreciate the argument that SOME women entrap men by getting pregnant. It’s a story as old as time. Heck, I know a couple of women offhand that probably fit that description. I can also think of more than a few situations where the “sperm donor” jumped ship and left the woman high and dry. But just because SOME women and men do this doesn’t mean ALL women and men do. Again, proposing that child support be done away with simply because your (?) personal experience sucked really doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Again, at the end of the day you DO have options. Don’t have sex. Masturbate. Wear a condom. Get a vasectomy (depending on the procedure they ARE reversible). Yes women have more birth control options… mostly because its easier to stop a single egg than it is to stop millions of sperm. But guess what? Birth control fails. Scary, I know. It’s the reason I’m a mother today.
Please consider this situation – a woman in a monogamous relationship is taking birth control religiously because she enjoys condom-less sex too but it fails and she gets pregnant. If the woman doesn’t want to have an abortion (for WHATEVER reason) it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the guy to be able to say, “screw you lady, I don’t want to be a parent, I’m ‘opting out’.” Unplanned pregnancies happen, even with the best prevention efforts. A man’s immaturity, lack of desire to be a parent, or sheer bad luck with contraception doesn’t negate his responsibility to his DNA contribution. Sorry, but I really don’t think the “state” should have to pick up the tab because he doesn’t want to.
And realize that just because child support exists doesn’t mean men pay it (either because they can’t or won’t). And plenty of people leave state rather than pay. Again, I KNOW this system sucks and it NEEDS change. But in a society where “single mother = poverty” children shouldn’t suffer because “daddy” is a jilted lover or POS.
@Shatteredmen – yes, women “use much more health care” – mostly preventative and prenatal. But men use MUCH more emergency services and cost more to care for later in life because they take more physical and health risks and they DON’T use preventative services. Rates for all types of insurance are calculated using advanced math/statistics and risk analysis. Numerous public policy statements have concluded that the differences in the rates for health insurance are arbitrary and discriminatory. If you’re going to use the “insurance industry” as an example of “equality” you may want to seriously reconsider. It’s a wonderfully corrupt group that exploits ALL people as much as possible… wait, I guess that IS equality. :/
I thought this was a pro-man site, 3Dshooter, not one for misogynists.
Since no birth control method works 100%, heterosexual vaginal sex ALWAYS carries the risk of pregnancy. BOTH of you take that risk, so both of you pay if you lose. That’s all there is to it.
If you don’t want to do your share: babysit, change diapers, do laundry, cook for them, enroll them in schools, raise them right, buy them clothes, and all the rest of what it takes to raise a child, then you get to PAY someone else to do it.
Paying child support is cheap compared to what it would cost to hire all those things done.
Man up, you selfish, self-centered prat. Being a man means much more than having a set of genitals. “Men” like you are one* reason the current legal system is currently pro-woman. Think about it.
RZ
*Not the only reason; and others are unfair. But not this one.
The third option should not read “no sex.” It should read: “no penile-vaginal sex.” There are several ways for men to engage in partnered sex with no possibility of getting a woman pregnant. Obviously, there is male homosexual sex. However, within heterosexuality, there are options that don’t result in pregnancy. Oral sex is one and anal sex is another. To ensure no semen slips into the vagina during anal sex, the woman could put a tampon in her vagina. There are also several other options that don’t get the woman pregnant.
@RZ
Sorry to have to burst you’re bubble, but sex is consensual – the choice to carry and birth a baby are not. In modern society, that is a choice made by a woman and a woman ONLY. If mistakes happen, there are remedies.
With choice comes responsibility, DNA be damned [and at least in KY that seems to be the position of gov't - there the husband of a child's mother is automatically assessed c$ regardless of the DNA]. Only a woman has the choice to carry and birth a child so she, and she alone, should bear the responsibility for that choice (and when men stand beside them in that choice through free will alone they benefit).
Child $upport is a form of indentured servitude – look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary. You may try and twist the words with linguistic gymnastics, but in the end it is slavery. And the means of enforcement are amongst the most abusive in the gov’ts arsenal – worse than the IRS, and that is saying something.
Child $upport has become an incentive for women to behave badly, both within marriage and without – a safety net for bad behavior that needs to be withdrawn. In our society your wife can be f’n the pool boy all day while you are at work, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave – and if there is a kid involved, you will be stuck with the bill if you are a man.
Child $upport should be ABOLISHED. If women cannot control their own bodies, cannot maintain relationships/marriages and cannot support themselves then they shouldn’t be doing it on their kids backs.
I say let bleeding hearts like you pick up the tab . . .
As far as child support goes, if the baby has your DNA, then you should support it. Whether it was conceived by a couple trying to get pregnant, or by deliberate deception, it is still your child. It takes both a sperm and an egg to make a baby.
There’s only one way to avoid responsibility for pregnancies: keep it zipped. If a woman gets pregnant, and you haven’t had sex with her, you’re in no danger of paying child support. (Yes, I know and deplore the anti-male bias in support and custody awards. No straw men, please.)
It shouldn’t be one-sided, but it is. The availability of so many kinds of birth control for women has put the load on them. You can see it in some of the above comments: the idea that if a woman gets pregnant, it’s her fault. Don’t think you can spread your sperm with impunity, and if a woman gets pregnant, it’s all her fault, and you should be able to avoid responsibility. Wrong. (It’s not all your fault, either. It’s 50-50.)
Those of you who believe that pregnancy is always the woman’s fault should not be agitating for better male contraceptives, because if it happens, the blame swings back to the middle.
RZ
Caveat: yes, I’m female – but I agree with most of what I see on this website. Injustice is always injustice, no matter who is affected. I hope you don’t mind if I hang around; how else am I going to learn what the “politically correct” media won’t tell me?
@ Paul R
I could not agree with you more.
With regards to male contraceptives. I have always been worried about the possibility of becoming an involuntary father, and the present availability of male contraceptives has not reassured me at all.
Today’s male contraception consists of the condom, the timing, and vasectomy. The first two are highly unreliable and open to deliberate prevention by women. i.e. the condom can be pulled off by the vaginal sphincter muscle during intercourse, and forgotten or neglected altogether in ’spontaneous’ sex; and the timing is open to error and deceit.
The vasectomy consists of surgical mutilation with serious short and long term health implications, and it appears to me that it has been quietly abandoned by a medical profession anxious to avoid litigation. The main health implications consist of inflammation of the scrotum due to decomposition of the deposited semen and sperm granulomas, and due to this, a restriction in the regular milking of the prostrate, which is necessary because of the constant exposure and stimulation that all men receive from the pheromones of menstruating women. It is highly unlikely that a man can pass a single day without this exposure unless he lives a monk like existence!
Thus the prostrate is constantly irritated by inflammation of un-discharged ’male milk’ (there appears to be no medical term for this – an indication of the disregard for male conditions) which increases the likelihood of eventual prostrate cancer. The National Cancer Institute reports that there are some studies to suggest an association between a vasectomy and prostate cancer.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, at present there is no effective and practical male contraceptive.
I agree with 3D – her body, her choice, her responsibility. The only time a man should be held responsible for a child is when he volunteers to accept that responsibility. Traditionally, that’s what marriage signified; until the 1970s, an unmarried mother was financially responsible for the child. After all, if a man has no reproductive rights–and any rights he might have were rescinded by Roe v Wade–he should have only the responsibilities he chooses to accept.
The paradigm for adult responsibility is that the one who makes the choice gets the responsibility. As it is, the right to abortion is a right to abort but also also the power to continue the pregnancy and force the man into fatherhood. A woman should not have the right to make that decision for a man.
I also suspect that if unilateral abortion rights for women resulted in unilateral responsibility for women, the demand for abortion rights would go down. Right now, it’s a freebie, a choice with no price to pay for making the choice.
First, I agree, the issue of reproduction isn’t fair to men. I mean, yes a woman takes on all the physical risks of pregnancy and labor, but men can and do bond with their fetus. It takes two to tango and its really not fair to put all the responsibility or all the choice on one partner.
That being said, Plan B is not an abortion pill. And every time people hear or read it like that it gets harder to get; I drove an hour and a half to get it to have on hand in case of emergencies simply because I didn’t want to drive an hour and a half if an emergency came up.
Oh, and for people who need barrier protection for disease control, and really, anyone that’s not in a committed monogamos relationship needs barrier method protection as HPV and other STI’s are on the rise, try a female condom. They’re made of a different material that conducts body heat better and they are absolutely dripping with lube, so the men get that wet sensation. There are also some new male condoms made of some different material that conducts heat better.
Her Body
Her Choice
Her Re$pon$ibility
That is the only way the wrongs of the child $upport system can be righted. When women feel they can discard dad or seek to only inform a partner that he might be a dad in order to seek c$ – she should expect nothing. As it stands, they spread their legs and turn men into walking ATMs.
When the responsibility for her actions and for maintaining workable relationships is restored by the abolition of c$, there will be a sea change in womens attitudes towards men. As long as they know they’ve got a 90%+ chance of hooking some man to pay the bill for their choices – not a chance.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and don’t like people that are. However, I have long wondered why we hear from time to time that the “male pill is just around the corner.” I have also heard that in other parts of the world there are hormonal fertility reducing methods for men that have comparable effectiveness to the female pill.
There are a whole lot of people who make their living holding men’s feet to the fire for child support. There is no doubt of that. Also, I scarcely read a story about male birth control without seeing at least a handful of comments in the comment section written by women who harbor extremely bigoted views about male contraception.
“They will forget to take it” or better still “they will lie about being on it.” This is the exact same thing that bigoted people said about the female pill when it was made available in 62, yet it was put to market quickly after it was developed.
I can’t help but think that there are a whole lot of influential people out there that just don’t want men to have control of their fertility.
Your last words said it all:
“I have sometimes wondered if my lack of rights as a man is because, being male; I am regarded as not quite a human?”
… and women have the audacity to accuse MEN of seeing WOMEN as “sex objects”?!
These are very important issues that lie at the heart of some of the worst injustices that men suffer in comparison with women. Men cannot have rights over what happens in a woman’s body and I don’t think there is anything we can or should do about that. We should not have rights over what anyone else does with their body. That does not mean that there should not be consequences for them as a result of what they choose to do.
If a woman truly loved her partner then she would not want him to achieve less pleasurable sex than she achieves. If the aim of a condom is to act as a contraceptive then you would expect a loving woman to choose another method of contraception that did not diminish her own pleasure and actually increased her partner’s pleasure. A woman who does not want that type of fairness in a sexual relationship is entitled to insist on a condom but the consequences for her are that her partner may well seek out someone else to whom justice in sexual pleasure was important.
In the same way a loving woman would not prefer vasectomy to oral contraception. Vasectomy is invasive and it is basically a final decision. If a woman could choose to save her partner from these consequences by using contraception in her own body that had little or no consequences then she should do so. To not so choose is to show a lack of concern for justice in terms of the amount of inconvenience suffered.
I don’t think you can legislate that the woman should choose contraception instead of the man because it is telling women what to do with their own bodies. There should be consequences for women who do not so choose and that is that men should steer clear of them because they do not value justice in a very important part of the relationship.
The more unjust scenario in all of this is that men are not given the same opportunities to control whether or not they become parents. You cannot really stop a woman from becoming pregnant but becoming pregnant is not an automatic path to parenthood. When she becomes pregnant she then has to make a choice about whether or not to become a parent and to accept or reject all the consequences of that decision. She has total control over that choice. No one can force her to become a parent and no one can stop her. That is the free choice that all parents should have in a civilised society.
It is clear that men do not have that same freedom of choice. They cannot force any woman to become a mother so that they can become a parent. This is how it should be. Freedom of the individual is more important than becoming a parent at the expense of that freedom. Equally it should be that no one can force a man to become a parent and to take on responsibilities that he does not freely choose. The man should be free to choose after pregnancy is discovered in the same way that a woman is. The fact that a woman chooses parenthood should in no way compel a man to also choose parenthood.
Men have that freedom of choice taken from them by the state. They can be forced into responsibilities associated with parenthood even if they do not want it. This is one of the most barbaric pieces of injustice in our supposedly enlightened society and we should be doing everything possible to see that such state power is destroyed.
There are many spurious arguments put forward to rationalise this gross injustice but none of them stand up to reason and most of them are designed to allow women to finance their own decision for parenthood.
I can assure you that if the situation were reversed, all stops would be pulled to make it an equal playing field just as we see in health care where some are trying to demand that women have the same rates as men although they use much more health care…but they are not wanting to equalize other insurance where men pay more.
http://shatterdmen.com/march.htm