Men's reproductive rights

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I don't even know where to begin with this story. A male activist group aptly named The National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit that would grant men the right to disregard any financially responsibility for children they sire. The premise of the suit is if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father shouldn't be "forced" to support the child. After all, it's the woman's "choice" to continue with the pregnancy.

Men with a skewed notion of personal responsibility...

Seriously, if these guys can't learn to use a condom, they need to keep their wee-wee's in check! And how the hell can one possibly equate personal financial responsibility to a woman's reproductive rights?




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
A man can use a condom, but a woman has many more options available. Not only that, she could always "say" she is on the pill or something and not be. So, if a mistake is made (a hole in the condom, it breaks, the birth control doesn't work) then a man has zero say in the matter and then would be required to pay for 18 years at least.

In some cases, it can be a 1/3rd of his monthly income.

Takes "two to tango" but only one gets to decide hardly seems a fair deal.

The bottom line is that when men and women split, the child is used to make men pay huge amounts of money that sometimes is never even used to support the child.

I would rather that ALL custodial parents be mandated to show receipts to the person paying support.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Maria,
it takes two to tango especially in the consception of a child. It is not just the man's responsibility to use a condom it is also the woman's responsibility.
If neither partner are willing to take the the neccessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy much less than STD's or even worse, AIDS. As the laws stands now the "father" has little or no say in what happens to the fetus. If the woman deciddes to abort, the "father" does not even have to be notified. If the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, it depends on the state's laws if the father is notified.
In a recent case, a man had donated his sperm while he was married. The couple subsequently divorced. The woman then had a bright idea.. she went to the fertility clinic, got herself pregnant with her ex-husband's sperm, then went after the ex for child support.
During all this, the ex had no idea of what was going on until he was hit with the child support suit. here is a link to the story: abclocal.go.com...
The problem that I see with this whole mess, neither partner wishes to take responsibility for their actions. The laws in the US are way lopsided in favor of the woman. There is a need to bring some kind of an equalizer into the mix. The group that has filed this petition knows fully well that it will not go far. What they are looking for is just what we are doing here. discussing the issue and hopefully bring about a better set of laws governing child bearing.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I absolutely agree with the fact that it takes two to tango. However, you guys are missing the point. If a couple chooses to have sex, regardless of the type of contraceptive used, there is always a risk (no matter how minute) of pregnancy.

Yes, it's true condoms can break; medications can interfer with the pill; yada, yada, yada. The fact remains, if you choose to have sex, you are in a sense playing procreation roulette. Men, if you do not want to run the risk of siring children then I kindly suggest (1) don't have sex, and (2) don't donate your sperm.

The bottom line, a woman who is raising a child is already carrying the burden of financial responsibility. A man shouldn't be allowed to weasel his way out of supporting a child he sired. Period.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The bottom line, a woman who is raising a child is already carrying the burden of financial responsibility. A man shouldn't be allowed to weasel his way out of supporting a child he sired. Period.


Why can't the men raise the children and the women pay support?

If it takes two, then why can't the man decide to abort the child?

Women have the choices...have the baby or not, but a man has no choice. That is not a fair system. That is a system that punishes men. It is also a system that punishes fathers during divorces. Somehow a father's love, etc is only noticed when there are dollar signs attached. That's pretty sad for the children.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Wow, I sense a little bitterness here.

Just to set the record straight, there are men who raise the children and women who pay support. And yes, women do have reproductive choices. And, no it is not entirely a fair system. If it were, men would also be able to bear children, as opposed to just siring them. And to state that a father's love is only noticed when there are dollar signs attached is wholly outrageous.

To state that men have no reproductive rights is down right laughable. They have a right to take the responsibility to engage in safe sex, not just rely on the woman to "take her pill." They also have the reproductive right not to engage in sex!

Men have choices. They just might not be the choices they want!



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   


The bottom line is that when men and women split, the child is used to make men pay huge amounts of money that sometimes is never even used to support the child.




In a recent case, a man had donated his sperm while he was married. The couple subsequently divorced. The woman then had a bright idea.. she went to the fertility clinic, got herself pregnant with her ex-husband's sperm, then went after the ex for child support.


These quotes remind me of Reagan and his "welfare queen" anecdotes.

The noncustodial parent's share of court-ordered child support almost never covers the full cost of raising the child. Nor can it do so, because the parents are maintaining two households after the split rather than one.

A woman who has a baby in order to get money from her ex in child support is, for that reason, cutting off her nose to spite her face. Financially, she'd be better off not having the child and doing without the child support. The only exception to this is if the mother is poor and the father is rich, and in that case he can afford it and shouldn't whine.

The system can be abused. I know, because I've been the victim of such abuse. But that was a case of my ex using a loophole, and I found a way around it in the end. To put the complete burden on her is something I have never wanted, it would not be right, and I do not consider the obligation to help support my children to be unfair.

When a man fathers a child, whether intentionally or not, a child exists and requires support. If we are pro-choice on the abortion issue, that includes a woman's right to choose NOT to have an abortion and instead to have the child. If she does, then an obligation exists to support the child. To share the burden between the parents is reasonable and fair.

As for the suggestion that child support is "never even used to support the child," unless the mother is rich, that's absurd.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   


When a man fathers a child, whether intentionally or not, a child exists and requires support. If we are pro-choice on the abortion issue, that includes a woman's right to choose NOT to have an abortion and instead to have the child. If she does, then an obligation exists to support the child. To share the burden between the parents is reasonable and fair.

Well said! If a person is sexually active, then that person assumes the risk AND the responsibility if a child is conceived. You can't play the game and not expect to pay the consequences when the dice don't roll your way. To share the burden between both parents is reasonable and fair.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Women have the choices...have the baby or not, but a man has no choice. That is not a fair system. That is a system that punishes men.

Childbirth and periods are gods way of telling Eve she was naughty too. Is that fair? No it's just reality.
I have known men that have been missled with the "I'm on the pill" line. I feel some sympathy for them but still they can always say no if they don't want to risk fathering a child.
If they are really concerned.. they can always go on the male pill and protect themselves. I wonder how women would react to guys saying "Don't worry I'm on the pill."



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust

If a person is sexually active, then that person assumes the risk AND the responsibility if a child is conceived.
To share the burden between both parents is reasonable and fair.

If it is reasonable and fair to share the burden isn’t it also reasonable and fair to share in the decision making process?

Isn’t it more equitable if the Man choice to say, "No I don’t want to have a child with you" is also given as much weightage as the woman’s choice to have a child? What if the Man doesn’t want to and the woman goes and has a child any way? He is still forced to pay childcare and he is still forced to support a child that he knew he couldn’t support or for numerous other reasons. Plus not to mention the emotional trauma of having an illegitimate kid.

Today we don’t have to contend with the Neanderthal predicament of maybe/maybe not in sex, there are many opportunities to abort/ prevent at various stages and despite this if the woman still knowingly goes against the wish of her partner than the responsibility would be hers and hers alone. Just because a person is of a particular sex and has a particular natural ability doesn’t entitle them to throttle others just to satisfy their own wants and desires of womanhood does it?

9 months of gestation doesn’t entitle you to inflict 18 years of financial and a lifetime of emotional responsibility.



[edit on 15-3-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
What if the Man doesn’t want to and the woman goes and has a child any way? He is still forced to pay childcare and he is still forced to support a child that he knew he couldn’t support or for numerous other reasons.

Unless he had is sperm stolen he'd be well aware of the potential consequences.

Plus not to mention the emotional trauma of having an illegitimate kid.

Opposed to her doing what she's told and aborting? Great trade off to protect him from trauma.

9 months of gestation doesn’t entitle you to inflict 18 years of financial and a lifetime of emotional responsibility.

He can always ask for custody to ensure he's is not taken advantage of.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Isn’t it more equitable if the Man choice to say, "No I don’t want to have a child with you" is also given as much weightage as the woman’s choice to have a child?


It may be more equitable, but that's not the way biology works. The man DOES have a choice, it's just made at a different point in time. He CAN choose not to have a child with a woman. The way to choose that is to NOT take the risk of having sex.

Anytime anyone has sex, there's a risk of pregnancy (barring physical impossibilities).



What if the Man doesn’t want to and the woman goes and has a child any way? He is still forced to pay childcare and he is still forced to support a child that he knew he couldn’t support or for numerous other reasons.


If he's not willing to support a child, and doesn't want a child and isn't prepared to have and support a child, then he's not prepared or qualified to have responsible sex. A possible outcome of sex is a baby and if someone isn't prepared to handle that, in whatever way is available to them, then they should refrain. A man has no recourse after the pregnancy occurs. It's not fair, I agree, but there are no claims that it's fair.

And there is a child that needs care, all other decisions or desires are moot.



Plus not to mention the emotional trauma of having an illegitimate kid.


As opposed to the emotional trauma of aborting a child against one's will?



Just because a person is of a particular sex and has a particular natural ability doesn’t entitle them to throttle others just to satisfy their own wants and desires of womanhood does it?


Well, I certainly wouldn't use the word throttle.
But the man exercises his wants and desires along the line as well. And I'm sorry to say that you (as a man, I'm assuming) will never know the feeling of discovering that there is a potential person growing inside your body. For me, and for many women, it's a watershed moment, none like any other. There is a feeling of wanting to protect this little thing with one's life if necessary. And to demand that a woman give it up against her will is a throttling like you'll never know.



9 months of gestation doesn’t entitle you to inflict 18 years of financial and a lifetime of emotional responsibility.



Then you need to ask yourself if 15 minutes of pleasure is worth it.

But let's be real, if a woman is on the pill (pregnancy prevention) and they use a condom (STD protection) and they talk about the possibilities beforehand, there should be no problem. And if she tells you she's on the pill and you don't know her well enough to know whether she's telling the truth or not, you need to use every possible means to protect yourself. BEFOREHAND.

If there was a chance she had AIDS, would you be cavalier? No, because your life is on the line. Well, there's a life at stake anytime people have sex. It's just responsible sex.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Unless he had is sperm stolen he'd be well aware of the potential consequences.

Well it could be considered that because, his sperm would be used without his consent to have a baby and over that he would have to pay for it. A double whammy of sorts.

Unless you think that once the sperm is deposited the man has no right over it what so ever ?
In that case he would have no responsibility over what happens to it too .



Plus not to mention the emotional trauma of having an illegitimate kid.

Opposed to her doing what she's told and aborting? Great trade off to protect him from trauma.

Abortion would only be case if the woman doesnt take contraceptives in the first place and they have ample opportunity to do so before and after. But if the woman were to still choose to ignore this and continue towards pregnancy then an abortion would be unavoidable.

Sure you could argue that abortion is a traumatic experience but 9 months of gestation and birth is equal to if not more of a trauma.



He can always ask for custody to ensure he's is not taken advantage of.

Though this might seem to be balanced and equal, no jury would take a child from his mother unless she was a psychopath or worse, that is sadly the state of law.

Even if he were to be given custody, it would be an imposition, something that was thrust upon him by a woman wanting to revile in her womanhood.
If the responsibility of raising a child is 50-50 between the parents then so to should be the right of having a child in the first place.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Well it could be considered that because, his sperm would be used without his consent to have a baby


What do you mean, used without his consent? Unless he was raped, he consented! He gave it to her! He may have persuaded her to take it, in fact.



Sure you could argue that abortion is a traumatic experience but 9 months of gestation and birth is equal to if not more of a trauma.


That argument is like saying that death of a loved one and birth of a loved one are both traumatic experiences, therefore equal? One is usually desired, and the other is not. There's a HUGE difference.

You talk as if the man is a victim here and it's just not the case. He knows the stakes. He knows the rules. If he plays the game, then he bears the consequences.

Neither the man nor the woman are victims in a consensual sexual relationship. They both know what could happen.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Well it could be considered that because, his sperm would be used without his consent to have a baby and over that he would have to pay for it. A double whammy of sorts.

I had no idea men could tell their sperm not to fertalise an egg. Very well trained they are.
There have been rare instances where women have stolen used condoms and impregnated themselves [I remember it happened to a high profile basketballer].. when this is the case yeah it's against their will but having sex is consenting to possible pregnancy.

Abortion would only be case if the woman doesnt take contraceptives in the first place and they have ample opportunity to do so before and after. But if the woman were to still choose to ignore this and continue towards pregnancy then an abortion would be unavoidable.

Both men and women know contraception is not 100%. If it were abortion would not exist. Unavoidable? Abortion is not 'undoing' conception. It is killing a fetus.. I am indeed pro-choice but pro-choice in that it's inside a woman's body and she has the final word.. unless you think men should have the right to force her to undergo an invasive operation against her will?

Sure you could argue that abortion is a traumatic experience but 9 months of gestation and birth is equal to if not more of a trauma.

Physical pain and the emotional trauma of having an abortion are two different things. At least she has given birth to a child and not having to grieve for it.

Even if he were to be given custody, it would be an imposition, something that was thrust upon him by a woman wanting to revile in her womanhood.

How dare she have a repoductive organ! I can't believe I am reading this. She cannot help being fertile... motherhood is a fact of life and sex causes pregnancy. If men want to have sex purely for pleasure with no repecussions.. buy a blow up doll.

If the responsibility of raising a child is 50-50 between the parents then so to should be the right of having a child in the first place.

Fine. I demand that if I ever get pregnant.. the father should carry it 9 months and give birth instead.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If he's not willing to support a child, and doesn't want a child and isn't prepared to have and support a child, then he's not prepared or qualified to have responsible sex. A possible outcome of sex is a baby and if someone isn't prepared to handle that, in whatever way is available to them, then they should refrain.

I was under the impression that sex is mutually agreeable and not one sided and if it were to be one sided then wouldn’t it be considered as rape ?
Essentially when a man has sex with a woman it would mean that the woman was also has sex with the man and they share the responsibility of that intercourse. So you're saying that every time a woman has sex she wants a baby with you ?




A man has no recourse after the pregnancy occurs. It's not fair, I agree, but there are no claims that it's fair.

If it isnt fair in the first place then what claims of injustice can be made by the woman ? Shouldnt it be the case that the man asks for compensation for being forced into being a father and shouldering responsibility ?
If women are to be considered equals then shouldnt equality be extend to all aspects of our lives and does this mean that women are more equal then men in some cases ?

As for the child, the woman has 24 months to abort or at lest 12 months to do so with minimal trauma and by still dithering she would impose a burden on those who dont want it just to satisfy her womanhood.



Well, I certainly wouldn't use the word throttle.
But the man exercises his wants and desires along the line as well.

Being a woman you wouldn’t understand the male perspective of such an issue; being forced to provide for somebody when you aren’t ready to do so is indeed a throttling experience for a man. The lack of equal control over the issue also adds to this.

Granted he should have been careful to begin with but with today’s technological advances in contraceptives it is quite easy for the woman to prevent pregnancy. Only her deliberate attempt at getting pregnant, in spite of her knowledge about the man's wishes makes this whole thing all the more inequitable for the man.

As for a man exercising his wants and desires, how can he? As you have mentioned above, he has no recourse once the woman is pregnant and cannot force her to take the pill or some such. As for getting to know her better, shouldn’t the woman also take equal responsibility to get to know the man better and find out if he wants to sire a child with her or not?

If it known to be unjust then why should men stand for this ? I dare say, women would hardly tolerate such partisanship had the tables been turned !


Then you need to ask yourself if 15 minutes of pleasure is worth it.

It is 15minutes of pleasure for both the man and the woman, concluding with the woman having control at the end of the 15mins over the fetus and the man !


If there was a chance she had AIDS, would you be cavalier? No, because your life is on the line. Well, there's a life at stake anytime people have sex. It's just responsible sex.

I agree with responsible sex but I also think that there should be uniform responsibility. Responsibility should extend to the woman to respect the wishes of the Male when she has the opportunity to do so and if she still refuses to have the courage to take total responsibility of her actions and support the child independently. This is not only the fair but also the right thing to do. The woman cannot claim that mere 15 minutes of contact with a man would seal his responsibility over events, which he has no control over.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What do you mean, used without his consent? Unless he was raped, he consented! He gave it to her! He may have persuaded her to take it, in fact.

You are missing the point, I do claim to say that the man was raped by the woman but instead talk of the fact that a woman could take/receive the mans sperm in good faith with an assurance of her taking contraceptive measures against pregnancy and then deceive the man intentionaly to have his baby and sponge on him for her and the childs upkeep.
This has happened and continues to happen.



That argument is like saying that death of a loved one and birth of a loved one are both traumatic experiences, therefore equal? One is usually desired, and the other is not. There's a HUGE difference.

From what I have head from women they usually fing the 9 month gestation to be similar to a nightmare; taxing both physicaly, emotionaly and mentaly. It is this trauma that I refer to not the product of this 9 month period in making my comparison.


You talk as if the man is a victim here and it's just not the case. He knows the stakes. He knows the rules. If he plays the game, then he bears the consequences.

Exactly, and in the same way the woman knows the rules and the game too. The problem is that it is easier for the woman to win than it is for the man because the odds are staked up in her favour- legally and biologicaly.

All I am saying is if a man is supposed to bear the responsibilites, which I strongly feel he should, shouldnt he be allowed to have rights as well ?

[edit on 15-3-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I am indeed pro-choice but pro-choice in that it's inside a woman's body and she has the final word.. unless you think men should have the right to force her to undergo an invasive operation against her will?

Do you mean to say that the sperm is no longer the man's once the female receives it ? If so, how can you say that he is responsible for a child from it ?

I am not saying that the woman should be forced to abort but rather absolve the father of all responsibility if she isnt going to respect his wishes with respect to having a child or not.



How dare she have a repoductive organ! I can't believe I am reading this. She cannot help being fertile... motherhood is a fact of life and sex causes pregnancy. If men want to have sex purely for pleasure with no repecussions.. buy a blow up doll.

Though you might have found that mortifying, a woman could indeed chose not to have a baby. Its not like she is helpless in the face of nature.
I agree motherhood is a fact of life but all sex doesn’t have to lead to pregnancy. Today a woman cannot reasonably say that she couldn’t avoid getting pregnant with the range of choices at her disposal. Most women fantasize having a baby and in this quest despite knowing fully well that their partners cannot support such a burden seek to thrust in nonetheless upon them just so that they can feel like a woman.
This I say is unfair and has no place in a world where feminists espouse equality under all circumstances.


Fine. I demand that if I ever get pregnant.. the father should carry it 9 months and give birth instead.

Just because women have the biological ability to do something doesnt mean that they can consider their rights over the it to be superior to men or having more precedence.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Let me try to answer some of this. I went to the post office and grocery store and there's all kinds of new stuff!



Originally posted by IAF101
I was under the impression that sex is mutually agreeable and not one sided and if it were to be one sided then wouldn’t it be considered as rape ?
Essentially when a man has sex with a woman it would mean that the woman was also has sex with the man and they share the responsibility of that intercourse. So you're saying that every time a woman has sex she wants a baby with you ?


Yes, the sex we're talking about is mutually agreed upon. And yes, they share the responsibility. And no, I'm not saying a woman always wants a baby.

Everything I said about the man goes for the woman, too. Sorry if that seemed one-sided, I was just speaking to the man's side. If a woman is not willing to support a child, and doesn't want a child and isn't prepared to have and support a child, then she's not prepared or qualified to have responsible sex. And if she's not prepared to handle that, in whatever way is available to her, then she should refrain, too.




If it isnt fair in the first place then what claims of injustice can be made by the woman?


I don't see a woman claiming injustice (unless you're a woman). You're the one claiming injustice here.

Remember, the man (in the kind of cases we're talking about) only pays for PART of the child's support. His child support covers only a portion of the child's care, not 100% of it.



As for the child, the woman has 24 months to abort or at lest 12 months to do so with minimal trauma and by still dithering she would impose a burden on those who dont want it just to satisfy her womanhood.


Dude, I think you mean 'weeks' and this isn't about 'satisfying womanhood'. If a woman is against abortion, it's about a life inside her and she doesn't want to take action that she considers snuffing that life. It's not about some selfish desire to be a woman. Believe me, we satisfy our womanhood in many other ways.



Being a woman you wouldn’t understand the male perspective of such an issue;


Agreed. But I've spoken to that. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And that goes for both people.



As for a man exercising his wants and desires, how can he?


You are way misunderstanding me. His wants and desires I was talking about were the sexual desires that got him in this mess in the first place.


Originally posted by IAF101
talk of the fact that a woman could take/receive the mans sperm in good faith with an assurance of her taking contraceptive measures against pregnancy and then deceive the man intentionaly to have his baby and sponge on him for her and the childs upkeep.
This has happened and continues to happen.


Yes it does happen. There are deceitful people out there. And I'm sorry about that. Buyer Beware. If your argument is that women lie to get men to do what they want, you should probably think about what men say to get women in bed, too. They're not always truthful, if you know what I mean. But yes, there are deceitful women out there and I hate them.


But if I were a man getting ready to have sex with a woman, I would do everything I could to make sure she didn't get pregnant. I don't care what she says. If the man takes 100% precaution, then there's very little chance she could get pregnant. Even then, he must be prepared for accidents or that .1% where the pill doesn't work (if they're depending on the pill). If only because he doesn't have a choice once she's pregnant. Every little bit of protection helps. If I were a man, I would insist on spermacide and a condom or else forget it.

It's not worth the risk of bringing a child into this world that I'm not ready for and who might have to grow up without a father.



From what I have head from women they usually fing the 9 month gestation to be similar to a nightmare;


And 99.9999% of them say it was well worth it and many do it again! Yeah, it's a drag, but the euphoria outweighs that tenfold.



All I am saying is if a man is supposed to bear the responsibilites, which I strongly feel he should, shouldnt he be allowed to have rights as well ?


He does have rights. Just not the right to choose abortion. That's the woman's choice. He has the right to discuss it ahead of time, to zip up his pants and leave, to demand to use protection, and he has rights to custody, visitation, etc.

I'm sorry it seems so unfair. I've had a similar conversation with my husband, so I hear you. It is unfair, but many things between the sexes are unfair. We have periods most of our lives! Every month! Once a month, I had cramps that laid me out! It's not fair! We have menopause for 10 years, and LET ME TELL YOU! It's unfair! We are weak compared to you! It's unfair!

Sorry.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And no, I'm not saying a woman always wants a baby.

So she has the option to abort because she doesnt want a baby. Similarly if a man doesnt want a baby but has sex he can do nothing much except say "In Durex I trust !" and leave it up to the woman !!



I don't see a woman claiming injustice (unless you're a woman). You're the one claiming injustice here.

What I mean is, women generaly claim 'injustice' in court when they are left with a child and are trying to extort money from the man.
And yes, I am aware that the Man only pays for part of the child care but has no part in the decision making process, other than choosing not to have sex.



Dude, I think you mean 'weeks' and this isn't about 'satisfying womanhood'.

Yes you are right, it is weeks not months. My bad.
But as for the womanhood thing, motherhood is very appealing to women and a lot of them try to become mothers at all costs. I'll give you an example of when a woman wanted to have kids despite the man not wanting to: (not abortion either!)
www.rte.ie...


If your argument is that women lie to get men to do what they want, you should probably think about what men say to get women in bed, too. They're not always truthful, if you know what I mean. But yes, there are deceitful women out there and I hate them.


Agree some men are bastards but women have greater protection in case of this eventuality becasue of child care etc they receive through legal process but men on the other hand dont have many/any laws that safegaurd their interests as well as the laws that safegaurd the mother.
I understand that by safegaurding the mother, the child benefits too and the fathers get visitation but why let the child be born in the first place and have to endure this charade that they call a family ?


But if I were a man getting ready to have sex with a woman,............. If I were a man, I would insist on spermacide and a condom or else forget it.

Dont mean to be rude but, if you were a man you wouldnt get laid if you go looking for spermicide and stuff like that.
But that is beside the point


But I admire your judgement regarding the need of a father for a child and the ability of the mother to care for her child but sadly many people are not as wise. Thus the shocking number of abortions .


He does have rights. Just not the right to choose abortion. That's the woman's choice. He has the right to discuss it ahead of time,

I am not saying that Men should be able to force their partners to abort even though she wants the child. I say, let the woman have her child if she wants to but dont make the father financially responsible for the childs welfare if the mother carries on with the pregnancy even though the father objects to it. Let her care for the child on her own, its only fair as she wants it, then she can have it at her own price.
This may sound craven and escapist but it is a reasonable and fair conclusion to arrive at and this is what the National council for Men ( what this thread is actually about!
) are trying to accomplish.


We have periods most of our lives! Every month! Once a month, I had cramps that laid me out! It's not fair! We have menopause for 10 years, and LET ME TELL YOU! It's unfair! We are weak compared to you! It's unfair!

I've had many of these conversation before too (and through practice retorts to the above mentioned too!
) and agree with what you have said but at least legally men should have some safegaurds from similar exploitation that women have faced from men.



IAF

[edit on 15-3-2006 by IAF101]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join