Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Yes and it does. But none of the decisions were ever made lightly,
and usually the mother is in the position of not being able to raise a
child. Both choices are an emotional nightmare.
Nobody makes it lightly, and usually out of necessity..


Okay, fair enough. But lets make it a similiar situation to what a man has to go through.
What if the woman who gave her child up for adoption was then issued court orders and compelled by law to also pay the adoptive parents child support that she couldn't afford for the next 18 years? Wasn't exactly what she'd signed up for is it?

See this is the point.

Women have the options of abortions, adopting out or even giving the child
to family members to raise which is quite common.
Where she can relinquish her responsibilies towards the child with financial impunity.
Men at present don't have that option. The only option they have of opting
out is a passive aggressive one of NOT PAYING and finding ways of
hiding their income and assets. This is the only way a man can get out of
it.


So lets say the male has the ability to make a choice, and
he forces a woman to carry through the pregnancy?


It's physically impossible for a man to force a woman to carry through a
pregnancy. It however, IS currently possible for a woman to force a man to
become a father against his wishes.


There is a reason nature created infatuation between couples.
And they "fall in love" because it is to help cement a relationship
for pregnancy, and for that couple to raise a child.


Actually falling love is supposed to increase INTIMACY between two people
which may or may not lead to a long term relationship or marriage, let alone pregnancy or raising a child.
There are too many presumptions there. Which is probably half the problem
some women PRESUME too much.

I think women should grow up and realise that a man consenting to sex doesn't mean he's consented to anything more. If us women don't like it, then we should close our legs until we are married.
Personally, I think the genies out of the bottle on that one and there aint no going back to the darkages.
We want sex just as much as men do and we sure don't want to go back to the old days when we had to marry the first man we had sex with or do we?

I guess that's for another thread.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



Yes and it does. But none of the decisions were ever made lightly, and usually the mother is in the position of not being able to raise a child. Both choices are an emotional nightmare. Nobody makes it lightly, and usually out of necessity.


This gets to the heart of the matter, I think. Why do we assume that her choice is based on valid concerns and his choice is lightly made, in other words, do you not see your own assumptions, here? Your assumption is inherent in this statement:

Yes it is abandonment, but usually made out of necessity, not lack of responsibility.

Your assumption is that "necessity" is a female attribute of choice, "lack of responsibility" is the male version. First off, there's no reason to buy into this assumption. "Necessity" is a very subjective thing. What you may feel is necessary, I may feel is merely "difficult". All very subjective. Secondly and most importantly, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Choice is choice, there are no judges deciding case by case whether a woman's decision is based on the "correct" reasons. She is guaranteed this choice. In law. Justify the inequitable application of the law. That's all I ask. Call it what it is, (inequality) and justify it. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Unfortunately, men can't share in these risks. And they can walk away at any time.


A true man wouldn't. But there alot of old boys out there.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I suck at quoting quotes but I will do my best:



Originally posted by Flighty

Yes and it does. But none of the decisions were ever made lightly,
and usually the mother is in the position of not being able to raise a
child. Both choices are an emotional nightmare.
Nobody makes it lightly, and usually out of necessity..


Okay, fair enough. But lets make it a similiar situation to what a man has to go through.
What if the woman who gave her child up for adoption was then issued court orders and compelled by law to also pay the adoptive parents child support that she couldn't afford for the next 18 years? Wasn't exactly what she'd signed up for is it?


If that were ever remotely the case she wouldn't give the child up for adoption being as she would be able to afford to take care of it for herself.

See this is the point.




So lets say the male has the ability to make a choice, and
he forces a woman to carry through the pregnancy?



It's physically impossible for a man to force a woman to carry through a
pregnancy. It however, IS currently possible for a woman to force a man to
become a father against his wishes.


I thought we were talking about court junctions that would give the father the right to have the woman carry on with the pregnancy. If not, then my bad.


There is a reason nature created infatuation between couples.
And they "fall in love" because it is to help cement a relationship
for pregnancy, and for that couple to raise a child.



Actually falling love is supposed to increase INTIMACY between two people
which may or may not lead to a long term relationship or marriage, let alone pregnancy or raising a child.
There are too many presumptions there. Which is probably half the problem
some women PRESUME too much.



Attachment is the bond that keeps couples together long enough for them to have and raise children. Scientists think there might be two major hormones involved in this feeling of attachment; oxytocin and vasopressin.

the science of love


I think women should grow up and realise that a man consenting to sex doesn't mean he's consented to anything more. If us women don't like it, then we should close our legs until we are married.


The same could be said for men. Both sides need to realize that sex leads to pregnancy. And people should not be engaging in a sexual relationship until the details of parent planning have been worked out.

The laws are out there, they are the way they are. They are not a mystery people suddenly stumble upon when they have a kid.



Personally, I think the genies out of the bottle on that one and there aint no going back to the darkages.
We want sex just as much as men do and we sure don't want to go back to the old days when we had to marry the first man we had sex with or do we?

No it shouldn't be that way. Sex is a powerful impulse. But it is not a bad idea to know where your partner stands before engaging in it.

But there are still millions of women out there who live in societies where they have to have children as the men deems. There are millions, or more of women who have to wed someone they don't love or against their will.

while our laws here in a progressive society may not seem fair, they are still more advanced then many nations.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



But there are still millions of women out there who live in societies where they have to have children as the men deems. There are millions, or more of women who have to wed someone they don't love or against their will.

while our laws here in a progressive society may not seem fair, they are still more advanced then many nations.


I was tempted to simply ignore this entire post as you ignored my last response. (Answers, anyone? Anyone who shares her views care to answer for her?)
But I just couldn't let this one go. So, our society can have unjust, inequitable laws just so long as they're better for women? Wow. The millions of women in the world that have no reproductive choice are kind of balanced out by our lack of male choice? I'm almost dizzy with incredulity. This can't be what you mean, can it? I think it is. I think you view progress for women as progress for all. (And I really suspect your use of "may not seem fair" in the above quote. So it is fair? But just may not seem that way? C'mon, you'll have to do better than that!) Can't you see that we have retained parts of a bygone era in our rush toward social progress and kept other parts, (paternity, as in the line of kings) and in a way that leaves us with a less viable social fabric than the areas of the world that never progressed in the first place? (ie. what's the divorce rate in these countries that don't allow no-fault divorce, what's the unwed pregnancy rate, how about "dead-beat dads", ) My point is, social justice and equality is turned on its face when you deny it due to gender. When you deny it to anyone, it has not been achieved. I'm not saying we should go back to the 17th century, I'm simply saying we can't achieve true progress until and unless we address the whole question of our collective reproductive mores, in light of equality and with an honest appraisal of the facts of human sexuality. It seems simple to me, that we, as a progressive country, can expect women to be the gatekeepers of their own bodies with responsibility for, and likewise choice concerning, pregnancy. If the pregnancy takes place outside of the marriage contract, it should be entirely her responsibility (unless otherwise agreed upon) Unlike these horror-story countries you cite, women here, in America, have a choice. That choice should be respected as a major milestone in human social evolution; that choice should not be sullied by having at its basic foundation the threat or the fact of coercion. Men have every right to choose whether to become parents. Just as you do in our wonderful progressive country.

edit for clarafication

[edit on 14-9-2009 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

If that were ever remotely the case she wouldn't give the child
up for adoption being as she would be able to afford to take
care of it for herself.


Exactly. I think you are beginning to realise the absurdity of it all with
this whacky adoption scenario.

As you say, if you had've known that, you wouldn't have adopted the kid
out....my ananolgy is if men thought for one minute that a female would get pregnant AND keep the baby against his wishes AND he'd have to pay for the next 18 years then there is no way he would've had sex with her to begin with.
It wasn't what he signed up for either.

I still think its a womans issue though.
A man can have a lot of relationships in his life and yet not all of those women will...

fall pregnant AND keep the baby AND slug him for child support.

So it takes a certain kind of woman to do this.
Definately a woman with sociopathic tendencies....


Profile of a Sociopath...

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.
They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core.
Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities.
The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive.
Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and
readily taking advantage of them.


and the clincher ....


Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause.
Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.


So I think it would be fair to say that a large proportion of the female population are Sociopathic in regards to this
issue of forced fatherhood and it being okay.
The fact that it's all legally sanctioned may well explain why the
world is going to hell in a hand basket.

Above info from this link....
www.mcafee.cc...



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


Spot on analysis. So much so, it gave me chills. I won't go into why, as I've determined to keep this thread issues-based and impersonal. But I think you have hit upon something significant here. A compromise bill worked out between sociopathic politicians (Clinton/Gingrich) that essentially sanctions the sociopathic behavior of sociopathic women (and perhaps even encourages development of sociopathic tendencies) and in the end shreds the social fabric of the country; truth IS stranger than fiction. Amazing post-- it is nice that you (and Edrick, with his "this is slavery." comments) are saying things I really wouldn't feel entirely comfortable saying, and I here I was thinking I was a lonely radical, while I am apparently neither alone in my views, or particularly radical...lol.

edit to add that last bit.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
This is a call to examine the current system of child support as it pertains to unmarried noncustodial fathers in the light of Roe v. Wade, which guarantees an American's (not specifically a woman's) right to privacy as regards the choice of parenthood. It is my view that this choice is denied men which is a blatant and surprisingly commonly accepted disregard of equal protection under the law. If you read Roe v. Wade, you will see that it avoids the discussion of "abortion" per se, instead focusing on the right to choose whether or not to be a parent in general terms, arguing that a person's income, likely prospects for future income, and even emotional readiness for parenthood shall not be infringed upon by the government. We have taken this so far in the case of women, that there has been "safe haven" laws that allow a woman to drop off her baby at a hospital or fire station with no questions asked and no repercussions. Contrast this to an "unready" unmarried man who often gets a lifetime of child support obligations, whether he can afford them or not, with penalties including suspension of driving and professional licenses, passports, as well as jail time. Clearly there are problems with the family court system and divorced men have genuine grievances as well, however this thread is intended to specifically address the inequity of the legal system as regards unmarried, noncustodial men who would "choose" not to become parents, and are denied this choice, even though it would seem to be legally guaranteed. A friendly, well-reasoned debate is intended, with intellectual honesty (as opposed to unconscious biases) paramount would be appreciated. Many thanks.


Perhaps the 'unready' dad should have considered that before doing the deed. It may seem unfair that someone is strapped with child support for having a bit of fun, but why should the tax payers pay for his 'fun' when a bit of contraceptive planning would have nipped it in the bud?

Parents, teach your children well. ALWAYS use contraception.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Violet Sky
 


Yeah but that's the point. Tax payers aren't paying for a mans "fun" as you put it. If that was the case, EVERY man could claim brothel visits on his tax return if he so wanted.....


They are paying for a woman who 1. had sex with no contraceptives...2.
Didn't take the morning after pill the following days knowing that she had "unprotected" sex...3. bypassed the choice of termination.....4. Going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy that the male let it be known he wouldn't be a part of....

So there are 4 major decisions/options/choices that have come into play here on the females part before the child was even born.

So tax payers are forking out for a womans CHOICE not a mans FUN.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Violet Sky
 

While I agree contraception is wise, it is also beside the point of the thread.
I'm just going to quote myself to avoid rewriting the main point endlessly:


Again, this is not "choice", unless we define this as "choice" for women. Of course we don't define "choice" as contraception for women. Take your argument back a step and see the presumption that underlies it. Simply put, the presumption is that motherhood is a choice and fatherhood is a biological fact. Two orders of reality here. You are undeniably denying the man choice, and the question is, why? I am very interested in your reasons. Please flesh out your position a bit for me.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Just like to add that women are tax payers too .
A lot women are getting sick and tired of females who have children when it's quite obvious they can't afford to look after themselves financially, let alone another human being for 18 years.

If you can't afford to raise a child on your own income/savings/investments, then either don't have sex at all, use multiple contraceptives or wait until you are married OR have a committed partner who also wants a child to help.

It isn't rocket science.

When you consider that 99% of the female population are only ovulating for 3 days of every month (another danger time is a week before and a week after as sperm can survive up to a week) then it means that any woman who knows her body and also uses contraception shouldn't fall pregnant accidentally at all as half of the month is biologically impossible to fall pregnant anyway. (Rare disorders aside)

But I guess that also is for another thread.....



[edit on 14-9-2009 by Flighty]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
The city of Catalhoyuk is probably the oldest "officially" confirmed inhabited zone on earth, dating from the late neolithic and found in what is today's Turkey. Its an odd town: white, cubic stone buildings, essentially windowless. Inside each house is an altar space that celebrates both a kind of female goddess and a bull.

Why the two? The theologist Karen Armstrong speculates that the worship of the divine feminine was tied up in concepts of male gore and sacrifice. For it was the males who must die, endlessly, generation after generation, on the cruel horns of the bull, to protect their women and children in battle and the hunt. The Greco-Roman goddess of the hunt Artimis/Diana and the Cannanaite goddess of war Astarte also stem from very early strata of mythology and these godesses, too, teach the same lesson: The male sacrifices his life for the female in these most masculine of pursuits. War is fought by males but FOR females and children. Thus the image of war was often female.

This truth was also recapitualted elsewhere in early societies: in many parts of Africa or the Fertile Crescent, in a bad harvest year, the male king would be sacrificed to the Gods. In some civilizations, male kings were sacrificed semi-regularly anyway, while the bloodline flowed through the eternal queen.

It is worth reflecting how often in history males have been literally sacrified for females, whether through war, the hunt, or the pains of difficult, often back-breaking work or struggle for survival. Feminists would paint a picture of history as constant "oppression" by physically strong males, but the truth was very nearly the opposite: in almost every time and place, it was the male who suffered, very literally and physically, and often died, that the females might simply live on.




[edit on 9/14/09 by silent thunder]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


sorry Joe, I simply forgot. I gotta run to work now and I will try to remember to respond later.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
So some "men" want to have the right to invade a woman's torso to enforce their will.

Lacking that, they want to be able to claim that their children are not theirs and that having children is SLAVERY.

Slavery. Just a touch melodramatic eh?

Your child is yours, regardless of the mother. Once born, they are not property. They are your child, and you are their father. This has nothing to do with the Mother. Your child has a father, and fatherhood is not slavery.

Your child is a separate person from the Mother. Even if you want to mix the two up because you cannot put your mind around the fact that neither are extensions of each other, or you, and neither are possessions that only exist and do as you please.

Guess what. You don't "belong" to someone either. If she doesn't like you, you are still the father. She has no rights to your penis or testicles. Your contract with her during sex doesn't allow her some extra rights to other sperm deposited in other people. Because, you are a person. This probably seems clear to you, even if you cannot clearly see that your child and its Mother are both persons too.

You have no rights that extend into a woman's torso. Period. Just because you "gifted" some sperm, dosn't extend your rights into her torso. If you leave your socks at her house, you aren't a tenant either.

You don't like having children? Get neutered. Then you can avoid "slavery" all you like.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



So some "men" want to have the right to invade a woman's torso to enforce their will.

Lacking that, they want to be able to claim that their children are not theirs and that having children is SLAVERY.


"invade a woman's torso"? What the heck are you talking about? Alien sex experiments? Forced abortions? Read the thread. Geez. This post is so scattered and crazy, I don't even know how to respond. This is about the choice, afforded women, and denied men, to become parents or not. It's very interesting to me that the people who clearly oppose the spirit of this thread seem to have one thing in common; avoiding the basic question posed. Why should "choice" be denied men, while being guaranteed women? Just another assertion that "your children are yours" etc. A biological fact, which applies equally to women, and which in no way "forces" a woman to accept the role of "motherhood." Please clear your head and at least attempt to add something new to the discussion. Perhaps address this inequality, give your reasons for its validity, etc. I think the reason no one has is because its indefensible. So I say to all of you who would deny male choice, put up or shut up.

Thanks!



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons


You have no rights that extend into a woman's torso. Period. Just because you "gifted" some sperm, dosn't extend your rights into her torso. If you leave your socks at her house, you aren't a tenant either.


Just to be perfectly clear, let me state that I agree completely with this statement. I have no rights that extend into a woman's torso. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of asserting that I have responsibilities that do "extend into a woman's torso". Her rights, her responsibilities. Get it? Just because I left some socks at her house, in no way makes me responsible for her rent payments. Touche'.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by Violet Sky
 


Yeah but that's the point. Tax payers aren't paying for a mans "fun" as you put it. If that was the case, EVERY man could claim brothel visits on his tax return if he so wanted.....


They are paying for a woman who 1. had sex with no contraceptives...2.
Didn't take the morning after pill the following days knowing that she had "unprotected" sex...3. bypassed the choice of termination.....4. Going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy that the male let it be known he wouldn't be a part of....

So there are 4 major decisions/options/choices that have come into play here on the females part before the child was even born.

So tax payers are forking out for a womans CHOICE not a mans FUN.



And what of the options on the male's part?

Knowing the expensive consequences that could result from a sexual union, a man should:
1. Always wear a condom.
2. Ask a woman if she uses contraception and even if she she says yes, should still do #1.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Violet Sky
 


so now I'm going to quote myself quoting myself:


While I agree contraception is wise, it is also beside the point of the thread.
I'm just going to quote myself to avoid rewriting the main point endlessly:

Again, this is not "choice", unless we define this as "choice" for women. Of course we don't define "choice" as contraception for women. Take your argument back a step and see the presumption that underlies it. Simply put, the presumption is that motherhood is a choice and fatherhood is a biological fact. Two orders of reality here. You are undeniably denying the man choice, and the question is, why? I am very interested in your reasons. Please flesh out your position a bit for me.


Really, I think we all get your point. What it lacks in originality, it makes up in good common sense. It is also off topic and I'm beginning to think, a diversionary tactic. If you want to join the discussion, please address the subject. You keep extolling the virtues of contraception, which in this particular thread is either beside the point, or attempting to make a point I've already answered directly (see above). So, we've already gotten the Public Service Announcement, now what's your argument?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
It is worth reflecting how often in history males have been literally sacrified for females, whether through war, the hunt, or the pains of difficult, often back-breaking work or struggle for survival. Feminists would paint a picture of history as constant "oppression" by physically strong males, but the truth was very nearly the opposite: in almost every time and place, it was the male who suffered, very literally and physically, and often died, that the females might simply live on.


We were still relatively close to nature then, generational speaking, and still subject to it's will. The females are not protected because they are female, they are protected because they are the means of reproduction and require protection for nine months of gestation and then a few years of infant dependency. At sites like Catal Hoyuk many examples of phallus worship have also been found and at these earlier sites there are indications of a more balanced and natural understanding of the importance and equality of both genders in the art of reproduction.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


I thought my point was obvious in my first post. It's about taking responsibility (both men and women) for children that are born and/or the prevention of such a happening if parenthood is not desired.

You wanted to discuss whether or not men should have to pay support for children they did not want. I'm pointing out that it is still their responsibility if they are the father and if they didn't want to be a parent, then they should have prevented it in the first place - not after the fact! You just can't negate the fact that a new life has come into this world because of an action you took, just because you don't want to.

It's called being an adult with responsibilities. Not everything is fair in life or turns out the way you've imagined it. Get use to it.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join