It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by maria_stardust
Then that's an issue of autonomy, and as such it is the woman who controls the birth.
A man can't very well expect not to take responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy just because he doesn't want to be a father. It might not be a popular view with the male population, but a man's reproductive rights begin and end with the act of sex. Once a child is conceived it is out of his hands.
When a woman decides to carry the child of an unplanned pregnancy to term she has not "forced" parenthood upon the man against his wishes. The man knows going into the proverbial fray that engaging in consensual sex may inadvertently lead to an unplanned pregnancy. It's part of the risk factor.
Originally posted by Aeons
You leave your seed on the ground, expect it to grow.
There is a distinct difference between autonomy of body, and responsiblity to results.
That the dishonest men on this thread want to confabulate the existence of a human being that they created, with a woman's autonomy of body is the highest form of socially acceptable sociopathology.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You can not thrust obligation for a choice not made. Change area of law and you will find that almost all other areas would not allow anything as imbalanced as this to occur without a written contract involved.
Originally posted by Kailassa
Unless a person is being raped, the choice is made by having sex in the first place. There aren't too many folk around these days who don't know how babies are made. And no contraception is 100% foolproof.
A woman can get pregnant using the pill, condoms and spermicide all together, and that was my first. A woman can get thrombosis from the pill, and toxic shock from and IUD, as I discovered personally. A woman can get pregnant using a cap, condoms and spermicide and doing it only when the Billings method says it's safe. That was how I had my second.
Women have always had to contend with the possibility of being left holding the baby. It's been a great advance to have men stuck with some responsibility for the babies they make too.
When you dip your wick you can make a girl morning sick.
Originally posted by Grumble
Again, this thread is about men not wanting to accept the reality of reproduction and its consequences.
Gentlemen, the law is not equal because nature is not equal. The law is not fair because nature is not fair. And you damned well have the easy way out regardless because you do not have to suffer the physical pregnancy and birth, and you do not have to live with the nurturing motherly instincts which bind you to your child, inexorably, for life.
No, you have a choice to make. You can be a good man and take care of your children, or you can be a worthless parasite on society who abandons his children. Like it or not, if you make the wrong choice, you deserve the worst society can throw at you.
If you want to discuss this in terms of natural law, I'm all for it. How about civilizations throughout human history in every time and place using a surprisingly similar apparatus to insure the stable rearing of children, that being marriage. The problem here is the "progressive" swing that has enabled the "Murphy Brown" single-mother-as-a-choice generation has been a progressive thing for women only. We forget how recently this draconian legislation has been around. Welfare reform (the kind that is women friendly and Democrats love) took the time-honored and effective responsibility of finding a decent mate and marrying them totally off the table for American women. Not necessary. Building a stable relationship and getting a commitment used to be an economic and social necessity for a woman. They were "naturally" the gatekeepers of their own bodies. The state has usurped a basic human dynamic, which we can argue has its own limitations but nonetheless is how humans have done it at least since the advent of agriculture. (Hunter gatherer societies have marriage as well, but the child-rearing tends to be more tribe oriented.)
My main point is not reactionary, however; I don't necessarily view the "sexual revolution" and the evolution of sex roles in general as negative. My main point is that female choice, and the ramifications of this revolutionary change demand a more fair and "natural" appraisal of the male's rights and responsibilities. What has actually happened instead is very unnatural. Let's not expect anything but social ills aplenty when we turn nature on its head. Let's attempt to get a true historical view of where we are now and acknowledge that we're undergoing a truly revolutionary paradigm shift in gender roles and that the government, in its usual fashion, has applied a haphazard, unthinking, and politically driven series of measures that are unfair, and I believe unconstitutional. They certainly aren't smart or effective either. Female Choice does change the equation. It changes the "nature" of the entire issue. Law should reflect this. Fairly.
[edit on 9-3-2010 by joechip]
edit for typos
[edit on 9-3-2010 by joechip]