Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

hotbakedtater- - I know what you mean, but for the sake of semantics, I would change your post to say "preventing birth" and not "preventing pregnancy".

No thanks since I am correct, why would I want to change? I am pregnant, I abort, it prevented the pregnancy. See above post of mine too.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka



Sex often results in babies.... but it is not "FOR" anything unless you believe in some sort of fairy tale like religion.

And no.. there is no greater purpose than experience in this life... anything else is subjective inference you have projected upon it.

We are beasts... nothing more.

You mean... Biology is a fairytale?

Because if people have sex, naturally, like, you-know, nature has intended, then, given that both parties are healthy and normal, a baby -IS- the result.

This isn't even theoretical physics, dude. It's an ACTUAL law of nature.

But, sex doesn't --always-- feel good, does it?

Hmm... by your very argument, we should drink water because it tastes good ... not because we require it to live.

Boy, what would have happened if nature had made water taste like puke? HAH!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


A man does have access to 100 percent effective contraception.

Seems easier to me to use that method (abstinence) then to let the world know they are a dead beat by trying to "decline fatherhood".

The time to decline fatherhood is before it happens.

Now that would be ideal wouldn’t it? But the reality is that both genders love to have sex and sometimes, that results in unplanned pregnancy. I believe the 8 page discussion is about the rights of the father and not a guide of how to not get knocked up.

Maybe it is about not getting knocked up because that is the only way a man can shirk his duty to fatherhood...by not becoming a father and by not engaging ina ctivity that produces children.

I assumed a biology lesson were needed, especially for those backing such reprehensible nonsense as the OP puts forth.

This is about two things, money and being ble to have sex at will with anyone and walk away if the end result is a baby.

Two things it seems overwhelmingly apparent men place great value upon, if this thread and the OP is any gage of manhood.

wow you hit the nail on the head, and for females they are able to choose to (abortion is having sex with anyone and walking away if pregnancy occurs) have those to things. Equality again men should have the same options.

Abortion is taking responsibility, it is no such thing as walking away. When men have the same body parts by all means have the smae choices. These fall under the legal umbrella of reproductive rights. Men and women have different reproductive because they have different reproductive organs that do 100 percent different things.

It is very sad that we have to have biology class 101 in this thread, I was under the assumption we all knew these facts to start with.

Ok then why if a man is under a certain age, or married he has to have his wive's consent for a vasectomy? You are trying to deflect the argument, but to play your game choosing to not be a part of the childs life or paying child support is a differnt choice is it not?

Because our laws are archaic, and it must not bother men too much or the law would be repealed.

What argument am I deflecting? I thought I was doing a damn good job rebutting the arguments with my points.

I do not understand what you mean by choosing to not be in the kids life or pay child support is a different choice.

See now I feel like we are getting somewhere. I fully agree with you our laws are archaic. 100%. It does bother men alot, trust me it does, that is what the article is saying, a man is trying to get a law changed. It may not be in the way you or I want but there is proof before your eyes that there are people not happy with those laws.

My arguments are basically saying that yes the laws are archaic, personally I believe if you have sex and pregnancy occurs either man or women should step up, anything less is not taking respoonsibility for having sex. Where the not being involved or paying child support comes up is men have SO little choices when it comes to reproductive right. Women have many more due to the laws, money spent on women's health issues etc. You said that women and men have different body parts so therefore different rights should come into play. A man can not carry a child, so in effect if he doesnt want to be a father what choice does he have? not be around or not pay child support correct. He has different parts biologically but should have some reproductive rights correct?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by AzoriaCorp

 

Since when is exercising the choice to abort not taking responsibility?

It is part of a females valid legal and responsible birth control choices.

I am sorry you feel the need to degrade the woman by acting like abortion is not a valid legal responsible choice, and even comparing it to not paying child support or shirking parental duties as a father is disgusting reprehensive and very telling.

Yes but what I think you are failing to see, is that the male can choose an abortion as well... the only difference is that this form of abortion doesn't kill a child... it simply releases him from any legal conscription to pay for that which he doesn't want.

If he didn't want it why was he having sex in the first place?

Instinct...

I dont have sex because I want children... I have sex because I'm driven by my instincts.... now I try to make sure that those instincts dont run over my own good sense of what I like, etc.... However, when I have sex, its only been twice in my life in which the intent was to have a child.

It sounds like you are buying the Thomas Aquinas BS of what "sex is for"....

No I am not, I AM assuming that all men and women who are having sex realize a possible outcome is a child. If you wanna (you general) run around rutting instinctually have at it, but do not play dumb when it comes time to face the consequences of the actions. I am not going repeat myself as to what the known outcomes of sexual union are.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by nagabonar

 

I know more of what goes on the Middle East than Indonesia. The two people are vastly different so is their culture and their views on Islam.

that is exactly what i mean. No religion, including Islam, promotes violence. Humans only are responsible for turning around religion into using it as pre-text of war or "honorable killings". It all depends on how people from a certain area interpret their religious believe's holy scriptures (ultra orthodox Jews or the knights templar from the past, are no better in their believe for violence, then compared to al qaeda). for instance, my view on "Jihad" means that one has to fight with intellect and words against the wrong ethics and a majority of muslims in Indonesia think this way ( if they even care, lol).

I am from Indonesia to answer your other question

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

hotbakedtater- - I know what you mean, but for the sake of semantics, I would change your post to say "preventing birth" and not "preventing pregnancy".

No thanks since I am correct, why would I want to change? I am pregnant, I abort, it prevented the pregnancy. See above post of mine too.

If you GOT PREGNANT, you didn't prevent it.

???

That's like saying that a bullet was dug out of a guy's head, so they prevented him from getting shot.

reply to post by AzoriaCorp


She is correct, requires the host(female) to survive...it is a parasite. I still stand by my view that we can sit and yell equal rights this and equals rights that, but for now it is men who hold the power in this situation. If you have sex then you should be prepared for the consequences no matter how much precaution you take through birth control etc If you are not prepared to deal with the small possibility of such consequences then simply don't have sex, as a man i see no problem with this.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by AzoriaCorp

 

She is correct, requires the host(female) to survive...it is a parasite. I still stand by my view that we can sit and yell equal rights this and equals rights that, but for now it is men who hold the power in this situation. If you have sex then you should be prepared for the consequences no matter how much precaution you take through birth control etc If you are not prepared to deal with the small possibility of such consequences then simply don't have sex, as a man i see no problem with this.

wait what?? men have all the control of reproductive rights? Seriously?

Originally posted by mayertuck

Ok then why if a man is under a certain age, or married he has to have his wive's consent for a vasectomy?

A man does not have to have his wife's consent to have a vasectomy, by law. Of course, there may be consequences within the marriage, same as there would if a wife had an abortion or tubes tied with the husband's consent, but the husband is not legally compelled to have the wife's consent.

As to why doctors will not perform a vasectomy of a man under a certain age (or without children) it is because a vasectomy is a life-altering decision, one that may not be reversible.

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by mayertuck

 

Another misrepresentation. I don't do personal attacks of other members. What I am engaging in called debate. I am presenting my case, and responding to opposing points.

if you are practicing debate, then why all the fallacies? To debate you argue the points and nothing else. Feelings and emotions should not be part of the equation.

Then I have a fallacy, I am only human. I have feelings, especially on this topic. Does it negate my points because I am passionate about the subject?

Last time I looked this is not a formal judged debate.

And you know its perfectly ok to have feelings on a subject, what you gotta do is be able to put those feelings aside and see all points of an argument. That is the only way to solve anything. Have you read my first post and saw how I came to my conclusions? If not please go read it. I too have strong feelings on it, but I do not let those feelings interfere with the facts of the matter at hand.

What facts would those be? My feelings do not interfere with the facts at hand.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
At the end of the day... if you feel like forcing anyone to take responsibility is a good idea this means you have deeper issues.

No, I don't believe you can actually force anyone to take responsibility. I agree with you on this account.

However, you would also have to believe that the tax-payer should not be forced to take legal responsibility to pay for woman's abortions, etc. You would have to believe in completely anarchy, really.

No, I don't believe in forcing people to take responsibility -- but I do believe in ACCOUNTABILITY. This means guiding people in the right direction and showing them how it is not going to destroy their lives -- and the first lesson would be, "There are approximately 7 billion people on this planet. That means that 7 billion mothers before you passed a child and developed stretch marks and went on their merry way. Considering the odds, I'd say you are not likely to fail."

reply to post by HunkaHunka



Men already have the right to deny responsibility. He cannot be forced to be apart of his childs life, and really, he even cannot be forced to pay for said child.

Sure, child support can be enforced but to hold him to it is another matter. And even if he does man up and pay child support, it's a mere fraction of what it costs to raise a child.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Exactly why abortion exists, it is a responsible choice and a valid one. If a man does not want a child he cn choose to only have sex with women he would have as mothers for his child or use what is in his arsenal of preventative measures. If a woman doesnt want a kid she has hte choice to abstain or use birth control, which for her arsenal includes abortion.

It is not a woman's way of eschewing responsibility because it is a valid legal reproductive choice she has available to her.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by AzoriaCorp

 

She is correct, requires the host(female) to survive...it is a parasite. I still stand by my view that we can sit and yell equal rights this and equals rights that, but for now it is men who hold the power in this situation. If you have sex then you should be prepared for the consequences no matter how much precaution you take through birth control etc If you are not prepared to deal with the small possibility of such consequences then simply don't have sex, as a man i see no problem with this.

I think we all understand and agree with this but the overall argument is that men should have the option to NOT take responsibility just as much as the women have to NOT take responsibility by abortion. Men dont have a choice just to kill the child if he doesnt want it, but the woman does? Just as everyone keeps shouting TAKES TWO TO TANGO TAKES TWO TO TANGO, okay already we get it but the argument is that if both parties are responsible then why does one party have the say so in NOT accepting responsibility for their actions and destroying the child. By simply saying its her body, her decision, is ill-conceived and its a dead horse that keeps getting beaten.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by mayertuck

Ok then why if a man is under a certain age, or married he has to have his wive's consent for a vasectomy?

A man does not have to have his wife's consent to have a vasectomy, by law. Of course, there may be consequences within the marriage, same as there would if a wife had an abortion or tubes tied with the husband's consent, but the husband is not legally compelled to have the wife's consent.

As to why doctors will not perform a vasectomy of a man under a certain age (or without children) it is because a vasectomy is a life-altering decision, one that may not be reversible.

edit on 17-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)

By law you are correct, in practice is that the case, no specifically one of my buddies from the corps ran into this and was told no wont happen. So it does happen. As for it being life altering, one can make the same argument for an abortion!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Exactly why abortion exists, it is a responsible choice and a valid one. If a man does not want a child he cn choose to only have sex with women he would have as mothers for his child or use what is in his arsenal of preventative measures. If a woman doesnt want a kid she has hte choice to abstain or use birth control, which for her arsenal includes abortion.

It is not a woman's way of eschewing responsibility because it is a valid legal reproductive choice she has available to her.

aww but just because something is "legal" doesnt make it right, jim crow comes to mind as does not allowing women to vote!

Originally posted by mystifying
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Men already have the right to deny responsibility. He cannot be forced to be apart of his childs life, and really, he even cannot be forced to pay for said child.

Sure, child support can be enforced but to hold him to it is another matter. And even if he does man up and pay child support, it's a mere fraction of what it costs to raise a child.

No, it's not.

Apparently you don't know from experience.

You show me how much it costs to raise a child and I'll show you where you're wrong and how society is spoiled and embellishes numbers for the purpose of manipulation.

Child raising is not the giant obstacle that people make it out to be. All it requires is honesty and patience. Money is NOT what raises a child.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Instinct...

I dont have sex because I want children... I have sex because I'm driven by my instincts.... now I try to make sure that those instincts dont run over my own good sense of what I like, etc.... However, when I have sex, its only been twice in my life in which the intent was to have a child.

It sounds like you are buying the Thomas Aquinas BS of what "sex is for"....

Sex is not simply about reproduction, even though it is a major part of it. In humans and other higher order mammals, sex is a form of bonding, same as eating and sleeping together.

reply to post by nagabonar


Thanks for clearing that up. The Middle Eastern Muslims are VERY VERY different to the Indonesian Muslims. Here in Australia few if any Indonesian Muslims are a problem...the Lebanese Muslim community are at the forefront as with afew Pakistanis and Iraqis. A majority of our prisoners in jail are now Muslim from mainly Lebanese extract.

In regards to Indonesia, I'm quite aware of the violence going on over there that also spill in to Bali (Indonesia), West PNG and the Phillippines.

Sharia Law and honour killings are rife in most ME nations.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I believe abortion IS taking responsibility and it is certainly no secret to men that it is a likely outcome of a sexual union.

It's not a secret to women, either. If they don't want the responsibility of having a child, they can terminate their responsibility. I wouldn't call them "deadbeat mothers" because of that.

So because men are biologically different reproductively and are mad because they want an abortion too, you advocate trampling female reproductive rights so a man can walk away from what he created?

I don't make the assumption that men are "mad". I know men to whom parental rights and responsibilities are very important. Some men feel as "paternal" and many women feel "maternal".

And how am I trampling female reproductive rights? She has 100% free choice to have the baby or not at any time during the pregnancy. How have I trampled her rights? She can also "walk away" from what SHE created. By having an abortion.

This is not a male abortion this is nothing more than a great deal for man whores.

I can see that you're highly emotional about this subject and perhaps have some very negative feelings about men around this. I haven't read every post, so I don't know what your situation is, but it feels to me like emotion might be getting in the way of logic here.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Of course, and the abortion prevents the pregnancy. What are you missing here?

Abortion ENDS a pregnancy. You must be pregnant to have an abortion.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
It is not a woman's way of eschewing responsibility because it is a valid legal reproductive choice she has available to her.

I agree that it's a legal and valid choice. But the pregnancy is real. Either party should have the right to decide that they don't want to go through with it. SHE has that choice (abortion) but he doesn't. I think he should also have a valid legal reproductive choice.