It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
Wow.... reproductive rights for all- a concept I've been pondering for many, many years.

There are several ideological elements- namely the whole abortion issue. Some will choose not to accept male reproductive choice, just as they'll deny female. Another challenge, "adult actions = adult responsibilities" as I've seen it stated.

Irrespective of these great debates, ponder the cultural implications and long term outcomes of the status-quo.

Less than 100 years ago, females within the now former USA, were property bought and sold. Family units and community groups provided for some degree of protection for worthy females (daughters, wives, cousins versus the ladies working in the bordell, maids, servant class (often primarily for men's sexual entertainment)).

That outcome was Susan B. Anthony, women's suffrage and enfranchisement- a backlash of "unalienable rights" for some but not all.

This experiment of gifting women "equal rights" has had the pendulum swung back to provide them a "protected class" (especially regarding child rearing) for what... 40 years? It has reorganized the family unit, drastically changed the "head of household" (primarily due to a divorce rate exceeding 50% where it is common a mother retains real property for the sake of child rearing), and is repeating history- namely creating a breeding ground of future backlash.

Evidence? Popularity of this thread. Popularity of Tyler Durden ("I don't think another woman is what we need"), or the character played by Gerald Butler in The Ugly Truth.

There is growing a terrible backlash against the matriarchal dominance in law, family, and its a backlash that will not provide females temperament and mitigation. So little has been done to correct this by females, this will continue to grow (in both healthy and unhealthy ways) with men playing the leading roles in transformation.

In all honesty, I give a big thumbs up to the "dead beat dad" who refuses to finance his baby-momma, but instead creates a place within his own castle for his offspring to enjoy his protection and provision.

The long term cultural aspects of continuing the status quo are opening future trouble and cultural warfare... What comes to mind are historic images of dead men chained to trees beaten to death, hollow eyes of abused women, and scenes of a balcony associated with MLK.

Females would be wise to look at freely sharing their current and temporary elite status in law, for the historical record of backlash is something we all are smart enough to avoid.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I really wouldn't bother with the poster you're responding to. They have already called you "scum," "cowardly scum" and a "sicko"merely for agreeing with the principles in the OP. Also, that you don't think for yourself, when they realized a woman was capable of taking this position. I think they are a perfect example of why we are given the "ignore" option. Of course, continue if you want, but I hate to see your reasonable, intelligent replies wasted on such a person.
Just my thoughts,

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee

If the same held true for the woman, I would agree with him.
My whole position is equality. And since abortion is a legal and valid way for a woman to say, "I don't want this responsibility that I've gotten into", I think the man should have the same option, if possible.

If abortion was illegal, then the man should have to step up and do his part, too.

If abortion were illegal, the woman would still have the options of adoption, and even the "safe haven" laws of legal abandonment (where a woman has a certain amount of time to drop their unwanted baby off at a hospital, fire-station, or with the police. I don't think abortion is the only or deciding factor here.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Once a couple forms a pregnancy, the woman has 3 choices:

Adoption is the only option in which the man has a choice. If the child is born, he can prevent the child's adoption by taking custody of the child IF the woman doesn't want it. Otherwise, the man has NO options.

Well stated! Here's some brainstorming...

Imagine if he could put his 50% share up for adoption! That would be a revolutionary idea, no?

Couples who are seeking to adopt could sign up to accept 50% share in the interest and parental rights of the child... could be administered very similar to the current adoption scheme.

That would offer a 2nd option...

As an alternative to abortion (kind of difficult to force a woman to suffer all of that unwillingly), perhaps would-be mothers who cannot have kids could assume responsibility of 50% interest in the child, and surrogate for the undesiring mother.

The pregnant lady would go in to the doctor and instead of aborting the fetus, it would be moved to a willing mother's uterus. I can imagine the boom industry this would create. Similar to adoption agencies, donors and parties could be matched.

That would provide a 3rd option for a man.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by RestingInPieces

In the case of rape, the child may be aborted by the mother without the consult of the man. If the mother chooses to have a baby that was the result of rape, then the man, wherever he may be, may return and murder the child. If the child kills the father who raped its mother, then the whole remaining family will be burned in a pit of amber and thorn.

In the case of a woman being raped or impregnated by God, then the baby shall be Jesus.

And then we will crucify him and make a whore out of his wife so that we can continue ruling the world with our continuous line of ABSOLUTE TOTAL (&^$#*%).

And just remember, (#%&*&^$%#)... it was you who rode MY coattails in order to bring ROE v. WADE into existence...without my consent. It wasn't this woman's coattails... who lied in an attempt to get an illegal abortion... then was forced to come clean shortly after I blew the whistle on the TRUE EVENT that actually did bring about Roe v. Wade.

What a surprise, eh???

edit on 17/9/2010 by Hedera Helix because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:40 PM
I'll say this much. I agree. If woman have the right, men should have the right. It takes two to tango.

However let me be clear in saying I think NEITHER should have the right.

I am Pro Choice. Not just Pro Mom choice, but pro everyone's choice, including the child.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
No money?? How irresponsible of him to be engaging in behavior KNOWN to result in a new life forming. Gee, maybe he should have thought about that little problem before he had sex?? Just a thought, apparently there are very few men who post at ATS who believe in the concept.

You sound like an extremely angry person, that hates men period. I have listened to your comments with objectivity and open mindedness, but when you start to lump men at ATS into one category you show your true colors.

If you want people to listen to your point of view and understand your argument, try not to alienate 50% of the people you are addressing, by venting latent internal anger and stereotyping.


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

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:45 PM
Wow and I finally am vindicated of my view.... yes a man should be allowed to walk away from a dysfunctional family setting to find a more convenient chance to create a coupling that can benefit mankind.... since women can choose, without the man's approval, to abort then a balance has to be found to make life between genders fair..... cuz that is justice and the reason for cultivating logic into manifests such as the constitution.... hence men should be allowed to walk away if the woman can take care of herself and child especially if she leaves the man for another who is more well off to do.... yes women do take advantage of the double standard in america.... now if the woman cannot care for the child on her own then yes the man should be held responsible for whatever expenses may occur and since the child is the future the man should pay more than half of his earnings... but yet society should compromise as well and make sure the man can more than provide for his child in some fashion.... like a mandatory higher than minimum wage pay..... 1

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:02 PM
A hundred years ago, if a man got a single woman pregnant he just left town. It was accepted social practice for a single woman to carry the stigma and consequences of a child out of wedlock alone, and the man generally got off scot free. He had so social stigma and no legal consequences for his actions. (Yes, there were the occasional male relatives of the pregnant woman who would come after the guy with shotguns, but that was not legal and I'm not sure how common that was).

I have known some women today who actually support themselves through having babies out of wedlock (for the man's first child he has to pay on average 1/3 of his income; less for the second, so if you're in it for the money you have all your children by different fathers). There should be some way of preventing this scam, but there doesn't seem to be a way to make this as illegal as it is unethical without harming some women who are not in it for profit but are just hapless.

I think this men's group just wants to return to the "good old days" when a guy could just skip town if he didn't want to be responsible for fathering an "illegitimate" child. I'm in agreement with those on this thread who believe the woman should ultimately be most responsible for a child and make the final decision whether to bear it or not, but the father should not escape without some responsibility as well. The fact that he "just doesn't want it" shouldn't be an excuse to escape the consequences of impregnating a woman.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:02 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree that BOTH man and woman should take responsibility, but since the woman has an out, in the interest of equality, shouldn't the man also have an out? If possible?

You're saying that if a girl gets pregnant It should be entirely the man's choice as to whether he support the baby he has fathered.
Your justification is that the girl can just go and get an abortion if she feels like it.
You want men and women to be equal when it comes to conception, pregnancy and birth.

(I am not trying to put words in your mouth. If I have misunderstood, please correct me.)

Men and women can never be equal in this matter because their respective roles are so different. Yes, some women can opt out via abortion, but not all can, and no woman should be pushed into aborting her baby. Perhaps it's a light matter for some, but for me, and I expect I'm representative of many others, abortion equals murder. I actively support safe, early and free abortions being available to all, because some women will be as horrified at having to continue a pregnancy as I would be at having to end one. - And if you must, the earlier the better.

My own answer has been to both have my tubes tied and live chaste, (my 3 offspring are quite enough,) but this does not suit everyone. If a girl feels the way I do, takes precautions which fail, and cannot have an abortion ... some here may understand this is not a choice for some, illogical as I know it is, for me, right from the moment I knew I was pregnant, I would die rather than let harm come to the new little embryo. Instinct, hormones, whatever, it's incredibly powerful and it would do a woman who feels that way severe damage to be pushed into going against that instinct.

So, should the father have a "get out of jail free" card in this case where the woman doesn't?
Should the father still have this right if the woman does not know she is pregnant until too late to have an abortion?
If her religion does not allow her to?
If he changes his mind when it's too late for an abortion?
What about at or after birth?
My husband objected to the fact that our two sons were born with handicaps. Should he have had the freedom to renounce fatherhood and not pay maintenance after he left?

What about the right of any child to know its biological parents? Do we just tell little Johnny, "sorry, you don't have a father, because he chose not to be one"? Yes, I know that is happenning already, but should we make laws to encourage it?

You want equality for the man, but what about equality for the child?
You say the mother has a choice, you say reluctant fathers should have a choice, but what choice does the child have?

The burden of parenthood already weighs far more heavily on the mother. Like many mothers, I've had no equality. After being left on my own with 3 children I can't just say, "ta ta kiddies, I decided not to be a mother any more, bye bye." My life has had to be based around the children.
The children have no rights to speak of regarding parental relationships, they can't make him acknowledge them when he feels their handicapped existance is a threat to his masculinity, but at least they had some small financial support for a while from him.

You appear to be arguing for a world in which they would not even have that.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
The fact of the matter is courts rarely ever rule in favor of the father. If my wife and i were to get divorced and i wanted to take full responsibility for my son where he would live with me most of the time, i couldn't. the court would rule in favor of my wife for custody. then i would be relegated to paying most of my paycheck to my wife and seeing my son on weekends. that is patently ridiculous. but it's how the courts work.

i work with a guy who's got two kids. He and the mother couldn't work it out so they divorced. he couldn't get custody, he didn't happen to have a vagina. so out of every paycheck he gets to keep roughly 200-300 dollars. he makes over 12 bucks an hour. his exwife doesn't have a job. she lives off the child support from him and another man for her three kids and from the child support she's making more than him having a full time job. my friend loves his children dearly and has tried to gain custody several times. every single time he's been denied, even with evidence of neglect on the mothers' part. THIS is why many men want legislation like this.

but of course none of this is taken into consideration in threads like these when certain women who hate men irrationally decide all men are trying to shirk their responsibility.
we're all scum right?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:08 PM
Well well well, methinks you have struck a chord. 20 pages worth of responses star for that. This is not gonna wash. Excuse me but 20 pages to read all is too much however I will respond in hopes that the same thing hasnt already been said, if it has then the ayes have it.
When you have sex and a baby is the result the two people involved are clearly responsible. A woman becoming pregnant is often the end result of having sex. It(baby) then is no suprise to anyone. When we do this(sex) it(baby) is always a possibility. as for the option of an abortion,
I mean really that is a living being. abortion is ok then it should also be ok for me to kill my 10 year old when I decide to change my mind about supporting him or her
Thats not ok right?
Anyway to explain all this needs not be.
I like the idea of Mens rights, Womens rights, I like the rights for all people, men, women, children, babies. I also like the idea of being a responsible person which we need to have a functioning society.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Simple because: edit for spelling

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by mayertuck

reply to post by hotbakedtater

If you have no interest in changing a though yes you are closed minded. Could I be wrong about my line of thinking yes, if someone can debate without resorting to fallacies and they can make their case with solid proof then yeah my mind could and probably would change.

As for callling the thoughts hogwash, I am sorry if it offended but it is true, any belief that causes one to be so blind to other sides of an issue are hogwash in my book, be it religion, issues of gender, race etc. there are always multiple sides to EVERYTHING.

As for you beliefs being considered I am sure that they are by people with unmade minds and even open minds. As long as all sides are given an equal voice in the say.

edit on Fri Sep 17 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: to insert "Reply to"

I consider it strength in my convictions, you consider it close minded and hogwash. Why did you use the term hogwash? Because my beliefs are not your beliefs.

Yet I am closed minded.

It is not close minded or hog wash to believe men have no right to what I choose to do with my body.

It is not closed minded or hogwash that I believe men already have reproductive rights.

It is not closed minded or hogwash for me to feel a mythical male abortion is an insult to females.

It is not closed minded or hogwash for me to believe that a man should pay for his dna proven child once it is born.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:13 PM
This kind of male dominant attitude being expressed, by a certain type of man, is clearly evidence by which the affected woman can bring rape charges against the man. Men have to realise that nature operates according to what is called PARTHENOGENESIS. Religion call it Immaculate Conception. Science is showing us that the masculine are a cancer disease, affecting life on Earth. A cancer disease that operates "sexual libido" as the way by which it [male gamete] is reproducing it self. In the Bible this male gamete [disease] is called THE MARK OF THE BEAST or THE YEAST OF THE PHARISEES. Male gamete is a primary cause of CANCER which is why men are mutated by it and suffer severe brain damage because of it. Since male gamete is a disease organism, causing a disease condition, [masculinity] therefore for those who believe in the existance of God, thus God must be feminine. Indeed the word GOD is a feminine word. Thus the grammatical double conjugation "Goddess" is not required since the word GOD is femininity. This is the reason why the true religious follow a life of celibacy. Celibacy being the mark of the true convert. "Male Gamete" is a form of HUMAN CORDYCEPS FUNGUS and the insanity [rape, theft, murder] there of. It transmits through the act of sexual intercourse, spreading within her to infect every cell of the woman's body, making woman no longer the femininity that they used to be, so long as they were virginity. Men are infected since conception, but woman are infected by sexual contagion. Men have no choice, but the girls do have the choice.

Acts of sexual intercourse made by man outside of the institution of a state registered marriage are by definition acts of rape. It is therefore in the interest of men to go through the procedure of registering her consent [permission] by making the "marriage ceremony" at a state registration office or through a religious office licensed by the state to enact marriages. Except if men do this they are going to be vulnerable to being accused of rape offenses.

I my self be a man living a life of celibacy. This is because through science of biology it has been made clear to me that life is reproductive by PARTHENOGENESIS. In the year 2000 during the celebrations for the beginning of the new millennium, I received spiritually audio clairvoyantly the revelation of the PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM (tm) (1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One God there be no other God. Her names are many but she be the one true God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La deus nostra, notre dame, our lady, The holy spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving her above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to her above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous. Copyright NGL 2000.



edit on 17/9/2010 by CAELENIUM because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
No money?? How irresponsible of him to be engaging in behavior KNOWN to result in a new life forming. Gee, maybe he should have thought about that little problem before he had sex?? Just a thought, apparently there are very few men who post at ATS who believe in the concept.

A new life forming? I thought it was just a parasite? Your twisted perception on moral ethics doesn’t work for your self righteous remarks. You use the double standard quite often when it suits your arguments.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:18 PM

So, should the father have a "get out of jail free" card in this case where the woman doesn't? Should the father still have this right if the woman does not know she is pregnant until too late to have an abortion? If her religion does not allow her to? If he changes his mind when it's too late for an abortion? What about at or after birth? My husband objected to the fact that our two sons were born with handicaps. Should he have had the freedom to renounce fatherhood and not pay maintenance after he left?
reply to post by Kailassa

Please see my post above, concerning adoption, and "safe harbor" laws. Abortion is not and should not be considered the deciding factor in determining "equality."

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by CAELENIUM

You do realize that there is NO KNOWN parthenogenics, found in nature, in mammals right?

And, we as humans, are mammals....

Edit to add:

In fact, even with the best of modern science, we can not create a successful mammal (human included) with single sex DNA.

edit on 17-9-2010 by peck420 because: Additional info.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
But by converse I hope you are not implying my beliefs are close minded because I won't change them.

I did not imply that.

It is fine, it is a debate, and I am just defending my beliefs, like you are.

If you just love a good debate, why say things to me like I'm trampling on women's reproductive rights and baby's rights, and advocating forced abortion and dropping my beliefs and taking up my husbands??? (He threw back his head and guffawed when I told him that) Those terribly twisted accusations have no place in "good debate".

And please don't take offense that I said I'm open minded. That just means that I have the ability to change my mind when presented with information. It wasn't meant as a cut to you at all.

You and I have always been good with each other. There's no reason to think that I'm engaged in some lower form of argument that we see so much of here on ATS. And there's no reason for you to engage in it with me. We disagree on this one issue, but that's OK. We can still respect each other and be friends and I don't feel like you're being very friendly with me.

I understand other members have come after you, but I'm not, OK?
I'm sorry I made you feel bad, and that I was being unfriendly to you. Thank you for clarifying for me your posts.

I guess I was floored and caught off guard someone I thought was a feminist would take such a bedrock stance (imo) on abortion, in this particular set of circumstacnes. I guess I always thought you were pro choice, I am sorry for assuming that you were. I certainly never meant you were a bad person or debater in any of my comments, and again am sorry if I came off that way.

I disagree I am closed minded, again I reiterate strength of conviction is NOT closed minded.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by freedomintruth

Who says abortion is shirking of duty??

It is as valid a contraceptive choice as a condom, so let the record state this concept, abortion is shirking duty, is not applicable, how in the world is choosing one of the contraceptive methods legally available for females to use, shirking your duty??

Birthing a prom night dumpster baby, I can get behind the shirking your duty mantra.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in