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

Originally posted by joechip
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,
peace.

Yet your entire post is NOT considered a huge personal attack on me, a member?

I did not personally attack any member here, I gave my opinion on the type of person who would agree that is aok to abandon his own flesh and blood with out a backward glance. To go through life being able to dump as many fetii as he wants to, just because he feels he has no reproductive rights. Just because he feels he has no choice. I have goven many many valid points as to why this is a cowardly thing and why I feel a man who would do such a thing is scum.

Hmm...if abortion is a "valid" contraceptive...

Then legaly, under the equality laws, men should be able to demand the termination of (at least) their half of the DNA...

Good thing you thought of that one.

Originally posted by joechip

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.

A child cannot be adopted until BOTH parents sign off on the adiption. A woman cannot just birth a kid and then give it up without the legal permission of the father.

I happen to believe that it is wrong to bring a child into the world outside of wedlock in a financially stable home. Raising a child in a situation where they are either unwanted by one or both parents, or not able to be completely supported, is extremely morally distasteful to me, as it almost dooms the child to a life of poverty. Or, more simply, I think it would be far better for people to have abortions than to squirt out the next generation of criminals. It is far less respectful of the rights of the child to think that they should be born into a broken family or a life that lacks any opportunity for them, knowing full well you are dooming them to a terrible life.


Furthermore, many girls poke holes in the condoms, or will lie about being on birth control. I truly hope some form of male birth control gets developed, so the playing field can be evened. Right now, there's nothing stopping girls from lying and then holding a man hostage for the money, using the child that they then neglect as a pawn to extort money out of the man. Please, man-hating feminists who have been crapping up this thread, tell me how this is morally right, and yet the idea of the man being able to opt out of this is wrong?

Originally posted by Realtruth

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.

Peace

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

I did not lump all men into one category here at ATS.

Sorry you perceive me as angry I am not, and if someone feels alienated hearing my arguments, that is not my fault.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
well if you want to be fair then men should have the right to decline fathering a child. The ladies would be keeping their pants on if they knew that a man could decline financial responsibility. That would take the wind right out of gold digger sails.

How about taking the challenge out of men trolling for sex? Why don't you address that? You really are acting like men are the innocence in this situation and they are not. Women can not get pregnant out of thin air!
Also men have condoms and vasectomy to fall back on, but I never see men addressing this..
But of all approaches I have loved over the years is the one St Peter gave to the noble women of Rome. He told them that sex, even with their husbands would mean they would never get to heaven. Lets just say that Rome was rebuilt in a few days ladies and leave it at that.
So, since men just don't seem to want the responsibility, even when married, ladies lock it up! We should never have forced sex on them in the first place, poor guys!
Even the prostitutes - hey they can get pregnant too!
Lets see how long that lasts. hehehe
Oh, and make sure guns are still available - gotta protect the real jewels after all.
My motto: Give the idiots what they want and when they realize they don't want it - tax them for it!

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

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.

Where is the double standard??

A parasite IS a form of life. This new life IS forming due to a sexual union of male and female.

How am I being self righteous??

Sometimes in the English language particularly there are many words and ways to describe the same concept.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


That is not true at all.

There is even a box for the woman to check off during and adoption.

Where it asks who the father is, check "other" and fill in what ever bs you want.

When I adopted my daughter, that was checked, so adoption only needed authorization of mother to proceed.

Originally posted by teamnick
Furthermore, many girls poke holes in the condoms, or will lie about being on birth control. I truly hope some form of male birth control gets developed, so the playing field can be evened. Right now, there's nothing stopping girls from lying and then holding a man hostage for the money, using the child that they then neglect as a pawn to extort money out of the man. Please, man-hating feminists who have been crapping up this thread, tell me how this is morally right, and yet the idea of the man being able to opt out of this is wrong?

Its called a vasectomy.
No woman can poke a hole in that now can they?

reply to post by peck420

As a side note, I have a far simpler solution for men.

Kill the woman before the first trimester is over.

You realize, don't you... that you've just advocated killing someone in a public forum???

Originally posted by peck420
Hmm...if abortion is a "valid" contraceptive...

Then legaly, under the equality laws, men should be able to demand the termination of (at least) their half of the DNA...

Good thing you thought of that one.

Really? Men get abortions? Men grow babies in their bodies? The man KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY deposited his portion of dna into the female's body. He gave his say at ejaculation.

reply to post by Jenna


Im actually against this and think men should be and MUST be held responsible for there actions, but you can't sit there and say a woman shouldnt have to wait 9-10 months for child birth but men have to pay child support for 18 years.

Originally posted by Becoming

Originally posted by Hefficide
Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: missed a few words in all the excitement

You would have a point if no protection was used.

But they should have the right to decline fatherhood if the woman was on the pill and/or a condom was used and a pregnancy still resulted.

Women have the right to decline mother hood if she chooses to spread her legs. Why must the father be held responsible if a one night fling ended up with a pregnancy and the mother chooses to keep the child?

Because he knows the deal going in?

You shouldn't be up for random hook-ups, or having sexual relationships with people without knowing their views on birth control, abortion, etc.

Quite frankly, a woman choosing or not choosing to have a medical procedure is none of the man's business. If he thinks he would deny paternity, then he should avoid the intercourse in the first place.

In reproduction, the woman is the passive recipient who then has to carry the child to term. The guy's side of things is EASY and involves only pleasure, yet they want to make it even easier?

Seriously, this is more laughable than white Christians who act as if they are oppressed in America.

Originally posted by Annee
Because it really is not equal.

I agree. It cannot be equal. Because men cannot carry a fetus to term.

Is the man willing to pay to have the fetus harvested and pay to have it placed in a surrogate? Now that would be equal.

I would support this, too.

Cuz the woman still has to go through 9 months and birth. For some it goes without a hitch. But for others pregnancy and birth can be extremely difficult even resulting in death.

I'm not suggesting she be forced to carry to term. She knows the risk of having a child, hopefully.

Originally posted by Kailassa
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.

Up to a certain time in the pregnancy. This gives the woman time to make the decision as to whether or not she wants to attempt to financially support the child on her own or have an abortion.

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 want reproductive rights to be as equal as possible for men and women. Of course, they cannot be completely equal as a man cannot carry a child.

Yes, some women can opt out via abortion, but not all can, and no woman should be pushed into aborting her baby.

What woman cannot have an abortion? And I have never advocated that anyone push a woman to have an abortion.

Perhaps it's a light matter for some, but for me, and I expect I'm representative of many others, abortion equals murder.

I think people who feel that way should be SUPER careful when having sex. I mean, I'd be on the pill, demand he wear a condom with spermacide, use the rhythm method and take the morning after pill.

So, should the father have a "get out of jail free" card in this case where the woman doesn't?

I'm talking about the law, not morals. If you're saying that some women "can't" have an abortion because of morality, I say that she CAN, but because of her morals, she CHOOSES not to.

Should the father still have this right if the woman does not know she is pregnant until too late to have an abortion?

I assigned an arbitrary time period of 4 months, but there should be a time period. 2 months, 3 months, whatever. When is it "too late" to have an abortion?

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?

You're forgetting the terms I stated:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My bottom line: If the man doesn't want the child and he signs papers to that effect within a reasonable time period (say 4 months into the pregnancy - so that the woman has time to get an early term abortion if she wants) it would "abort" the man's responsibility and any claim to the child.

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?

Interestingly, my husband and I are discussing the rights of the child AND the father to know about each other. But the rights of the child AFTER BIRTH don't come into play, because all of this happens in the first 3 months of pregnancy.

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.

You're talking about children, not fetuses. I'm not advocating for fathers to split on their children. Come on! That's not fair.

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

If that's what you think, then you don't understand my position. I think I've been pretty clear, though.

Originally posted by peck420
Hmm...if abortion is a "valid" contraceptive...

Then legaly, under the equality laws, men should be able to demand the termination of (at least) their half of the DNA...

Good thing you thought of that one.

So, individuals should have the power to force other people to undergo a medical procedure...hmmm...

How about the man gets to forgo child support - but only if he's sterilized and unable to procreate in the future? Since you have no problem with a woman being forced to have invasive surgery, then you should be on board with that option.

In my humble opinion:

Abortion to me is murder. I just don't understand how anyone could think of a child as just a soulless lifeless tumor on their bodies and their lives that needs to be eradicated. I just can't comprehend that. I'm sorry. Personally I think every child unborn or not should have a chance to screw their own life up.

Irene Vilar worries that her self-described "abortion addiction" will be misunderstood, twisted by the pro-life movement to deny women the right to choose.

Abortion Addict Admits....

Here is an example. 15 abortions in 16 years. Where these children born and she killed them after the fact we would be flaming her on these pages for the genocide of her children. We would be demanding the death penalty upon her for the murder of her 15 children. Since they where aborted most women in here would and will try to justify it as excessive as it is.

Now that I've explained my view on the female side of the spectrum..... (don't try to flame me either. All I did was stated my thoughts and they are not subject to your opinion. I just explained my stand and whether you agree with it or not it is still my POV)

---------

On Topic:

With that said, I grew up without a father. He did this very thing, gave up his rights to me and took off. I was raised my my mother who I am thankful didn't have my brains sucked out before birth.

Anyway I never forgave my father for leaving me even if it was his right to do so. One of his side of the family got in contact with me after 25 years and informed me that I have 2 brothers and 2 sisters from my father. I lost all that time with them. It just made me more angry with my father. He had them, raised them and didn't even try one bit with me (not even to meet me). What's more he denied me precious time with my brothers and sisters.

Even if a father has the right to leave it doesn't make it the right decision. That one little tiny act (like abortion) will alter the entire course of the child's life and they will hate you for it. (of course with abortion they don't get the chance to hate you for it.... you just made them snuff it. They are trash can fodder then..)

reply to post by Annee


"I'd love to go along with this thought - - but just can't. Because it really is not equal.

Is the man willing to pay to have the fetus harvested and pay to have it placed in a surrogate? Now that would be equal.

Cuz the woman still has to go through 9 months and birth. For some it goes without a hitch. But for others pregnancy and birth can be extremely difficult even resulting in death."

that's actually not that bad of an idea and assuming its possible and safe for all parties involved this might actually be a possibility some day and it would seem that this could be the mysterious "out" for all parties involved any comments from people as to weather or not this is fees-able? i know little about reproductive medical procedures so hopefully some one else here is more learned in the matter then my self

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

That is not true at all.

There is even a box for the woman to check off during and adoption.

Where it asks who the father is, check "other" and fill in what ever bs you want.

When I adopted my daughter, that was checked, so adoption only needed authorization of mother to proceed.

Some women do not know who the father is. Some women will lie and not tell you she is pregnant. Some women are low life skanks like that. But that does not change the fact that the father is expected to sign off on an adoption, I have been through several personally. There is an option for unknown, and I do not know what the other option is for, or what that means. What did it mean? What exact bs was filled in? A fake dad's name? That she was raped? It would help to know this.

Anyway, if as a man you believe a lady is pregnancy with your child, who is stopping you from being there when the kid is born to assert your rights and contest the adoption?

I mean if you are sleeping with a girl who would put your kid up for adoption behind your back, what is that saying about your sexual habits?

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Becoming

Originally posted by Hefficide
Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: missed a few words in all the excitement

You would have a point if no protection was used.

Women have the right to decline mother hood if she chooses to spread her legs. Why must the father be held responsible if a one night fling ended up with a pregnancy and the mother chooses to keep the child?

Because he knows the deal going in?

You shouldn't be up for random hook-ups, or having sexual relationships with people without knowing their views on birth control, abortion, etc.

Quite frankly, a woman choosing or not choosing to have a medical procedure is none of the man's business. If he thinks he would deny paternity, then he should avoid the intercourse in the first place.

In reproduction, the woman is the passive recipient who then has to carry the child to term. The guy's side of things is EASY and involves only pleasure, yet they want to make it even easier?

Seriously, this is more laughable than white Christians who act as if they are oppressed in America.

KUDOS!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish I could add to this except to say, let men not have sex with women for a few years. All this will be moot when a man's only choice is another man.
Woo hoo! Vive la Difference!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I guess I always thought you were pro choice, I am sorry for assuming that you were.

I AM pro-choice! I support a woman having complete and total choice whether or not to have an abortion! I am SO pro-choice, in fact, that I support choices for the MAN, too!

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

I did NOT say you were closed minded! Where are you getting that?