It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
Why is the consent of the father needed? The female's consent to the procedure is all that is needed.
Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by hotbakedtater
She can sure kill it without the consent of the father though!
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Why is the consent of the father needed? The female's consent to the procedure is all that is needed.
Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by hotbakedtater
She can sure kill it without the consent of the father though!
Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I figure it like this, a mother can straight out DENY a father his right to see his child. Well, let the guys have one and let them DENY responsibility.
I'm a father of a beautiful daughter myself, so I couldn't think of a reason why a father wouldn't want to take part in their child's life, but many women will gladly deny that towards their child's father.
So I don't really see what the problem is here. Women have been getting too much when it comes with who decides what for the child, and often it's not a good idea. Take my ex for example, I'm fighting a SUPER HARD custody battle over our child because she's abusive towards her. The kicker is that it's harder for me to get custody because I'm a guy.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
Wow, I do not know a single mother who had her baby to financially ruin someone.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by hotbakedtater
You are making some brash assumptions.
What if the man did not deposit willingly? Ie: condomn breakage.
Then, under legal terms the woman would have "stolen" his semen and sperm.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Hedera Helix
You do realize the unedited post also contains the words "tongue in cheek"?
I am helping an already ridiculous arguement further along the ridiculous path.
You have your fun, I have mine .
Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
Its not extreme nor is it irrelevant when you're trying to argue what is alive and what isnt. Especially when we're talking about justified killings.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you just dont seem to like the points I'm making. Miscarriages have nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Lets stay on track here ok?
SO just because its not detectable means it doesnt exist? Or is this just putting words in your mouth?
YOU are the one putting words in MY mouth by saying I would prefer abortion rather than the alternative.
We arent arguing this, so THIS point means absolutely nothing
If a doctor observes indications a child is being abused by his examination in the office, he may contact the authorities. Why should a pregnancy be any different?