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: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:19 PM
This entire thread is actually giving me a brain meltdown.

For most of my life I have believed that women were taught to fear their own sexualities because of religion and the teachings of a bunch of uptight and repressed men who wouldn't know fun if it sat on their head and danced.

Now I am totally rethinking that whole concept. Maybe it is wise to teach young girls to wholly mistrust males. Seeing the blatant BS in this thread is mind numbing. The words "whore" and "entrapment" seem to be very popular with males these days.

I wonder how many of these guys will be preaching these ideals when they hit the club this weekend? How many of these guys approach women with this BS? "Hey you're cute for a money grubbing whore who is trying to trick me into having sex so you can extort me for the next 18 years... Wanna dance?"

Good luck with that.

If you're a guy who's been raped by a woman, or been kidnapped and had your seed surgically extracted, then maybe you've got a point. Otherwise the whole "I have a right to not be a dad" argument is absolutely vacuous.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by peck420
They should have the same legal rights to avoid parenting.

They do. All they have to do is fill out a little piece of paper saying they give up all rights and responsibilities associated with being a parent and they're free from any obligation to the child they helped create.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by DaWhiz

So then, no matter what the man does he must be responsible?

In my opinion, if woman can control abortion, why can't a man prove he took "reasonable" precautions against pregnancy. They should have the same legal rights to avoid parenting.

That's what "equality" is all about isn't it?

Edit to add:

As I am now done with procreation, I beat you to the vasecotmy by about 2 years. Unlike some people, I knew then and know now how to control my procreation.

edit on 17-9-2010 by peck420 because: Vasectomy

Those assumptions had nothing to do with my question.
The edit did answer the question. Thank you.
But here's a big problem with people not researching facts:
I obviously have more than one nephew - the one I'm now addressing has custody of both of his kids and their mother pays HIM child support! (thank you thank you I helped!)
Now, showing you some support as well as your lack of reasoning here -
Let's say we get this treated properly in a court of law (not being silly here, patience please). The question that was posed was if the condom broke, who gets custody?
You were trying to elude that it was the woman's fault if the condom broke and all I asked you was supposed it was YOU who broke it? It is a very valid question, especially if you go by the old adage that only women get pregnant so it must be their fault.
Now calm down.
Everyone play nice now!

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:27 PM
Let me run this by you.

A couple gets married. They both agree that they are not ready for children at this time, but, the husband has a job where there is a small chance of damaged sperm or sterillity. They agree for him to make a deposit at the sperm bank so that they can have children at a later date.

A few years later, the couple gets divorced, and both go their seperate ways. A few years later the husband has remarried and starts a family. A few years after that the husband comes into a large amount of money. His ex-wife finds out about it and talks to her lawyer about her getting a share of that money. The lawyer tells her that she has no claim to the money, that if they would have had a child, the child would be entitled to a share. Later the ex-wife remembers the sperm bank and has herself artificially inseminated. She gives birth to a child and then immediately contacts her lawyer. Her lawyer brings suit against the husband, demanding a share of the money for "his" child. The Court demands a DNA test, which shows that the child is his, and awards the ex-wife child support.

I know the people that this has happened to. Since it is still a Court issue, I am not going into more details. Where are the Man's reproductive rights here?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:29 PM

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

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:33 PM
Women birth babies, they must carry them for nine months, and then give birth to them in a very painful and long process.

That part of the biological equation is not fair, but that is the way it is.

On the other hand, traditionally men have born the responsibility for most of the brutal hard work, risking life and limb, and throughout most of history going into battle to protect territory, risking getting horribly maimed or dieing. While women often died in child birth.

There was a balance. In the modern world this balance has been destroyed.

Now days, women can choose whether or not to abort the child.

The only reason offered as to why men shouldn't be given the same choice are all based on sexist stereotypes of men.

Most men are every bit as willing and capable of being good parents as are women.

Balance out the money formula, and the problem would be solved.

If the man and woman choose to become parents, then the child's custody, legal and physical should be shared as equally as possible. When physical custody is shared relatively equally, then no money should exchange hands. If the father or mother fails to carry their responsibility, then they should be the one who pays. This stuff can easily be documented, especially with today's technology.

Women have far more choice in who they sleep with than men. That is the way we are biologically wired. Any decent looking woman can get pretty much any guy to have sex with her. Women get to choose who they have sex with, except for rape, so they should be held responsible for who they choose to have sex with.

This doesn't mean men should get away scot free, but the idea that men are always the bad guys and women are always the victims is pure sexism. If the woman can abort, then the man should be given the same option. At the very least the man should be brought into the decision process, and a woman who fails to inform the man, and give him this choice should not have the ability to then grab a chunk of his pay check for the next 18 years. Unless of course the guy skips town, and disappears. Proof should be provided.

Being that women typically have the largest say in who they have sex with, maybe they would start being a lot more careful in their choices.

What to do about women who are seduced by a charming rascal? Make these decisions of father abortion choice public, on the internet. Google the guys name, and see if he has a history.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:34 PM
Reply to post by hotbakedtater

Are you making an assumption that this "prom night dumpster baby" was the product of two uninformed persons? That there was no concept of the consequences for engaging in sexual activity? As far as a viable contraceptive, sure its legal. But does that mean it should be used? I don't want to get into the physical/emotional damages substained. When talking about social justice, if a woman has the right to deny life, then so does a man. We all know who carries the baby but that doesn't set the womans 'rights' above the males. Both parties engaged in an act THAT PRODUCES BABIES! If you are positive that an unfit parent you will make, let the child be adopted. There are plenty of people who would love to have a child but are unable. Who are we to decide which child lives and which child dies? My point is that if we continue down this road of "social justice" then the man has every right to opt out of fatherhood if he can prove proper precautions were taken. The woman has the legal right to kill her child why can't a father have the legal right to disown his child? Wouldn't that be equality? Why does a woman have the right to force a man into a commitment he wasn't willing to take on, especially since she has the right to opt out as well! If you can't do the time don't commit the crime!

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by JIMC5499

That really is stealing sperm and I wouldn't think he should be treated any differently than any other sperm donor out there. A sperm donor is not legally responsible for any children created from their sperm. They just make a donation that helps out someone who can't make a baby on their own and are obligation free as they should be.

She shouldn't have had access to it at all after the divorce and I'd be going after the sperm bank if I were him for letting the ex-wife have access.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide

"Hey you're cute for a money grubbing whore who is trying to trick me into having sex so you can extort me for the next 18 years... Wanna dance?"

Ahahahhaha! Best line in the whole thread. Makes me swoon i tell ya, what girl can resist that come on!?

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

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by mayertuck

As for knocking off old people no it isnt acceptable, but that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about now does it. I for one have never nor do I plan to ever do anything of that nature.

Not everyone living in a nursing home environment is OLD. And just like you, I'm also sitting tight on some EXTREMELY relevant facts that have EVERYTHING to do with the subject matter being discussed in this thread. With that being said... let's end this pi$$ing contest.

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

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by DaWhiz

It is common knowledge that all forms of prophylactics and contraceptives are not fool proof and carry a risk of failure therefore the sexual participants where aware of the possibility that the preventative measures could fail. Even if you claim you didn't know there is always this..

This should follow the same logic as ignorance to a law. Just because you don't know the law doesn't mean you can't be charged with the crime. Ignorance is irrelevant.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:42 PM
Personally, I think the biggest problem isn't men or women, it is the courts, who see divorce and child custody issues at their gravy train.

Having gone through the process, this is my experienced and educated opinion.

If the laws in California were followed, most custody cases would end quickly with an equal physical and legal custody agreement, and no need for exchange of funds.

Most men and women would step up and fulfill their responsibilities.

The court system caters to those who abuse the system, because this greatly increases the money flow to the courts, and gives them more POWER, which is what they crave more than anything.

Divorce that rat, and we will give you most of his possessions and a good part of his future earnings. Come on, you know you want to.

They don't tell you about how much they will take from you once they get you into the process.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:43 PM

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.
Are condoms 100 percent effective? They are not, and knwoing this if a man goes ahead and has sex using condoms anyway, he willingly deposited those sperm. They cannot be stolen if he is placing his sperm producer inside a vagina willingly!

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by Jenna

I agree. It's the same general concept as a woman stealing a used condom for DNA to prove that she was raped by said man (this has happened). His DNA was in her vagina therefore he must have raped her.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM

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

Not all men have a choice.
There are some women out there who deliberately misslead men into thinking all is safe, just in order to get knocked-up and demand child support from the man and from the government.
Are those guys who gett fooled into becomming dads at fault to?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by KilrathiLG

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

Yes - - there has been scientific research on artificial wombs. I do not know how advanced that research is. We do know an egg can be fertilized in lab and the fertilized egg can then be implanted. I do not know if a fetus can be grown to a certain point. I also do not know if the fetus could be successfully removed from the mother and placed in a surrogate - yet. But that time will come.

All I can contribute to the Fairness is: when women got pregnant and the man would not take responsibility - - the woman was told "YOU picked the wrong man" - - - therefore what I can say to any man who gets a woman pregnant and wants full custody of the baby "YOU pick the right woman".

It is difficult for me to be unbiased as law requires on this subject - - due to lack of responsible men in my own childhood and my children's childhood and my grand children's childhood. The required monies were sent in some cases. But - that does not fix any abandonment issues. And my own mother never badmouthed my father even though he ran off with another woman because my mom became a polio victim - - and he couldn't handle the disability. He was free to be our father anytime he wished. He did not choose to be. I divorced because the father of our children was jealous of them and it was beginning to affect them. He was free to be their father anytime. He did not choose to be.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by hotbakedtater

You don't seem to get it.

A man has NO rights concerning a child.

When the child is born a woman can put the father (or whomever she wants) name on the birth certificate...or not. She can legally leave it blank if she wishes.

If the man wants his name on the birth certificate, he will be required to get a court order ALLOWING a DNA test. If the DNA test is positive, he will REQUIRE another court ored to get his name on the birth certificate.

Average cost in Canada $20,000, give or take a couple of grand. And there is NO option for having the mother shoulder some of the financial responsibilities of this.

And this applies if a women puts your name on if you aren't the father as well.

As for the the other...well, in my daughters papers, it literally stated "Immaculate Conception".

So, like I said, whatever bs, I don't think the authorities check anyways.
A child is a baby that has been born, and where does it state men have no rights to their children?? I never claimed that! Men have a right to their children! No one can stop them from exercising those rights either, except themselves.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by poet1b

I work for a law firm, have seen many many custody cases and divorces. The court has always sided with the mother even if the father was a more fit parent both financially and every other way. Always.

I've seen a case (which is now a matter of public record so I can talk about the general idea) where the wife had an affair, the guy she had an affair with fled before he could testify and she got everything. She sent her ex husband into bankruptcy, took the kids, applied for child support (and gets it) and is now retired and living lavishly. She was the one that had the affair...

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

You have the best reply yet. Men don't think about these things when they are just trying to get a piece. It's all fun and games until they actually have to take responsibility for their actions. This whole thing is appalling.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by peck420
Not true. My husband knew that his youngest son was his even though his mother denied it. He took her to court and got an order for a paternity test. He was right. AND.... he has custody of his son. Full custody. He got custody in under ten minutes in court. He decides when and if his son's mother will get visitation. The judge actually looked at his son's mother and told her "I wouldn't let you babysit my dog!"

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in