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.

 

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

page: 24
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


When did he lose his reproductive rights??

He had the right to not have his semen stored. Or did she sneak that semen into the facility for storage?

He had the right to only deposit a small bit, with none left over afterwards.

He had the right befor the divorce and actually before he even ejaculated for the storage, to determine what happened to the semen that was left over.

He had and has reproductive rights.

I am in favor of the female for the above reasons.




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


As someone that works in the field of law and have witnessed and worked on many many of these cases I can say in my professional opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Men have no rights to their children if mommy says no. (unless they have insane amounts of money to pay for the proceedings. This is no understatement. It's price gouging is what it is.).

The mother on the other hand can ruin the man's (legally no less) life no charge. All it takes is a couple signatures a couple forms.





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



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad

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.


Aside from rape victims men all have a choice. To choose to have sex as well as to who they have sex with. Explain to me where choice was taken from a willing participant in sex.


Originally posted by Ironclad

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?


Yes, they very much are. Absolutely. How would they not be at fault? The man has sex knowing the risks.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


It pretty much always goes to the woman, but if the man has money and influence, the courts do on occasion choose in favor of the man. On these occasions it doesn't matter how fit the mother is, the person with the most influence gets their way.

The best interests of the child is something the courts consistently ignore.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 
I disagree. A man most certainly has rights to his child.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


You make no sense. Fooled in to becoming a dad?
I'm pretty sure if the girl got pregnant...the sex wasn't a joke. Well I guess it could be. And unless you a celebrity, I'm pretty sure girls aren't thinking, "hmm I should trick this fool into getting me pregnant so I can get child support." Children cost a whole lot more than what most women get for child support.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Well I'm sorry you feel that way but disagree or not it doesn't change how it works in practice.

So really agree or not it doesn't matter.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


Hmm, how much money and influence does your husband have in the court? Chances are that is why he got his way. If you don't mind me asking, what state do you live in?

I have known of far too many drug addicted losers who get the child because she is a woman. I have yet to see an average guy win in that sort of scenario.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I guess people only want equal rights when it fits their agenda. Typical.

MOTF!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
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!"



I'm curious. What were the circumstances surrounding the situation that resulted in the judge making such a harsh statement???



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by DaMod
 
I disagree. A man most certainly has rights to his child.



They have rights, but those rights are extremely limited in scope when compared to the rights enjoyed by women.

The law is a main source of the problem with failed fatherhood. It was mainly set in a time when it was customary for a single father to leave his kids with a relative, due to work/selfishness/etc.

The law does not give enough rights to fathers. It does nothing to discourage irresponsible parenting. If you have a baby, you can split up and let the government pay to raise your kids. Even more, if the mom cannot list a father the government pays for the kids.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


But if the courts don't recognize that man's rights to his child, which is very common, then the man is unable to exercise those rights.

What is right and what is done is often very different things.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephanies-chase
reply to post by Ironclad
 


You make no sense. Fooled in to becoming a dad?
I'm pretty sure if the girl got pregnant...the sex wasn't a joke. Well I guess it could be. And unless you a celebrity, I'm pretty sure girls aren't thinking, "hmm I should trick this fool into getting me pregnant so I can get child support." Children cost a whole lot more than what most women get for child support.


I have managed thousands of people in my life. There is a very real phenomena where young girls are encouraged by their parents to have as many kids as they can, to boost the welfare funds received. I have had girls tell me that they are not coming back after their next child because they will make more staying at home raising babies.

Wanna know where the middle class in America has gone? Displacement. Simple math.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
I guess people only want equal rights when it fits their agenda. Typical.

MOTF!


When the day comes when there's a 50/50 chance of me getting pregnant versus the present 100% chance that it's NOT going to be me - then we'll be talking equal rights.

This is not even remotely an equality issue. Nature made the whole thing unequal. Deal with it.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
This has always bothered me. I have 4 kids and never had a problem taking care of them. I actually planned and wanted my kids. However it bothers me when a female gets pregnant and has the right to decide the fate of the child and the man. I don't care about her body. People will look at the male and say,"you play you pay" but no one will look at the female and say that. She has a cop out. She can just decide to abort. No one holds her responsible for anything but the male gets held responsible. After the baby is born it has 2 parents but before it's born it only has one and she gets to decide. It's even worse when the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, now in this case he has no rights. It's insane, of course as I said I don't give a crap about her body. Someone should hold her responsible and say,"you play you pay." Now I hate government involvement in anything so I don't know the answer but the problem drives me nuts.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.


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


Benevolent Heretic: 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?


You did not answer the question regarding the woman not knowing she is pregnant. In case you are not aware, there are many cases of women, particularly with their first pregnancy, not being aware they are pregnant until 6 months has passed. Some girls even go to the hospital in labor complaining of tummy pains, not knowing what the problem is, or birth their baby on the toilet, thinking when they sit down they are just having a big poop.


With an abortion, the earlier the better. The first two months is ok, by the time the foetus is 10 weeks old the mother is very aware of carrying it, and it's clearly a baby on ultrasound. I've watched my daughter's 10 week foetus kicking and waving its little arms around.
By three months the woman is carrying a baby which would survive for some time outside the womb after an abortion, and abortion at this stage is a more serious operation, involving forcing open the cervix wide enough to get the baby out. This is quite traumatic and doctors prefer to do abortions before 3 months for safety reasons.

After 6 months the woman is carrying a viable child, and abortion in America at that stage is, as I understand it, illegal.

So even a women who would choose abortion does not necessarily have that choice.

Perhaps you will suggest other ways to "dispose" of the baby, such as legal dumping, or adoption. But think about it. Do you think your mother, after carrying you in her belly 9 months and birthing you, could then hold you in her arms and say, "I don't wan't you. Someone else can have you."? Of course I don't know your mother, and I hope I'm not opening old wounds here. But most mothers could not.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic What woman cannot have an abortion? And I have never advocated that anyone push a woman to have an abortion.
....
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.

Lol, how easily you dismiss the mothering instinct, without which the human race would never have survived, as mere "morals".

For many of us women, we could no more abort a foetus than we could strangle our 10 year olds. It's not a choice, it's not morals, it's just so strongly against our instincts to protect and nourish that we could not.

These babies are going to be brought into the world, or we are going to be pushed into having abortions, however much you claim to not advocate that.

Once in this world, these children have a right to be supported by both the parents who created them.

Sorry, but your implication that the fact the mother could have had an abortion should deprive the child of any right to know or be supported by their father is ignorant hogwash.
The mother cannot always have an abortion. - and -
As children are helpless and have no say in the matter of their birth, their rights, once born into this world, should trump the rights of either parent.


Benevolent Heretic: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 rights of the child AFTER BIRTH don't come into play"
In other words, stuff the child if the father doesn't like fatherhood and it happens to get born anyway, it has no rights because it could have been aborted. . . .
And to think I argued against those who believed legalised abortion would lead to the devaluation of human life.


Benevolent Heretic:You're talking about children, not fetuses. I'm not advocating for fathers to split on their children. Come on! That's not fair.
. . .
If that's what you think, then you don't understand my position. I think I've been pretty clear, though.

Yes, you've been very clear. You advocate that a man , while the woman is pregnant, be able to sign away all responsibility to the child he has created. So, it follows logically, that if/when the child is born, the father has split on his child, as you put it.
That's unless you mean that a woman should have to undergo an abortion if the father doesn't want a baby, as your denial of the relevance of born children to the agument appears to imply.


By the way, birth control does not always prevent conception, even when used with the utmost of care. As I never intended to have children I always used 3 methods at once, and still gor pregnant 3 times.
That's why I kept my legs crossed since, despite having my tubes tied. I didn't even trust that by then.

Procreation is part of life. If a person is determined to have no duty to the child they might create, they should stick to solitaire. You make a baby, you're a parent, with responsibilities.
Certain men have always objected to these responsibilities, and now, due to abortion, many are let off the hook.
So now those men want to use the fact that they don't always have to wear the consequences as an argument for never having to wear the consequences.

Male abortion = the removal of the right of the child to know his or her daddy.





edit on 17/9/10 by Kailassa because: formatting



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


To add to your post:

All a woman has to do is leave the father spot blank on the birth certificate. That alone makes it too expensive for most men to even try.



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



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by chefc14
This has always bothered me. I have 4 kids and never had a problem taking care of them. I actually planned and wanted my kids. However it bothers me when a female gets pregnant and has the right to decide the fate of the child and the man. I don't care about her body. People will look at the male and say,"you play you pay" but no one will look at the female and say that. She has a cop out. She can just decide to abort. No one holds her responsible for anything but the male gets held responsible. After the baby is born it has 2 parents but before it's born it only has one and she gets to decide. It's even worse when the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, now in this case he has no rights. It's insane, of course as I said I don't give a crap about her body. Someone should hold her responsible and say,"you play you pay." Now I hate government involvement in anything so I don't know the answer but the problem drives me nuts.


Outstanding post, outstanding points. You mirror my thoughts very closely.

It is a problem that drives me nuts, but i just cannot see a decent solution to it.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Solution is simple. Both parents have to give consent. Problem solved!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Really, in Canada, that paper would mean squat.

I could fill out anything I want, and if the woman says NO, I have no further choices.

The only hope a man in Canada has, is if the woman has another man(woman) adopt the child.

Then, and only then, would I be no longer considered responsible for the child.

Once agin, it is a choice that is entirely left to the female, that will dictat the terms for 2 other peoples lives (child and father).



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join