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

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

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.

It is close minded for the simple fact thtere is no dissenting thought allowed into your mindframe. So it might not fit with your worldview, that doesnt mean your opinions are right for everyone. Your thoughts and opinions are right for you alone, no one else. So yes it is closed minded. I am completly open to hearing views that are in direct oposition to how I think, and in addition, I actually think about what the person is saying about their position. Furthermore, I fully realize that my views may only be correct for myself, and no one else.

Originally posted by Hedera Helix
reply to post by Jenna

 

You stated that a rapist shouldn't have any say in whether or not his victim has an abortion. Does a rapist have any parental rights if she decides to keep it??? The reason I ask is because there have been cases where the rapist HAS done battle in an attempt to establish parental and visitation rights. What's your stand on that issue???

Well I would HOPE the rapist wouldnt have any rights to the child as should all of his rights be void, as he is thus a criminal, once he committed the crime of rape.

For a judge to even consider such a case would be madness.

Originally posted by Hefficide

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.

And the whole nature thing made malkes and females unequal in other ways i.e. upper body strength and the like, but women are (rightly) supposed to be given equality with respect to that. Wonder how those that truly fight for equal right would feel if they were told to simply deal with it.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

"No man is ever taken advantage of for his seed ?"

Really so all the Woman that are too lazy to get a career, or see breeding as the only useful thing they can do in life. Get pregnant young and then bludge off everyone don't exist.

Talk about having your head stuck in the sand.

Only if she gets pregnant through artificial insemination.

Thank you men for obliging these pathetic women.

reply to post by mayertuck


I know a couple of women who could probably outdo most men where upper body strength is concerned. Are we seeking to be so politically correct these days as to ignore that some of us are outties and some are innies and that our different genders specify decidedly different roles in procreation?

I mean, really. C'mon. A woman has to carry and physically bond with a baby for nine months during a pregnancy. A guy can walk away and never be seen again about two seconds after the moment of conception. To strive to equate these two different roles is, at best, lunacy and, at worst, opportunism.

Originally posted by Hefficide

I mean, really. C'mon. A woman has to carry and physically bond with a baby for nine months during a pregnancy. A guy can walk away and never be seen again about two seconds after the moment of conception. To strive to equate these two different roles is, at best, lunacy and, at worst, opportunism.

Absolutely!

I really would like to see/hear the percentage of men - - who truly fight to be the father.

I'm sure there is some inequality based on gender in courts. But I'm just not buying it is as prevalent as it was at one time.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by mayertuck

 

I know a couple of women who could probably outdo most men where upper body strength is concerned. Are we seeking to be so politically correct these days as to ignore that some of us are outties and some are innies and that our different genders specify decidedly different roles in procreation?

I mean, really. C'mon. A woman has to carry and physically bond with a baby for nine months during a pregnancy. A guy can walk away and never be seen again about two seconds after the moment of conception. To strive to equate these two different roles is, at best, lunacy and, at worst, opportunism.

And I know a couple of men who are better parents than women, despite not "bondinng for nine months" I fully accept everyone is differnt and should be judged as such.....however that is not reality and never will be. It is nothing other the sort as lunacy, nor opportunism simply striving for TRUE EQUALITY or as another posted stated as close to as possible because of the differences in biology.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Hefficide

I mean, really. C'mon. A woman has to carry and physically bond with a baby for nine months during a pregnancy. A guy can walk away and never be seen again about two seconds after the moment of conception. To strive to equate these two different roles is, at best, lunacy and, at worst, opportunism.

Absolutely!

I really would like to see/hear the percentage of men - - who truly fight to be the father.

I'm sure there is some inequality based on gender in courts. But I'm just not buying it is as prevalent as it was at one time.

If you can be patient, I will glady supply dozens of cases where the man is fighting to be a father, I do not think you will accept those as proof, but I have will be glad to supply it.

And you can start by using myself as the first one.

reply to post by Annee


What is so pathetic about artificial insemination? A woman in her late 30's hasn't found the right man but her life would be fulfilled with a child...and that makes her pathetic? You think she should just find some random man that she might like a little and say, "hey I know we don't love eachother but wanna make a baby?" Out of all the close-minded statements I have read today yours takes the cake.

So thank you

reply to post by Hefficide


I don't see your point here I know a lot of men who can out nurture their children then most women that does not change the other posters point.The problem here is you say becuase of nature the rights of both sexes are different and yet this is the exact argument women have fought against for ever.No one reserves any rights over another due to natures "differences" or then only the strongest of two would make all decisions and benefit which would not be women no matter if you know a few women stronger then the average man the average man is still stronger then the average women.
Now i understand the physical act of birth is rested on the women but what the OP is saying is being greatly misunderstand and leads me to believe most posters haven't read half of the discussion the equality comes into play after the child is born no one wants to force abortions or control someones body.A man and a women can both have sex and they both are taking a risk but the difference is a women can abort, adopt or abandon the child she has this "RIGHT" to choose to be financially responsible for the child this all without the say of a father.The fathers "Right" to choose to be financially responsible for the child is in the hands of the women and the court.the issue is not of having the baby and I see a lot of people taking it that way it comes down to a women has the right to walk away at anytime even after the abortion option it is her decision especially the part with her body but it should also be the right of a man to do the same.One example is a women has my child against my will and petitions me for child support I should be able to go to the court and tell them I don't feel I can provide for my child and neither could she if she doesn't have my money and needs it so I would like my child to be given up for adoption and thus forfeit my parental rights if the mother would like to intervene she can provide the proof she can support the child.this is one example of a way out for both while ensuring the child the best home it can have.

reply to post by mayertuck


With that sort of "true equality" society would quickly crumble because of the flood of men who would run around sleeping with every willing woman they could find and then refusing to accept financial responsibility for their offspring in the so-called name of "equality".

I'm all for equality and fairness. That is exactly why I am speaking out in this thread. Because there is nothing fair or equal about this concept. This is all just a game of "women carry the babies, so it's their problem not mine."

You are right to point out that there are many guys who make excellent fathers. I happen to be one.

Woman have a way of seducing Men for their own ends ( sometimes to get pregnant ) . To make out this is not true is exactly the same as saying that no Man has ever seduced a Woman who later regretted having sex.

The difference here is a Man is forced to live with the consequences their whole lives. A Woman can choose to have that consequence short lived or a lifetime commitment.

reply to post by Jwbmore


The right to forfeit parental rights already exists. But I doubt any judge would allow it simply because a man didn't feel like he wanted to be a parent. Sex causes pregnancy, ergo, if you don't want to be a dad, then don't have sex. It's simple.

Saying that a guy should be able to get sex and then should be able to refuse to be a parent is like saying that I should be able to jump off the roof and not have to hit the ground. It's cause and effect. It's common sense.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Woman have a way of seducing Men for their own ends

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


Yep -- Always the woman's fault. Better wrap a scarf around her head in case her hair seduces you. Because we all know men are weak - - - and its not their fault.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by mayertuck

 

With that sort of "true equality" society would quickly crumble because of the flood of men who would run around sleeping with every willing woman they could find and then refusing to accept financial responsibility for their offspring in the so-called name of "equality".

I'm all for equality and fairness. That is exactly why I am speaking out in this thread. Because there is nothing fair or equal about this concept. This is all just a game of "women carry the babies, so it's their problem not mine."

You are right to point out that there are many guys who make excellent fathers. I happen to be one.

While I agree society would probably fail, but you are placing all the blame on one part of the equation, the man who ironnically has the least amount of control over the situation. has it corssed your minds that if both parties are held responsible for a situation they created, or if one party unilaterly makes the decision the person making the decision should be responsible for the consequences of their decision be it good or bad? Also perhaps if it was known that there would be accountability on both parties it would go down because there are actual negative consequences that arise from having the contorl and making a choice....i.e. not having the financial support or other parent involved.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Jwbmore

 

The right to forfeit parental rights already exists. But I doubt any judge would allow it simply because a man didn't feel like he wanted to be a parent. Sex causes pregnancy, ergo, if you don't want to be a dad, then don't have sex. It's simple.

Saying that a guy should be able to get sex and then should be able to refuse to be a parent is like saying that I should be able to jump off the roof and not have to hit the ground. It's cause and effect. It's common sense.

so you say women should have that right to just have sex regardless of the consequences? once again how is that equal?

Originally posted by stephanies-chase
reply to post by Annee

 

What is so pathetic about artificial insemination?

So thank you

Perhaps you should read the comment again.

In response to the post.

reply to post by mayertuck


I've never once even suggested that it's not a unilateral responsibility. Both parties who consent to sex are responsible for the results of their union.

Read the title of this thread. Mens rights activists are stating that since a woman can choose to abort, men should have a similar out. All I've done is state my opinion about this concept. And my opinion is quite simple. A man cannot force a woman to abort. A man cannot walk away simply because he thinks it's OK. A man cannot refuse paternity based upon his whim.

The fact that a woman can choose to abort or to keep a father from his kids are both different issues. I have not addressed either of these concepts here. Only that a man has a responsibility to take care of his offspring, whether they were wanted or not.

Originally posted by mayertuck

If you can be patient, I will glady supply dozens of cases where the man is fighting to be a father, I do not think you will accept those as proof, but I have will be glad to supply it.

And you can start by using myself as the first one.

I know there are cases - but overall percentage is what I was discussing.

Why in this modern age of equality is a man not permitted to be a father to his children? I do want to know the circumstances.

My daughter and I are currently fighting grandparent rights. The father died before my grandson was a month old (Leukemia). If grandparents can sue for rights - - - what are the details of a father not having rights?

reply to post by joechip


ECONOMICS
does anyone for this idea of denying fatherhood realize what kind of burden, economicaly, deadbeat dads put on us? where does the money come from? think about it: food stamps, TANF, CHIP, medicaid, maybe housing. all those programs open to women with children who recieve no support come from taxpayers. that's right, i have to pay for your child. (and don't give me that "no, it comes from the government" crap. where does the government get it? exactly.)

MORALY
let's just face it. any man, mature enough to make a baby, should be mature enough to provide his part for food, clothing, and insurance for that child. if you have a child you don't support or see, you're not a man.

LEGALLY
ok, so legally, i really got... nothing, i'm sure someone does.

all this being said... the system IS stacked against men when it comes to child support and visitation. if a man isn't paying, all a woman has to do is call DHS, they take care of it for her. if a man is paying his child support, and the mother starts refusing visitation, he has to hire a lawyer, take time off from work, and then if he's lucky, ina couple of months he might get to see his kid.
time for a personal story. sorry. several years ago, after my divorce, i lost my job, ended up getting evicted. i lost everything. ended up living in my car for almost three years, making just enough money for gas, eating at the soup kitchen everyday. i had nothing. all this time, my child support was accruing, eventually the state suspended my drivers license, (unbeknownst to me). got a decent job, was making enough to get back on my feet. license check point. arrested for driving on suspension. job, gone. when i contacted DHS, "that's not our problem." they didn't care i had been homeless and jobless. wasn't their problem. ex wife knew, she called them. tried to explain. they didn't care. not their problem. pffft.
a man trying, is lumped in with those guys who have three kids with three different women, but just flat out refuse to pay child support. my license was suspended in 2001 and i'm STILL trying to get it back.
this is what NOT taking care of your responsibilties causes. the system doesn't care. the cards are stacked. decent hardworking men who are having trouble end up getting the short end of the stick.
think about that when you want to say a man doesn't have to support his child. but hey, that's not your problem. right? until a man with no dl, who's driving anyway so he can work to pay his child support rear ends you, but has no insurance. then, then it'll be your problem. won't it?
(sorry, kind of a touchy subject with me.
my apologies)
ok. THAT being said. i guess technically, if a woman can do it. a man should be able to do it also. but, since i'm against abortion in anything but certain circumstances, it's a trick question.
a man doesn't HAVE to take care of his child. actually he DOES have a choice. don't pay child support, get a cash money job so they can't garnish.
then, just forget you have flesh and blood running around somewhere, crying herself to sleep at night wondering why daddy diddn't call her and wish her happy birthday. you do that.