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: 27
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Here are some sourcdes for you to consider in wanting to see the percents of fathers fighting Annne.

* 37.9% of fathers don't have any visitation rights. Source—1991 Census Bureau P-60
* 70% of fathers want to spend more time with their children. Source—1984 Journal of Divorce article by Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery
* 77% of non-custodial fathers cannot see their kids due to interference by the custodial parent. Source—1992 study, "Visitational Interference" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W.
* 40% of custodial mothers reported interfering with the father's visitation as a means of punishing their ex-husbands. Source—"Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers, Differences in Visitation Reports by Fathers and Mothers." Sanford Braver of Orthopsychiatry




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck

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


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



I'm not even sure how to address this!

Women do have the right to have sex, regardless of the consequences. As do men.

I'm beginning to think that people in this thread think that having a baby, or an abortion, is about as complicated as changing shoes.

There are consequences and the woman should not be forced to deal with those consequences on her own.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



heff and that is the rub, women are given an out of the responsibility with her wealth of choices available to her. For equality should not a man have the same options or an equilavent one.

I will say this again, I do not believe in abortion, and that both parties should be held responsible for the actions, i.e. no abortions, men don't get to walk away. Since these are my thoughts and opinions on the matter it doesn't carry a hill of beans. Realistically I know it happens, ans while I do not like it, I can do not pass judgement on it. All I am saying is if society and the laws say that women get out of a responsibility they help created, then men should have an equilavent out.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I don't get your comparison or how you got that from what I said the father does not simply not want to be a father.the father is concerned he wont be able to make these payments and thus if he cant who will while the child is in the mothers care its simple protection and forethought of the child how about not putting a man in prison for not having the money to pay while leaving it in the mothers sub par care or why els would she need the support to begin with.Why not put the child up for adoption and find two stable parents for a child who are financially ready now and why cant this be a decision for the mother and father after birth.You keep repeating these old lines at us men that we must be responsible and take the consequences then why not have it truly equal and take away all contraceptive and abortions and adoption now the DNA parents of the child will and will for ever be responsible on both sides.You cant see your hypocrisy your saying women are just waiting for you to have sex with them and if "YOU" choose to you loses all say and right while now a women gains a right to your support or to abort or abandon even in cases of women misleading men.I don't see how you can see this as equal why does the man not have a right to "get out" but the women will always.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by mayertuck

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


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



I'm not even sure how to address this!

Women do have the right to have sex, regardless of the consequences. As do men.

I'm beginning to think that people in this thread think that having a baby, or an abortion, is about as complicated as changing shoes.

There are consequences and the woman should not be forced to deal with those consequences on her own.



No men do not have the right to not deal with the consequences, if a man and women has sex and a baby is produced, if the man does not want fatherhood for whatever reason, how is he consequence free? He is on the hook for 18 years with no real say in the matter. Women do have to deal with consequences but it results from their original choice.

Women get to choose what consequences they want to face. I agree a woman should not face them on her own, unless she is the one that made those decisions in the first place.




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



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


So, in the name of "equality" you would want for a father to be allowed to make the decision that his child is too much of a financial burden and then to be legally allowed to either remove himself from support or to be able to force a mother to give her child up to the system for adoption?

Do I understand your point?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You are losing me now so what means does a man have to get out of said consequences?

if you can answer this I don't see whats the point of the thread because that's the way a man can escape it



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



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

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




And women have the right to say "no" and not sleep with every guy who holds open a couple doors, buys her dinner and tells her how great she is.

I really think you are missing the bigger picture here. It takes two. If a guy refuses to use a condom, the women is not forced to have sex. If a guy refuses to use a condom, what stops a women from taking responsibility herself and use any one of several options available for birth control? In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, it still takes two people to create life. It that life was created by irresponsible people, it was irresponsibility on the part of BOTH people, not just one.

Fact is men have NO RIGHTS at all when it comes to a child. There are cases on record where a father, who had paid child support for years, eventually finds out the child is not even his. The courts ruled he STILL had to continue to pay child support even though the child was not even his. How fair is that? I even have my own personal story on this issue that I could share. I kow first hand how unfair the system is when it comes to the rights of a father. We have none.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Jwbmore
 


So, in the name of "equality" you would want for a father to be allowed to make the decision that his child is too much of a financial burden and then to be legally allowed to either remove himself from support or to be able to force a mother to give her child up to the system for adoption?

Do I understand your point?


My point is he should be given a choice, with some kind of time limit in place, cant decide after 14 year no dont want to do it. I never once said force a mother to give up her child not once. If she unilaterly makes a decision without him having a say, she should face the result of her decion.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Exactly if I don't make money and she dose not make money I want my child to be taken care of by someone who does weather the state or a adoptive parents the same goes for a women if she cant support the child and the father does not provide living conditions as well the child should be forfeit this happens everyday at the consent of the state.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Read back to all of my posts and you'll see that I am not disagreeing a bit with your points at all. In fact I paid child support for ten years without being allowed even phone contact with my son - as stated in a previous post in this thread.

Yes, BOTH parties have responsibilities. I fully agree, and have said so several times already.

But we aren't discussing family court, or custody issues, we are discussing whether or not a male has a right to refuse fatherhood in the same way that a woman can refuse motherhood by aborting a baby.

And I stand firmly by my position that if a man fathers a child he is responsible for that child. He can't just say "I don't want to be a dad" and get off scott free.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsofast
reply to post by joechip
 


ECONOMICS
Does anyone for this idea of denying fatherhood realize what kind of burden, economically, 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 receive 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.)


True in many cases. However my oldest daughter worked two jobs and family took care of the baby. She was one of those told she could not conceive. She lived with her boyfriend for 6 years. She met him at a Christian summer camp. She broke up with him - - - but they got back together for one last Hooray! Surprise! She ended up pregnant after 6 years - - - even though she had never used protection the entire time.

However - she just went part time at her company she had worked with for 5 years - - so she could go to college. Part time doesn't have insurance. She did not know she was pregnant (she only had a period twice a year). She went to the doctor for the flu - - and was given 24 hours to decide if she wanted to keep the baby or lose him - - - because he had to be sewn in. He made it to 7 months arriving at 3 pounds. Because she was her sole support and unable to work or support herself - - - yes you paid for my grandson to have a chance - - and 3 months in neo-natal.

He is 16 now - perfectly wonderful and healthy. His dad? Chose drugs over his son.

Oh yeah - - - I can talk the gambit on this subject. I'm qualified - - - including the decision to have an abortion.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jwbmore
 



None legally at this point. That is what the tread is about exploring a way to give a man legal means to not face it just as one was created for females.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Exactly I get that I am offering one legal way we should look into but my question was for Hefficide on how we have the right to not deal with the consequences as men but I guess he meant women have a legal "Right" and men have a illegal "right".



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Read back to all of my posts and you'll see that I am not disagreeing a bit with your points at all. In fact I paid child support for ten years without being allowed even phone contact with my son - as stated in a previous post in this thread.

Yes, BOTH parties have responsibilities. I fully agree, and have said so several times already.

But we aren't discussing family court, or custody issues, we are discussing whether or not a male has a right to refuse fatherhood in the same way that a woman can refuse motherhood by aborting a baby.

And I stand firmly by my position that if a man fathers a child he is responsible for that child. He can't just say "I don't want to be a dad" and get off scott free.


But is that the case if a women chooses to have an abortion even if the father does not want one? She can choose to abort the pregnancy with no consequence, get off scott free. Why can men not have that same option?

I would argue that if men did have that same option, people may take a little more responsibility in the choices they make in regards to sex. If a women knows that a man can opt out, maybe she would take the time to really find out more about the person before she lays down with him.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I believe that a man should also be responsible as well as the women, i.e. no abortions, Since I know that is unrealistic and not how society wants, I am saying that if women get to shed responsibility men should have an option too. Regardless of my personal feelings for the matter, equality is pushed on people and alot of the times its only equality when its convienent.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Exactly I get that I am offering one legal way we should look into but my question was for Hefficide on how we have the right to not deal with the consequences as men but I guess he meant women have a legal "Right" and men have a illegal "right".


What I meant is that your right to not want to be a parent ends when you choose to engage in the only act that causes parenthood.

The notion that a woman being able to have an abortion gives her an unfair advantage of choice is, to me, an irrational and invalid concept. There is no equity in this. As I've already stated once, if men had a 50% chance of ending up pregnant, as opposed to the real chance, which is 0%, then this would be an arguable position. There is no equity because there are biologically divergent positions here. This isn't just a case of something not being apples to apples. This is like trying to compare apples and bulldozers. The two positions have nothing in common.

If nothing else this thread has really shown me the ONE conversation I need to coerce my daughters boyfriends into.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Again, I agree. If only in principle to your statements. But the reality of things doesn't reflect the ideals. I personally think that anyone who has sex should probably be a lot more aware of the potential results. Pregnancy and STDs chiefly.

I have a lot of friends and, though I love them all, the blunt truth is that about 7 out of 10 of them, if given the choice, would be running wild, refusing to wear condoms, impregnating as many women as they could get hold of, if they were given such a simple out as what is proposed here.

The neighborhood I live in already has enough of an issue with absentee fathers as it is. I can't imagine how bad it would be if this kind of option were offered.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Again you are putting all the blame for that behavior on someone who has little control over the situation. How about sharing the blame with the other party.

In addition not all kids are fatherless because of the man. I would even venture to say not even the majority are. Yes it is portrayed that way, but just because something is portrayed that way doesnt make it so.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Again you are putting all the blame for that behavior on someone who has little control over the situation. How about sharing the blame with the other party.


And, again, men have total control over contraception. They can choose NOT to.


Originally posted by mayertuck
In addition not all kids are fatherless because of the man. I would even venture to say not even the majority are. Yes it is portrayed that way, but just because something is portrayed that way doesnt make it so.


I fail to see what this assumption has to do with the subject at hand. I personally would dispute the validity of your assumption, but either way, it is not relevant to the debate at hand.




edit on 9/17/10 by Hefficide because: missed a quote tag



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join