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: 32
56
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Actually you do have breasts they just are not developed.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Show me where I have said that women should be free of parental rights.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


But your views have nothing to do with responsibility and reason when it comes to the woman's role. That is the problem with your arguments, they are saturated in bias that favours women and discriminates against men.


edit on 18/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: typo



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


My position favors bias towards the childs and societies best interests.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Oh, this is going to be FUN.


There is no double standard. There is a biological difference.

Women have breasts and I'm a big fan of breasts. I have no giant breasts of my own. Should I start a thread talking about how unfair this travesty of genetic justice is?


That's very clever where you "Reply" to my message, but then don't actually Respond to my point, except with a strawman, and moving the goalpost.


I am speaking of *LEGALITIES*


Last time I checked, *BY LAW* a man must support his children.

By *LAW* a woman can *KILL* a child that is Growing Inside of her, Abandon it to the state, or *FORCE* the man to make Payments to *HER* for 18 years.



They both had Sex.


But SHE has the Freedom of Choice, while He does NOT.



Try Again.


With more Effort, Please.

-Edrick


edit on 18-9-2010 by Edrick because: Coding Error



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Then explain why you believe the current situation is just.All i am getting is men don't have the child inside them so they don't get the choice women do in witch they can abort, put up for adoption or abandon.You seem to not get the problem you see it acceptable for women to choose to get ride of a child against the fathers will giving up all parental rights but you don't see a problem with men not having a similar option.
How do you have the best interest of the child in mind when you support a system that allows women a opportunity to use them for gain you see no problem in the mothers decision to get rid of the child if she chooses even if she could not support the child without the fathers money.


edit on 18-9-2010 by Jwbmore because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I believe there are about fifty places in this thread where I have already refuted these feelings of unfairness that some of my fellow males seem to posses.

If you think it is unfair that a woman can have an abortion but you can't make her have one, then don't sleep with women. Problem solved.

There is no fundamentally sound way to rectify a biological difference - especially in regard to reproduction.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Oh... I was RIGHT!!!

THIS IS GOING TO BE A BLAST!


I believe there are about fifty places in this thread where I have already refuted these feelings of unfairness that some of my fellow males seem to posses.


So condescending Already?

I'm sure you are going to start hurling "Be A Real Man" epitaphs next...


If you think it is unfair that a woman can have an abortion but you can't make her have one, then don't sleep with women. Problem solved.


Super Good... just as predicted.


If Women are having Problems Financially Supporting their children, then perhapse they shouldn't sleep with men.

*PROBLEM SOLVED*


There is no fundamentally sound way to rectify a biological difference - especially in regard to reproduction.



I *WAS* referring to *LAWS*, I'm sure you remembered reading the part where I specifically mentioned LEGALITY, as opposed to the reproductive and biological differences that you seem to want to believe (or want others to believe) that *I* am talking about.



Try *AGAIN*


Actually *TRY* this time.

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


We live in a society that makes up for others biological differences everyday and those are legally sound you seem to ignore that as if we live in a completely natural world where natural hierarchy rule the land this not true and i think your arguments would put us backwards in saying that nature is left as the deciding factor when this usually ends in one being oppressed if you want to talk about nature then men have no responsibility to anyone besides those who can physically control us and that's that i don't see a difference



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Oh... I was RIGHT!!!

THIS IS GOING TO BE A BLAST!


If you say so.


Originally posted by Edrick

So condescending Already?

I'm sure you are going to start hurling "Be A Real Man" epitaphs next...


Forgive me if directing you to my previous statements comes across as condescension. But I am afraid that slight is probably more in your perception than in my intention.


Originally posted by Edrick

Super Good... just as predicted.


If Women are having Problems Financially Supporting their children, then perhapse they shouldn't sleep with men.


I've never said anything to contradict this obvious truth. Then again, if a mother is having financial problems does it not follow that a rational person would inquire as to why the father isn't also involved in solving this dilemma?


Originally posted by Edrick
*PROBLEM SOLVED*


Apparently not


Originally posted by Edrick

I *WAS* referring to *LAWS*, I'm sure you remembered reading the part where I specifically mentioned LEGALITY, as opposed to the reproductive and biological differences that you seem to want to believe (or want others to believe) that *I* am talking about.



Try *AGAIN*


Actually *TRY* this time.

-Edrick


The laws are clear upon this already. If you impregnate a female, at least in any civilized society, you are held responsible for the product of that union.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You seem to not get his wording he said a women who could not financially support a child should not engage in sex.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by Hefficide
 


We live in a society that makes up for others biological differences everyday and those are legally sound you seem to ignore that as if we live in a completely natural world where natural hierarchy rule the land this not true and i think your arguments would put us backwards in saying that nature is left as the deciding factor when this usually ends in one being oppressed if you want to talk about nature then men have no responsibility to anyone besides those who can physically control us and that's that i don't see a difference


Cite any other biological difference that bears the same relevance as procreation. Cite a single other source which can be used as applicable precedence.

Procreation is a biological process. Not running around like a bunch of heathen barbarians, only behaving when somebody else can force us would be classified as immaturity or psychosis.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You seem to not get his wording he said a women who could not financially support a child should not engage in sex.


I completely understood what the member said. And I replied accordingly.

So, you would have a law passed saying that only financially solvent women should be allowed to breed? I don't think anyone should be having kids they cannot support. But I don't think that the mother should be the only one responsible for their financial care.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jwbmore
 


Letting nature run its course has not been very kind to women. When that happens, men tend to out-perform and dominate women in almost every field imaginable. Hence: Feminism.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Forgive me if directing you to my previous statements comes across as condescension. But I am afraid that slight is probably more in your perception than in my intention.


Fair to say...



I've never said anything to contradict this obvious truth. Then again, if a mother is having financial problems does it not follow that a rational person would inquire as to why the father isn't also involved in solving this dilemma?



According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005
Source: en.wikipedia.org...


Why isn't the Mother Involved in the Lives of these Dead Children?


You are arguing the MORALITY of making the Father *FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE* for the Child.

I am COUNTERING YOUR ARGUMENT, by bringing up the *FACT* that mothers....



Are not Legally required to Take Care of their *OWN CHILDREN*




The laws are clear upon this already. If you impregnate a female, at least in any civilized society, you are held responsible for the product of that union.


If you call this a "Civilized" society... then Why are the Females not held to this same standard?


You know... with equality and all that crap...


-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Lets try this again shall we?

You are correct a woman should not bear responsibility alone. As neither should a male. Agreed so far?

Sex is going to happen regardless of your mine or anyones wishes correct?

If a pregnancy happens, a female has an out of that responsibility while a male does not.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
I completely understood what the member said. And I replied accordingly.

So, you would have a law passed saying that only financially solvent women should be allowed to breed? I don't think anyone should be having kids they cannot support. But I don't think that the mother should be the only one responsible for their financial care.


The point you are dancing around and not addressing is the decision of the WOMAN to have sex when she cannot financially support a child. Should women who cannot afford to raise their own children be allowed to have sex? If so, then logically men should not be obligated to raise a child every time they have sex.

But you are insisting that they should carry this obligation.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Technically if the woman aborts then the father isn't held responsible for the raising of the aborted child. I fail to see the disparity here.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Technically if the woman aborts then the father isn't held responsible for the raising of the aborted child. I fail to see the disparity here.


She Gets a Choice.

He does not.


I fail to see how you could not grasp this startlingly Simple Concept.

Honestly... I'm starting to worry about you.


-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Edrick
 


Technically if the woman aborts then the father isn't held responsible for the raising of the aborted child. I fail to see the disparity here.


The disparity is the mother can kill the fathers wanted child that he could support himself.Yet she isn`t held responsible for that action.




top topics



 
56
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join