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

reply to post by mayertuck


Everything you said is exactly correct. The female has an out that the male doesn't. The female also bears the totality of the pregnancy.

reply to post by Hefficide

Everything you said is exactly correct. The female has an out that the male doesn't. The female also bears the totality of the pregnancy.

You forgot about Mandated Child support for 18 years.

Which would make your "Totality" statement, complete and utter rubbish.


(Third line is curiouser and curiouser...)

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


I completely get that she gets a choice that the male does not. That is settled law. Roe V Wade.

What you are missing is that it doesn't matter one iota that this disparity in choice exists because the very nature of pregnancy precludes the mutuality of the choice in question.

Whether or not it is fair is moot.

Originally posted by Edrick

You forgot about Mandated Child support for 18 years.

I've forgotten nothing. Child support is for the benefit of the child - not for either parent. This is why it is awarded to both male and female custodial parents.

Originally posted by Edrick

Which would make your "Totality" statement, complete and utter rubbish.

Really? Tell me, how much money would you have to pay in order to give birth? the woman endures the totality of pregnancy.

reply to post by Hefficide

I completely get that she gets a choice that the male does not. That is settled law. Roe V Wade.

Patience is a virtue.

What you are missing is that it doesn't matter one iota that this disparity in choice exists because the very nature of pregnancy precludes the mutuality of the choice in question.

We are talking about making a man pay money, to a woman, for 18 *YEARS* because *SHE WANTED THE BABY*

We are not talking about the imitable laws of Nature.

We are talking about *HUMAN LAWS* that are written on paper, often by fallible Mere Mortal Humans.


*FOR THE THIRD TIME*

I am talking about *LAWS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND STATE*


Any attempt, BY YOU, to bring the "Immutable Mother Nature Unicorn Farts" Crap into the argument as an attempt to *JUSTIFY ENSLAVING MEN TO A CHILD THAT A WOMAN CAN KILL AT A WHIM* will be seen as such.

Whether or not it is fair is moot.

No, it is not moot... and you have revealed MUCH about yourself from even saying so.


You discount "Fair", but that was the object of Feminism, was it not?

Fairness?



But no.... Fairness does not MEAN ANYTHING when it inconveniences *YOUR ARGUMENT*


Shall we place women once again in domestic bondage?

Because "It doesn't matter what is fair"?



Come now... I expected better arguments from you... honestly.

Are you even trying?

-Edrick

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Edrick

You forgot about Mandated Child support for 18 years.

I've forgotten nothing. Child support is for the benefit of the child - not for either parent. This is why it is awarded to both male and female custodial parents.

Originally posted by Edrick

Which would make your "Totality" statement, complete and utter rubbish.

Really? Tell me, how much money would you have to pay in order to give birth? the woman endures the totality of pregnancy.

In my case when my ex wife aborted my child so she could be with a man, everydime i had to my name as a Sergeant in the Marine Corps, even while supporting my already born 3 year old son. Next?

reply to post by gps777


Good example. Equal Responsibility seems to evaporate when women are set to lose and men are set to gain.

I eagerly await replies to your statement. I have a feeling many will experience Cognitive Dissonance when they consider it in the larger picture of things.

reply to post by Hefficide

I've forgotten nothing. Child support is for the benefit of the child - not for either parent. This is why it is awarded to both male and female custodial parents.

you know that a VAST majority of all child custody goes to the mother, right?

Am I going to have to Source this?

Because I'll Do it... Don't make me source you....

Really? Tell me, how much money would you have to pay in order to give birth? the woman endures the totality of pregnancy.

You know animals give birth without hospitals... right?


But reguardless....


I came into this thread, expecting a Debate with someone who knows what they are talking about....

Or at least has some IDEA of what they are saying.



You just want Men Enslaved to Women.


-Edrick (and hiding it poorly)

reply to post by Dark Ghost


I am sorry. You lost me. How is a pregnant woman free of her obligations?

Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by Hefficide

 

You see where your missing a point if you agree then both parties are responsible and both are taking the same risk then both should have the same rights and outs one is not more to blame then the other and thus if one can decide so shall the other this is nothing but equality but you are trying to argue women have a out a man does not simply because of them having a womb they are allowed to exercise rights over us as men we are not allowed to over them.It is black and white in the end one can get away with something the other can not and nature does not make it right.

Both do not take the same risk. The person bearing the majority of the risk just happens to also have the majority of choices. Sounds fair to me.

Originally posted by Edrick

We are talking about making a man pay money, to a woman, for 18 *YEARS* because *SHE WANTED THE BABY*

Somebody somewhere really put you through a ringer, huh? Maybe you should have sprung for a better attorney?

I'm saying that he should have to pay because HE WANTED THE SEX AND ENABLED HER TO HAVE THE BABY! WITHOUT HIS SPERM SHE IS S.O.L.

Originally posted by Edrick

We are not talking about the imitable laws of Nature.

We are talking about *HUMAN LAWS* that are written on paper, often by fallible Mere Mortal Humans.

Again, the laws here are settled. If you don't believe me, impregnate somebody and then use these arguments in court. But please, do me a favor if you do so... Please take video of it and post it to Youtube. I love a good laugh.

Originally posted by Edrick
*FOR THE THIRD TIME*

I am talking about *LAWS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND STATE*

Repeating oneself is never a good sign in debate. It usually is an indication of poor position.

Originally posted by Edrick

Any attempt, BY YOU, to bring the "Immutable Mother Nature Unicorn Farts" Crap into the argument as an attempt to *JUSTIFY ENSLAVING MEN TO A CHILD THAT A WOMAN CAN KILL AT A WHIM* will be seen as such.

I can't figure out what you are hating on here. Abortion? Women? Enslavement and financial obligations are two totally different things. And how can one call the results of their own actions "enslavement"?

Originally posted by Edrick

No, it is not moot... and you have revealed MUCH about yourself from even saying so.

What? That I possess enough dignity and character to support my kids instead of creating an imbalanced straw man argument in an attempt to blame a woman for my situations in life?

Originally posted by Edrick

You discount "Fair", but that was the object of Feminism, was it not?

Fairness?

No. It was equality. Fairness is an abstract.

Originally posted by Edrick

But no.... Fairness does not MEAN ANYTHING when it inconveniences *YOUR ARGUMENT*

I think you'll find that most people feel that parents should support their kids. How is this something attributable to me alone?

Originally posted by Edrick

Shall we place women once again in domestic bondage?

Because "It doesn't matter what is fair"?

Male responsibility equates to female bondage to you? This is a very worrysome way of thinking.

Originally posted by Edrick

Come now... I expected better arguments from you... honestly.

Are you even trying?

To argue? No, in fact I am going to great lengths to avoid it. To rationally deal with all this petty whining about what's fair and unfair? Yes that I am trying very hard to stomach.

-

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
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

I would like to know this discrimination against men. If anyone is dix=scriminating against men in this thread, it is God because he made men without uterii to make babies in.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by gps777

 

Good example. Equal Responsibility seems to evaporate when women are set to lose and men are set to gain.

I eagerly await replies to your statement. I have a feeling many will experience Cognitive Dissonance when they consider it in the larger picture of things.

When men bear an equal responsibility for baking the bun in the oven get back to me, I might be more receptive to your ideas.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

The discrimination comes in the fact that you want to tout biology as the reason a disparity exists. Fine ok

Does a disparity not exist in physical strength of most women to men? Yet it is illegal to discriminate against a woman or keep her from doing certain jobs because of a biological disparity?

reply to post by Edrick


A woman has no right to kill her child at whim. She can abort a blob of cells, which has no resemblance to a viable infant, nor itself is viable, but once she births, if she "kills" on whim she goes to jail.

Originally posted by Edrick

you know that a VAST majority of all child custody goes to the mother, right?

Am I going to have to Source this?

Because I'll Do it... Don't make me source you....

The vast majority of custodial parents are female. Exactly how does this apply to anything of substance?

Originally posted by Edrick

You know animals give birth without hospitals... right?

So, the best argument that you can come up with is the behavior of animals?

Originally posted by Edrick

But reguardless....


I came into this thread, expecting a Debate with someone who knows what they are talking about....

Or at least has some IDEA of what they are saying.

You just want Men Enslaved to Women.

The jabs, insults, and statements, meant to suggest that you are right and I am not do not add a bit to the validity of your position. In fact they detract from your credibility.

And to be perfectly clear, again, is that I want for fathers to take responsibility for their children. If you think that entails enslavement it only shows how unenlightened your opinions are.

Originally posted by mayertuck

In my case when my ex wife aborted my child so she could be with a man, everydime i had to my name as a Sergeant in the Marine Corps, even while supporting my already born 3 year old son. Next?

I honestly feel bad that you had to live through such an experience. I mean that sincerely.

But how does your unfortunate experience alter the fact that men are responsible for the financial care of their biological children?

reply to post by Hefficide


As said before she bears the weight of carrying the child, not the totality. As stated before Men can and do go through things when their partners are carrying their child. I will not repeat them here. So if you have children did you continue to live your life the way you wanted or did you make changes to how you spoke, things you did, did you go out in the middle of the night to get her a special craving? If you answered yes to any of these then no she did not experieince the totality of the pregnancy, you had your role which you played (albeit it is a small role)

reply to post by Hefficide

Somebody somewhere really put you through a ringer, huh? Maybe you should have sprung for a better attorney?

Are you trying to shame me into compliance?

Label me a "Woman Hating Loser" or some-such, as if it helps your argument position?

I'm saying that he should have to pay because HE WANTED THE SEX AND ENABLED HER TO HAVE THE BABY! WITHOUT HIS SPERM SHE IS S.O.L.

Then we should overturn Rowe v Wade?


She decided to have Sex... She should be "Woman Enough" to bear the Burden that her choices bestowed upon her...

As you seem to think is the Man's Duty.


But no.... she can just shove a Rusty Coathanger through its spinal cord while it is gestating.


And he is a Deadbeat if he doesn't want to give her Free money for 2 decades?



For a problem that she can just "Terminate" her way out of.



Why do you hate men so much?

Again, the laws here are settled. If you don't believe me, impregnate somebody and then use these arguments in court. But please, do me a favor if you do so... Please take video of it and post it to Youtube. I love a good laugh.

Your not the type that tries very hard, are you?


You know that laws change, right?

Happens all the time.


Remember when they overturned prohibition?


Yeah.... Nice piece of legislative work there...


You aren't seriously implying that "Things are as they are and nothing will ever change it", are you ?


Because if you are... man.... I feel sorry for you.

Repeating oneself is never a good sign in debate. It usually is an indication of poor position.

I agree..... so then why do you keep doing this, if you know better?

I can't figure out what you are hating on here. Abortion? Women? Enslavement and financial obligations are two totally different things. And how can one call the results of their own actions "enslavement"?

Are you saying that the Men with Guns, ordered by the State, to take money and property from a man, because she was not on the pill....

Are you saying that this was "His own actions"?


Are you saying that Legal Enforcement Officers are a sort of Divine Karma?

Really?


Wow, I TOTALLY feel sorry for you now.

What? That I possess enough dignity and character to support my kids instead of creating an imbalanced straw man argument in an attempt to blame a woman for my situations in life?

Are you pretending that you know who I am?

That's soo Cute!

No. It was equality. Fairness is an abstract.

Wow....


You don't know what equality means, do you?

I think you'll find that most people feel that parents should support their kids. How is this something attributable to me alone?

Are we discussing *WHAT PEOPLE THINK* or are we discussing *WHAT LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG*


FOR THE FOURTH TIME.


Stop the Distraction, and Derailment attempts.

Male responsibility equates to female bondage to you? This is a very worrysome way of thinking.

Female Responsibility equates to Female Bondage to you? This is a very Worrysome way of thinking,

To argue? No, in fact I am going to great lengths to avoid it. To rationally deal with all this petty whining about what's fair and unfair? Yes that I am trying very hard to stomach.

You did *NOT* just say that you were being Rational.


I am having a hard time believing that...


I know that you THINK you are being rational.... that is the funny part.

-Edrick

reply to post by hotbakedtater

A woman has no right to kill her child at whim. She can abort a blob of cells, which has no resemblance to a viable infant, nor itself is viable, but once she births, if she "kills" on whim she goes to jail.

So why then can't the father Bail on the "Clump of Cells"?

You can't eat your cake, and have it too.

-Edrick