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: 34
56
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.


Some men work dangerous jobs to support their wives/girlfriends and children,your not taking this into account either.

Most men I have known when a new born is on the horrizon work two jobs in preparation,you dont think this is taxing or a risk on his health?

How many men do you know or have heard of that purposely impregnated a women just so he can run away afterward?

How many women have you known or have heard of that deliberately get pregnant by a male just to leave him and make him pay for the next 18 years with little to no contact with his children?


edit on 18-9-2010 by gps777 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 
So? I am not the one touting equality in this situation. Why? There is not equality. Maybe you should take it up with the creator who made men different than women. And why should men have an equal say over a baby growing in a females womb? They are not assuming the risk of the pregnancy thus their risk assessment is lower, thus maybe just maybe why men think they are being gypped out of some kind of choice in this deal.

The point is men have the upper hand and all the control over who can possibly get pregnant with their precious swimmers, yet they seem to want to avoid the easiest and most responsible way to avoid the mess of the OP and the various other sundry situations posed in thsi thread.

Do not deposit your precious tender into a bank you don't want to do lifetime business with!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I have never not once said that a man should willy nilly have an out. If you read my previous post you will find I post my thoughts on the matter numerous times. I will repeat once again. I believe that if two people have sex and a pregnancy results then there should be no outs for either party. No abortions, support and raise your child etc. Since I know this is unrealistic and not what the law says nor is it necessarily right (since every situation and person is different) I can not support it.

Now this what I have been saying all along and will continue to say.

If one party has a legally and socially acceptable way to deny parent hood, then that should hold for the other party also, not just based on equal protection laws, but also what I feel is right. I completly understand that there is biology that makes it hard to give a guy that same out, but that doesnt mean he should not have it. Especially when differing biological processes, builds etc are "not important" in other areas of equality.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



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


Wow... this is just tragic.

You are doing this on purpose, aren't you?


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


You think that humans require expensive hospitals to be born in, and you are weighing this "Cost" as the mothers "Totality" of "Burden" for the child...

While you completely ignore all of the financial obligations that men are REQUIRED to adhere to, while women are not.

Don't be that person.... You will hate yourself for it later.


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.



Don't care about my credibility, thank you very much... I'm doing this for *YOU*


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.


You wouldn't know enlightenment if it hopped up in your face and slapped you with the cold hard truth.

I want Mothers to take *THE EXACT SAME AMMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN THAT MEN ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW.


Namely, I don't want women to have the choice of Abortion, or Adoption...


IF she is impregnated, she carries it to Term.

Because that would be Fair with the man being forced to financially support the child.


OR

I want women to be able to abort at a whim, abandon for adoption.....

And the men get to Abandon financial responsibility if they so desire...

Because that would be *EQUAL*


YOU just want MEN Enslaved to Women

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


But yet I would be wrong to say take it up with the creator for making most women physically weaker than men, and as such they should serve in combat, not be firefighters or anything else that requires physical strength?

But what really happens, is gender norming.....damn the differences we will lower the standards to show it can be done.

And "not deposit my precious swimmers in a bank", do you honestly suggest that abstaining and only having sex for procreation is the answer? Do you also realize that banking is not a lifelong commitment correct?

But I will make you a deal, take away the right of an abortion or say that a man can walk away. Would you say a female should likely abstain?




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




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




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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


Do not deposit your precious tender into a bank you don't want to do lifetime business with!




Again then i`ll have to ask you..........


How many men do you know or have heard of that purposely impregnated a women just so he can run away afterward?

How many women have you known or have heard of that deliberately get pregnant by a male just to leave him and make him pay for the next 18 years with little to no contact with his children?


So what of the vast majority of men who wanted to spend the rest of their lives with their spouse and children?

So your happy that women are legally allowed to crap all over these men.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Are you trying to shame me into compliance?


No, I don't have to.


Originally posted by Edrick

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


I'd appreciate it if you'd link me to anyplace that I have said that. Or have you become so desperate that you need to put words into my mouth so that you can heroically defend against them?


Originally posted by Edrick

Then we should overturn Rowe v Wade?


I've never once stated in this thread, or any other, that I agree with abortion.


Originally posted by Edrick

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.


Are you implying that men are zombies attached to a penis who have no say in sexual liaisons? I believe you mean to say that THEY decided to have sex and that THEY should bear the burdens that the choices bestowed upon THEM.


Originally posted by Edrick

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


Again, this tells me that somebody has really done a number on you somewhere.


Originally posted by Edrick

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


As opposed to a single mother bearing the burden alone? Bear with me here because you obviously have comprehension issues... it's called "Child support" and not "money for the woman who hurt you support" mmmkay?


Originally posted by Edrick

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


Again with the inability to comprehend that men have testicles and woman have ovaries and that's just the way it is.


Originally posted by Edrick

Why do you hate men so much?


This is a fun game. You put words into my mouth and then I tell you that you've done so.


Originally posted by Edrick

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


If by "try" you mean "to create an entirely irrational argument just for jollies" then, no. But I do admire your dedication to the format.


Originally posted by Edrick

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.


Fine. Roe V Wade gets overturned. I can imagine that. So explain to me how this would alter a mans obligation to financially support his biological offspring. If anything all it would do is to quell your fixation over the fact that you can't have an abortion just like those lucky, lucky, money grubbing women can.


Originally posted by Edrick

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 part of "the man was a willing participant in a mutual act which resulted in pregnancy" are you stuck on" SHE didn't do anything. THEY did.


Originally posted by Edrick

You don't know what equality means, do you?[/quote]


equal·i·ty Function: noun : the quality or state of being equal: as a : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree


Source

Notice that the word "fair" just isn't there.


Originally posted by Edrick

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


So far you've made many more statements towards what you think than you have to legalities, beyond a constant and compulsive need to point out your perception of fairness.



Originally posted by Edrick


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

???


Originally posted by Edrick

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.


I DID just say that I was being rational. The fact that you feel you are isn't quite as funny as it is disturbing.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.


Some men work dangerous jobs to support their wives/girlfriends and children,your not taking this into account either.

Most men I have known when a new born is on the horrizon work two jobs in preparation,you dont think this is taxing or a risk on his health?




edit on 18-9-2010 by gps777 because: (no reason given)

Why WOULD I take this into account?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the risk of pregnancy on a female vs the same risk to a male body during the duration of the pregnancy. There is not the same level of reproductive risk thus the men do not get the same level of reproductive choice.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I have never not once said that a man should willy nilly have an out. If you read my previous post you will find I post my thoughts on the matter numerous times. I will repeat once again. I believe that if two people have sex and a pregnancy results then there should be no outs for either party. No abortions, support and raise your child etc. Since I know this is unrealistic and not what the law says nor is it necessarily right (since every situation and person is different) I can not support it.

Now this what I have been saying all along and will continue to say.

If one party has a legally and socially acceptable way to deny parent hood, then that should hold for the other party also, not just based on equal protection laws, but also what I feel is right. I completly understand that there is biology that makes it hard to give a guy that same out, but that doesnt mean he should not have it. Especially when differing biological processes, builds etc are "not important" in other areas of equality.
Both parties already have legally and socially acceptable outs. They just happen to differ. Just as the female ssumes all physical and biological risk for the pregnancy.

She gets diffeernt reproductive choices as the male.

The male always has the socially acceptable out of keeping his semen out of women he would rather not mother his children.

Until the male can grow the baby in his uterus, there is no argument.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I can tell you why it doesnt. Because it doesnt fit into your world view and there fore is unfit to even be given the slightest bit of consideration.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I have never not once said that a man should willy nilly have an out. If you read my previous post you will find I post my thoughts on the matter numerous times. I will repeat once again. I believe that if two people have sex and a pregnancy results then there should be no outs for either party. No abortions, support and raise your child etc. Since I know this is unrealistic and not what the law says nor is it necessarily right (since every situation and person is different) I can not support it.

Now this what I have been saying all along and will continue to say.

If one party has a legally and socially acceptable way to deny parent hood, then that should hold for the other party also, not just based on equal protection laws, but also what I feel is right. I completly understand that there is biology that makes it hard to give a guy that same out, but that doesnt mean he should not have it. Especially when differing biological processes, builds etc are "not important" in other areas of equality.
Both parties already have legally and socially acceptable outs. They just happen to differ. Just as the female ssumes all physical and biological risk for the pregnancy.

She gets diffeernt reproductive choices as the male.

The male always has the socially acceptable out of keeping his semen out of women he would rather not mother his children.

Until the male can grow the baby in his uterus, there is no argument.


Nice you replied, but once again skipped responding to the different biologies and gender norming.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


Ask a thousand times it is irrelevant to the thread how many men I know who did this or how many women did that.

Why are you assuming I have so many low class acquaintances? Do you?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 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
I was unaware a father was forbidden from "bailing".



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


No he is adeadbeat because he debases his own blood child and reduces the child to a monetary amount to be resented.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I'd appreciate it if you'd link me to anyplace that I have said that. Or have you become so desperate that you need to put words into my mouth so that you can heroically defend against them?


Just assuring that you don't go there....


Are you implying that men are zombies attached to a penis who have no say in sexual liaisons?


Are you implying that women are so irrisponsible and capritious, that we have to just let them kill off any potential human growth inside them "Because they don't want to", But a man who doesn't feel ready, must Man up... to the tune of garnished wages, and such?

Eh?


I believe you mean to say that THEY decided to have sex and that THEY should bear the burdens that the choices bestowed upon THEM.


Yeah... but that's not what's going down, is it?


Women can be as irresponsible with their vagina as they please...

Oops, I'm pregnant is followed by a weighing of options....

Unless you are a man... in which case, you have no options.


Again, this tells me that somebody has really done a number on you somewhere.


I'm sure that merely disagreeing with you would elicit that specific response from you, actually.


As opposed to a single mother bearing the burden alone? Bear with me here because you obviously have comprehension issues... it's called "Child support" and not "money for the woman who hurt you support" mmmkay?


Then why does not the state enforce what that money is spent on?

Or even care enough to find out?


You think that women are just Super Perfect Divine Creatures, don't you?


That would certainly explain a lot.


Again with the inability to comprehend that men have testicles and woman have ovaries and that's just the way it is.


For the Fifth time.


You are just being Obtuse.


This is a fun game. You put words into my mouth and then I tell you that you've done so.


Oh, yeah... like the one about my checkered past full of women that hurt me?


This is getting sad.... really sad.


If by "try" you mean "to create an entirely irrational argument just for jollies" then, no. But I do admire your dedication to the format.


If by "I do admire your dedication to the format", you meant "I have absolutely no Idea what I am talking about" then yes.... I agree with you.


Fine. Roe V Wade gets overturned. I can imagine that. So explain to me how this would alter a mans obligation to financially support his biological offspring. If anything all it would do is to quell your fixation over the fact that you can't have an abortion just like those lucky, lucky, money grubbing women can.


We are talking about *Equality* Darling....


I would have thought a Feminist like yourself would have been more intimately acquainted with the term, and its definition.

Pity, that...


What part of "the man was a willing participant in a mutual act which resulted in pregnancy" are you stuck on" SHE didn't do anything. THEY did.


Then why is the decision over whether the baby dies or lives, Hers Alone?

Why must he ABIDE by her decision, when SHE HERSELF does not have to?


Notice that the word "fair" just isn't there.


Read the definition of "Equal" about 5-6 more times.... and then look at a man and a woman side by side.


You will know why you are wrong then.


So far you've made many more statements towards what you think than you have to legalities, beyond a constant and compulsive need to point out your perception of fairness.


I keep talking about how the Laws favor women, (especially in regards to sex, marriage, etc) and your response is *ALWAYS* a diversionary tactic that veers over into biology...

As if you are afraid to argue my ACTUAL point.


I DID just say that I was being rational.


Yes, and you were as wrong then, as you are now.

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick


Wow... this is just tragic.

You are doing this on purpose, aren't you?


What? Stating facts? Yes I am doing that on purpose.


Originally posted by Edrick

You think that humans require expensive hospitals to be born in, and you are weighing this "Cost" as the mothers "Totality" of "Burden" for the child...

While you completely ignore all of the financial obligations that men are REQUIRED to adhere to, while women are not.

Don't be that person.... You will hate yourself for it later.


By "totality of the burden" I wasn't even thinking about money. I was referring to pregnancy and carrying a child. And where have I stated that women should be absolved of their share of the financial responsibility? Please link me to where I have said this.


Originally posted by Edrick

Don't care about my credibility, thank you very much... I'm doing this for *YOU*


Really, thank you, but no thank you.


Originally posted by Edrick

You wouldn't know enlightenment if it hopped up in your face and slapped you with the cold hard truth.

I want Mothers to take *THE EXACT SAME AMMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN THAT MEN ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW.


I don't disagree with this at all. In fact it's what I've been screaming for about nineteen straight hours.


Originally posted by Edrick

Namely, I don't want women to have the choice of Abortion, or Adoption...
IF she is impregnated, she carries it to Term.
Because that would be Fair with the man being forced to financially support the child.

OR

I want women to be able to abort at a whim, abandon for adoption.....
And the men get to Abandon financial responsibility if they so desire...
Because that would be *EQUAL*


Your argument is still invalid. Utterly invalid. If the woman gets an abortion or gives the child up for adoption then the father would no longer be financially responsible.

Saying that men should be let off the hook simply because a woman could do either thing makes no sense at all. You obviously do not factor the welfare of the child into your thoughts at all.


YOU just want MEN Enslaved to Women

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



I was unaware a father was forbidden from "bailing".


Child support.


If I have to respond further with more than those two words, I am going to be very upset.


No he is adeadbeat because he debases his own blood child and reduces the child to a monetary amount to be resented.


Aborted Babies.

Your moral "Authority" for dictating what is "Expected" of a Man, DIED the moment women started killing their children for convenience by the MILLIONS.

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Why WOULD I take this into account?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the risk of pregnancy on a female vs the same risk to a male body during the duration of the pregnancy. There is not the same level of reproductive risk thus the men do not get the same level of reproductive choice.



So again you totally discount the risk that a husband/father has in support of his family compared to that of the wife/mother.Just because he is not carrying a baby does not mean he is in less risk in alot of circumstances and jobs in support of her and the child.

More so after the baby is born he will continue these risks.

Many men have joined the military for instance for the very reason of lack of other jobs etc just for their support.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


If you choose not to abstain don't come whining about a baby then. Choose women you would not mind being mothers to your children. In other words accept responsiblity for the actions of your reproductive organs.

I won't comment on fantasy, ie, no abortion or men can give up rights.

When men assume an equal share of the gestation, then they can talk about his, until then male and female reproductive choices are fair, because they reflect the unique reproductive statii of the genders.




top topics



 
56
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join