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

reply to post by mayertuck


This is not about my world view. It IS about reproductive choices.

reply to post by Hefficide

By "totality of the burden" I wasn't even thinking about money. I was referring to pregnancy and carrying a child.

Yeah, I called you on it, and you brought up how expensive having a child being born was.

Don't try to weasel your way out of your own trap.

it looks silly.

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.

Abortion, Adoption, etc...

Women can relieve themselves of the burden of supporting a child that is genetically theirs.

Men can not.

Really, thank you, but no thank you.

You don't really think you have a choice in the matter, do you?

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

So, you agree that women's lack of responsibility, and mens FORCED responsibility is a bad thing?

Thanks.

Your argument is still invalid. Utterly invalid.

I have doubts that you understand some of the words in that sentence.

If the woman gets an abortion or gives the child up for adoption then the father would no longer be financially responsible.

Yeah, but if she don't... He is.

And he *STILL HAS NO CHOICE*

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.

Killing Babies By the Millions While they Are Still In the Womb!


And I'm a monster, because I'm saying that the dad shouldn't be REQUIRED BY LAW to pay for his children, if the woman has the *CHOICE* to kill it, or leave it to the state.


Obtuse.

-Edrick

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.

Still not addressing the gender norming argumnet are you? I wonder why is that?

Could it possibly be because you want to use differences in biology as a support for your position and then use the same difference in biology should not matter when it doesn't benefit your position. Any group that advocates convient flip flopping to suit their "agenda" bears no weight. Highly sexist and hypocritical if you ask me.

Originally posted by Edrick
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

What does child support have to do with preventing a father from bailing? It sure has not stopped the millions of deadbeat dads from doing just that.

I am not dictating what is expected out of men, biology did that for us.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Right it is about reproductive choices. Only thing is the only reproductive choices that should matter are based off of the ones that you hold so near and dear to your heart based on your world view. Convienent isn't it.

Originally posted by gps777

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.

You are discussing employment issues. I am discussing reproduction issues. Maybe the man would not have to risk his very life to support a child if he had taken responsibility BEFORE it became a life and death issue.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

What does child support have to do with preventing a father from bailing? It sure has not stopped the millions of deadbeat dads from doing just that.

Are you advocating Criminal Acts?

Oh, What few non-custodial mothers there are... do the "Deadbeat" thing *FAR* more often than men do.

I am not dictating what is expected out of men, biology did that for us.

Get

Back

In

The

Kitchen


You can thank mother nature for that one too.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


Because abortion is free now.

reply to post by Hedera Helix

Neither. The fact of the matter is this child did not ask to be brought into the world this way... from parents who were not married to each other. And if I do say so myself neither his mother nor his father make good parents. Who was left for this little boy who is now as if he were my own son but me? I was the rock that gave him a solid foundation. He was the innocent victim (aside from me, of course).

reply to post by hotbakedtater


And what of the deadbeat mothers that bail on their children? And before you say no I am not even bringing up abortions? Look at precentages of custodial fathers and mothers. When it is based off of precentages and not just numbers (because there are millions of noncustodial fathers vs non custodial mothers) why is it the women have a higher percentage of being a dead beat?

reply to post by mayertuck


I am wondering where you get the notion that I am flip flopping on the issue of reproductive choices and rights. That is the topic at hand.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.

Its not irrelevant at all,though you wish it to be.

If you won`t answer I guess I`ll start first then,just in case your shy or something.

question...

"How many men do you know or have heard of that purposely impregnated a women just so he can run away afterward? "
answer..
In my 46 odd years of life the answer is none,not once have I ever heard of a male purposefully impregnating a women to leave her afterward.

question...

"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? "
answer....
Crap loads! too many to count.

Yet you think this is fair?

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

I asked have you known or heard its right there in the question,selective read much?

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Because abortion is free now.

Oh, you mean "Provided by the state"?

You mean, Taken out of MY TAXES?


Yeah... it's all free Princess.

And your computer runs on the laughter of butterflies.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

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?

While I admire your dedication to the pro-life movement. That isn't really what's being discussed here at all. The fact that a woman can abort a pregnancy still does NOT justify a man refusing to live up to his paternal duties. You can flog this horse until the corpse is bone and it still won't make you right. Hate abortion until the cows come home but to think to justify punishing children for your own biases and opinions by saying that they should be punished for societies shortcomings? C'mon now. Your misogyny is showing.

Originally posted by Edrick

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.

See the above.

Originally posted by Edrick
.
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, you have to resort to putting words into my mouth. It's a sore substitute for actual substance.

Originally posted by Edrick

For the Fifth time.
You are just being Obtuse.

Or principled in the face of ignorance. I guess it all depends upon perspective.

Originally posted by Edrick

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.

This is the most valid statement you have made yet.

Originally posted by Edrick

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...

Ah... With the emasculating humor. That's fun too. I can actually smell your desperation now.

Originally posted by Edrick

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?

Pregnancy is a decision? You did take biology in school, right? Pregnancy is the result of sex, which both HE and SHE participated in.

Originally posted by Edrick

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.

This is obvious - yet I fail to see how it supports any of the BS you are trying to sell.

Originally posted by Edrick

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.

Now your misogyny is really showing. Along with an apparent fear of women.

Originally posted by Edrick

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

Ah, you say it so it must be true.

Hmm while i don't agree with the tone, i think some do have a point that there are basic differences which give a woman more options in the matter. I still think the simplest solution is for men to not have sex unless you are willing to face the consequences which can occur even if all precautions are taken, sure woman have more options than men in this situation...but i still see it as a valid approach to take that solves the whole issue completely.

reply to post by Edrick


I'm not even going to break down your latest manifesto against abortion post. It's not worth my time. You've posted nothing but an attack without any substance or addition.

You know, it's kind of sad, because you started off so well. I really thought I had my hands full. Now I see that once you remove the sarcasm from your posts all that's really left is... Well...not much.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by mayertuck

 

I am wondering where you get the notion that I am flip flopping on the issue of reproductive choices and rights. That is the topic at hand.

Then answer the question do you agree that women should be able to do any physical demanding job as a man? yes or no?

if you say yes then you are flip flopping on the issue, there is a biological difference in the strength of men and women, yet we have the practice of gender norming to ensure that a woman's right to do that job will not be violated.

But yet when it comes to reproduction difference in biology should mean nothing.

If you say no then you are saying that women should not be doing those things and that they should be busy their time doing "women's" things and jobs which is counter to your feminist ideal? you can not have it both ways, I am sorry.

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

What does child support have to do with preventing a father from bailing? It sure has not stopped the millions of deadbeat dads from doing just that.

Are you advocating Criminal Acts?

Oh, What few non-custodial mothers there are... do the "Deadbeat" thing *FAR* more often than men do.

I am not dictating what is expected out of men, biology did that for us.

Get

Back

In

The

Kitchen


You can thank mother nature for that one too.

-Edrick

edit on 18-9-2010 by Edrick because: addition

Not this noncustodial mother.

Your misogyny is showing in this post.

I expected more out of you than this, Edrick.

reply to post by mayertuck


What of them? How is that germaine to the topic? Why do you expect responses for such off topic tangents?

It sounds like a great discussion for a new thread.

reply to post by Solomons


Yes that is the simplest solution. Does it make it right? Should a man have to forgoe an experience because of the risk and give a female free reign to engage of that behavior? I for one say no.