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

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Seriously, hmmm so the Right to choose means nothing I guess right. now its just a choice. Nice flip flop again.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

No the man retains 100 percent power to decide whether HIS child ge s brought into the world

Unless she decides to have an abortion.... in which case, you are Freakishly Wrong.

and whether he has to pay for 18 years of dependent due to 18 second of delights.

Don't you mean... "And whether she gets free money for 18 years for 18 seconds of delight."?

A man's reproductive rights:

Abstinence
Prophylactics
Vasectomy
Sex with wife
Sex with strangers
Unprotected sex
Prostitute sex
Older women who cannot get pregnant

A woman's Reproductive Rights:

1. Take him to the Cleaners.
2. Take him to the Laundromat.
3. Take him for Everything he's got.
4. Kill the child, forget this ever happened.
5. send the child away, because she don't GOT to take responsibility for NOTHIN!


You are transparent.

Unless a man is coerced violently, the child he is wishing to not have was conceived freely utilizing the reproductive Rights he is entitled to under Law.

Unless she lies about being on the pill, or pokes holes in the condom, digs it up out of the trash to impregnate herself, etc, etc, etc...

Abortion?

That falls under Reproductive CHOICE

Then why do women get the choice to walk away from a pregnancy that she didn't want... but a man does not have that same Choice?


Are you going to answer this, or are you going to keep putting up emotional "Arguments" that don't actually MEAN anything?


-Edrick

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

And that leaves which rights for men? Oh that's right, just one: the right not to have sex. I guess because the woman has to spend 9 months pregnant it means she should have 100% power to decide whether a child gets brought into the world and whether the father will need to pay 18 years of child support.

No the man retains 100 percent power to decide whether HIS child ge s brought into the world and whether he has to pay for 18 years of dependent due to 18 second of delights.

A man's reproductive rights:

Abstinence
Prophylactics
Vasectomy
Sex with wife
Sex with strangers
Unprotected sex
Prostitute sex
Older women who cannot get pregnant

lets dissect shall we:
Abstinence....ok even though unrealistic
Prophylactics...oh but if the condom bust sorry still sol
Vasectomy...again ok but unrealistic and chance of when he wants a child not being able to have one
Sex with wife....any pregnancy would still be at the whims of her
Sex with strangers.....same as above, condom breaking etc
Unprotected sex....ok
Prostitute sex.....ok, but I would venture same as all the other above
Older women who cannot get pregnant....true but what if a person is not attracted to that age group?

now look at women:
all of the above with the exception of prophalaytics plus:
birth control pills
IUD
Diaphragm
Depo shot
abortion
adoption
keeping the child
tubal ligation
if i missed any please add.

Now hmmmm yup no disparity there...none at all, everything is all nice and equal.







Lots of rights there besides abstinence.

But here is the Official Definition of Reproductive Rights, it is not Female or Male, it is just...Reproductive Rights, set forth by World Health Organization.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Reproductive Rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[1] The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.[2]" (from above link)

Unless a man is coerced violently, the child he is wishing to not have was conceived freely utilizing the reproductive Rights he is entitled to under Law.

There is not one post here on this thread that has convinced me that any scenerio (bar illegal scenerios) infringes upon a male's Reproductive Rights as defined by WHO.

My reproductive rights are exactly the same as a males.

Abortion?

That falls under Reproductive CHOICE, and ones choices are always subjective to the person. In this case biology dictates different reproductive choices. Females do not have the choice of vasectomy. They do have the choice to have their tubes tied.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I see your point. I just don't happen to agree. If I don't want to get burned I make sure my hand isn't placed in the fire. If I don't want to be a parent, I don't produce a child.

I will never agree that abortion should be a way out except in the circumstances I've previously stated. I do not understand, will never understand, why murdering an unborn child is acceptable. Should there then be retroactive abortions? I decide once my child is born that I've made a mistake and don't want to woman up to my responsibility, therefore I can murder my newborn by "retroactive abortion"? To me they are one and the same.

If I engage in a sexual act that produces a child I am responsible for the rearing and support (emotional, physical and monetary) of that child until he/she is an adult. The other parent is equally responsible. There are no easy outs. There are no easy answers. What I don't understand is the enormous amount of people who do not want the responsibility, whether financial or physical, that can't figure out how to prevent beforehand rather than "fix" afterward.

Adoption should only be utilized if BOTH parents agree. The parent who doesn't agree to the adoption should be the one to have physical custody of the child but the other parent remains equally financially responsible for the child.

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by 27th Aquarius
A real man deals with his responsibility and the consequences of his actions!

So then what about a "real woman"

Notice I did not disagree with your posting, merely asked a question on something people do not want to talk about.

That is a lie, I have consisently reiterated the choices 'real women' all across the world have in thier bag of reproductive choices. Just because you may feel abortion is escaping responsibility doe snot make it true.

The fact is, I am not seeing a scenerio to comment on in which a woman is shirking her responsibility like the male in the OP/ in question.



Shirking child support means there is a child to support.

Abortion eradicates that possibility, thus the woman is NOT shirking her parental duty becaus eshe is not a parent.

Must be other people not wanting to address this point.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
en.wikipedia.org...
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.[2]"

Put the man in your definition of reproductive rights there. The man should be able to decide freely the number of children he has (even if that number is zero). The man has the right to make decisions concerning reproduction. Including the decision NOT to.

Unless a man is coerced violently, the child he is wishing to not have was conceived freely utilizing the reproductive Rights he is entitled to under Law.

Why is it that when you talk about female abortion, it's a parasite or clump of cells (which I agree with) but when you talk about a male abortion, it's a "CHILD"... ? It's not a child at the time of the abortion, male or female. TRY to have some objectivity here.

Abortion?

That falls under Reproductive CHOICE

From your link:

Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Yes but the question remains, should a man have to Pay for his sperm deposits, when he knowingly deposits them inside a baby making factory, if the deposit produces dividends?

Why should a woman be allowed to ABANDON her parental responsibilities, when she KNOWINGLY inserted a Baby Making Machine into her "Easy Bake Oven"?

Did she not know the consequences?

Or do you pity her so much, that you don't care what equality actually means?


"Off with his head... and serve it to the girl that we *CALL* Equal... but treat like a retarded child that is incapable of taking responsibility for her own actions... without a *MAN* bailing her out"

That was You, and your lousy perspective.

-Edrick

-Edrick

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by 27th Aquarius
A real man deals with his responsibility and the consequences of his actions!

So then what about a "real woman"

Notice I did not disagree with your posting, merely asked a question on something people do not want to talk about.

That is a lie, I have consisently reiterated the choices 'real women' all across the world have in thier bag of reproductive choices. Just because you may feel abortion is escaping responsibility doe snot make it true.

The fact is, I am not seeing a scenerio to comment on in which a woman is shirking her responsibility like the male in the OP/ in question.

Shirking child support means there is a child to support.

Abortion eradicates that possibility, thus the woman is NOT shirking her parental duty becaus eshe is not a parent.

Must be other people not wanting to address this point.

No for the most part you are celebrating women who are getting rid of their responsibility for something they helped create. Whether or not it is legal or socially acceptable is irrelevant.

reply to post by Edrick


Yes,those raging, monthly hormones do get us
in trouble.Hormones get us all in trouble!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And why is no one answering my posts?

Whining about not having posts answered when you don't answer posts yourself?

I guess you do stand for double standards.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I see your point. I just don't happen to agree. If I don't want to get burned I make sure my hand isn't placed in the fire. If I don't want to be a parent, I don't produce a child.

I will never agree that abortion should be a way out except in the circumstances I've previously stated. I do not understand, will never understand, why murdering an unborn child is acceptable. Should there then be retroactive abortions? I decide once my child is born that I've made a mistake and don't want to woman up to my responsibility, therefore I can murder my newborn by "retroactive abortion"? To me they are one and the same.

If I engage in a sexual act that produces a child I am responsible for the rearing and support (emotional, physical and monetary) of that child until he/she is an adult. The other parent is equally responsible. There are no easy outs. There are no easy answers. What I don't understand is the enormous amount of people who do not want the responsibility, whether financial or physical, that can't figure out how to prevent beforehand rather than "fix" afterward.

Adoption should only be utilized if BOTH parents agree. The parent who doesn't agree to the adoption should be the one to have physical custody of the child but the other parent remains equally financially responsible for the child.

I wanted to quote you on this post because it was such a lucid, coherent and sound statement that I totally agree with!! I don't give out stars on posts... but I'm starring this one...certainly deserves one.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
en.wikipedia.org...
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.[2]"

Put the man in your definition of reproductive rights there. The man should be able to decide freely the number of children he has (even if that number is zero). The man has the right to make decisions concerning reproduction. Including the decision NOT to.

Unless a man is coerced violently, the child he is wishing to not have was conceived freely utilizing the reproductive Rights he is entitled to under Law.

Why is it that when you talk about female abortion, it's a parasite or clump of cells (which I agree with) but when you talk about a male abortion, it's a "CHILD"... ? It's not a child at the time of the abortion, male or female. TRY to have some objectivity here.

Abortion?

That falls under Reproductive CHOICE

From your link:

Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion

Let me call it now........and.....wait for it.............another.........FLIP FLOP coming our way

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I am not flip flopping by refusing to answer a question that has nothing to do with any of my previous statements regarding the topic at hand.

Technically, you didn't flip-flop. You copped out by refusing to answer a question that I think is relevant. Do you support equal rights or not? That's a relevant question. Will you answer that?

By the way, I support equality in the military. If a woman can do the job, she should be permitted to. If the man is too weak to do the job, he should not be permitted to. And the standards should be the SAME, not one standard for men and one for women. If a lower standard is acceptable, then all people should be required to meet the lower standard, NOT just the women.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dont take this the wrong way but I think I am falling in love......lol j/k.

But I do love your thinking and have said so numerous times on the issue of gender norming.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

By the way, I support equality in the military.

AMEN!

I'd go so far as to say that 50% of front-line positions should be Women....

You know... for Equality.


We should also make sure that women DIE ON THE JOB as often as men.... but that would mean making them equally represented in the dangerous areas of industry...

As opposed to kept out of harms way, so that they can FEEL like they are contributing, and Earning money... without ever actually RISKING what men must Risk in order to JUST SURVIVE.

You know... True Equality.



You know what True Equality smells like?


It smells like Frightened women, mixed with delicious tears.

-Edrick

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
If I don't want to be a parent, I don't produce a child.

That goes for both man and woman, right?

Should there then be retroactive abortions? I decide once my child is born that I've made a mistake and don't want to woman up to my responsibility, therefore I can murder my newborn by "retroactive abortion"? To me they are one and the same.

As I said about 100 pages back abortion should only be available BEFORE the fetus becomes a child. I said a time limit should be set for the male abortion. Like 3-4 months, so the woman can still have time to choose an abortion.

I'm not arguing the moral aspect of abortion, so all the talk about "killing an unborn child" is irrelevant to the legal aspect of this. Because abortion is legal.

There are plenty of threads about the morality of abortion. This is about the law.

reply to post by Edrick

Off original topic but I couldn't let this lie: You assume that all women are vapid emotional creatures unwilling to die on the front lines shoulder to shoulder with the men. I say that it is rather a man's view of women dying on the front lines that prevents them being there.

reply to post by SeenMyShare

sorry to engage this tangent, but I am not sure he is assuming. I would say that it isn't just a man's view. Feminist ideals are just as much to blame. They do not advocate for the drafting of females do they?

reply to post by mayertuck


I do believe I have stated that illegal activity/rape/etc is an obvious exception to any of my views. I am working on the assumption of two consenting adults, as per the OP and topic.

I feel that since the act of sex was criminalized, the victim should not be revictimized by having to pay for the product of the crime.

Apparently, the court thought otherwise in this case, and claim that although the law says it was a crime, the sex was consensual (what?) and thus not a defense to shirking child support.

That is all I have to say on the matter until its own thread is made, considering it is off topic (the OP is not debating a criminal act).

Originally posted by Kailassa
Whining about not having posts answered when you don't answer posts yourself?

I guess you do stand for double standards.

What are you talking about? And why be so nasty about it?

I answered the only post of yours that I've seen. I was sleeping for about 8 hours there and missed a few pages, but I will look over the thread and find where you asked me something and answer it. But really, why get nasty with me? Because we disagree?