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: 42
56
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Thank you for the answer. I do have to say I am surprised you have this stance since he inserted his swimmers into the bank. Never the less kudos to you.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

And that is why this whole discussion can take place. The law states that aborting an unborn child is acceptable. The law is wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


My comments were in reply to Edrick's post, and in particular, his comment that women were being ALLOWED to work. I was reminding him women have ALWAYS been allowed to Work. The comment was not directed to any of your points.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 



Off original topic but I couldn't let this lie


I'm sure that you couldn't


You assume that all women are vapid emotional creatures unwilling to die on the front lines shoulder to shoulder with the men.


Do I?




I say that it is rather a man's view of women dying on the front lines that prevents them being there.


Oh, yeah... couldn't possibly be that they are Less able, less Fit, have less endurance, a lower threshold for pain (Don't you dare bring up the pains of childbirth... You will regret it), a lower tolerance for sustained violence, etc, etc, etc...

Must be Sexism...



-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 

True. Feminists don't really know what they want, do they? They want to be on equal footing with a man without the responsibilities men face? Kind of like the current topic in reverse, huh?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Bwahahahaha...the ENTIRE feminist movement is based on that very concept.

I am FORCED to hire a set number of women, wether they meet the physical requirements of the job or not.

And the best part, is I am then FORCED to buy more equipment so that the under equiped (by nature) female can do said job.

And that is your arguement...lol.


edit on 18-9-2010 by peck420 because: Spelling champion



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I was following the rules of your request was I not, no where did you say in your interactions with me. I have no problem whatso ever with someone engaging me on my views and even challenging them. I welcome it, and will continue to do so.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I was referring to financial choices, as the premise of the topic and Original Post is based on men who want to shirk their financial duties.

If by two financial choices to deal with unwanted pregancy, you mean multiple, then yes, she has multiple choices.

Her other financial choice is to gestate until she gives birth, when the matter legally becomes one between mother AND father financially regarding what happens next (either adoption or keeping the child.)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


That was pleasing to read,we only differ on the one point then on this subject and I`m sure you are/have given good advice to your family,I hope they have taken in the seriousness of these situations and never get bitten like so many men do,which is allowed to continue.

I`m in Australia so it maybe different here I dont know,anyway cheers.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



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.


This is the point. The whole thing is apples on oranges. Whether or not abortion or miscarriage takes place for some, does not mean for one second than any child born into this world is fatherless. Absolutely impossible for that to be the case so the whole argument is moot.

Babies are always a reality check. And any man wishing to deny is child is criminal.


edit on 18-9-2010 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 

Both sides are to blame for things and sadly both sides will not come to an understanding. I can say though that one side is more willing to compromise on things than another. Sadly the only thing that is going to happen nis the pendulum swinging to the opposite side of the spectrum and then back again and again and again.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

why is it apples on oranges....let me guess biology right?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



I was referring to financial choices, as the premise of the topic and Original Post is based on men who want to shirk their financial duties.


Wow... it only took you 6 pages to catch on, eh?

Oh, and why do you not use the term "Shirking their duties" when discussing abortions, or adoptions?

Why is it "Shirking Responsibility" if a man don't want to be a father...

But it is "Reproductive Freedom" or "Choice" if she wants to walk away from the consequences of her actions?

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Strangely enough it is a baby and not a fetus when the mother wants it.

www.ksla.com...

Question then...is it murder when the father wants a child and the mother wants an abortion?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


possible answers if any are given:

survey says:
its legal
biology
there isnt a child
its my right to or was it choice?
(probably will not be given) I am walking away from my responsibilities.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic




It just seems to me that both sides are harping on each other...

Pro-choice people say that a woman should NEVER be forced to reproduce. She shouldn't be forced to carry, bear and care for a child that she doesn't want. I completely agree. But I also say that NO ONE should be forced to be a parent. As long as abortion is available, no man or woman should be forced into parenthood (and that includes the financial burden - which is HUGE).

We harp on about a woman's reproductive choice, but when it comes to the man, he alone is held responsible for stopping it before it begins by making a choice for abstinence. Where is the woman's responsibility for abstinence?


I will answer your post! (and I hope in a much less offensive manner than yesterday.)

I listed above a whole bunch of options besides absitinence a man has to prevent his seed from impregnating the wrong girl at the wrong time. If a woman does not believe in abortion, then I would have to say the onus on her sexual choices falls upon her. But if she finds herself pregnant, the man also knew it was a risk, and until a child actually xists, how can either parent opt in or out of parenting the child?



There are many women who simply don't want children! And they have sex anyway, many times without protection. And they aren't labeled as "deadbeat moms" or irresponsible for choosing to abdicate their responsibility AFTER they get pregnant. But a man who simply doesn't want a child? His only recourse is to not have sex. Of course, the woman has that option, too! But we don't hold her responsible for it because she's got the option of abortion after the fact of pregnancy. How fair is that? How equal is that???

Women who are reading this: Do you want equal rights or not???

And why is no one answering my posts?
The man's only recourse is certainly NOT only to abstain. He has a miriad of options at his hand (no pun intended) to prevent from being financially burdened with his own creation.

My views on the OP and the topic at hand are about whether a man should have the right to not be a parent like a woman has the right to not be a parent.

I posit that equal rights to not be a parent already exist, in the form of abstinence on the side of both sexes. After abstinence the right to NOT be a parent is a choice, if sex commences both man and woman knows what they are faced with.

I do not need gender equality as I am already equal as a human being to any other human ont he planet.

Being a feminist for me does not equate to being the same as a man.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Are you actually thinking you can use men accepting the reality of their father hood to a born baby, to promote your anti abortion viewpoint? These are not even similar issues.

I believe abortion past the first trimester is murder, and not the reason given, but because of the brain development of the fetus, who I call a baby at that point. It has to do with brain development. Not how mature your heart or lungs are.

Howver having a child or being forced to have one, is an extremely life altering event, and can be a life destroying one, and though most men are expected to contribute some small amount to their childs care, they often walk away and have relatively undisturbed lives. I very strongly believe no one can force childbirth on a women if the procedure is carried out early enough, at around 6 weeks.

You are the one transparent, arguing apples and oranges, on the one hand due to an anti abortion stance on the other.

In other words, the court case and this thread has a political stance to it. An attempt to repress reproductive rights in women.

Having a certain amount of control over your own body and life and being given the choice to abort or not in the earliest stages as its done in Canada, is not the same issue at all, as to whether or not a living born baby has a mother and a father, because, reality check: THEY DO. And it took two to make them.




edit on 18-9-2010 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

so how does this jive with your "proof" of who reproductive rights and thats how you define them?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



if sex commences both man and woman knows what they are faced with.


But only the man has no say in the matter.

His fate is decided by the wishes of the woman.

Who has SUPREME power of Choice.

Backed by Legal Force..... as if we thought that women were Too Weak, and Powerless, and Stupid, to be responsable for their own actions.


It's almost like the Feminist movement, wants women to behave, at ALL TIMES, like thoughtless children, don't it?

-Edrick (it's telling, the words that come out of your posts... so telling.)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

but only the woman has a say and an outlet in not facing responsibility for her actions correct..........



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join