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

reply to post by Unity_99


It doesn't. It was an off topic response to a comment made by another poster and labeled as such. And, just because I can do the job doesn't mean I agree with the job (war).

As far as the Law goes there is no rights that are equal for men regarding whether or not to continue a pregnancy. The Law is women biased in that she can opt out two ways that he is not able. She can abort or give up for adoption while a man cannot force abortion or choose not to give up for adoption. I agree it's not fair.. I don't happen to agree with the law but for the reasons I've stated in numerous posts.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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

Well, the woman can have an abortion to opt out. She can decide to carry it to term to opt in.
The man is at the mercy of the woman's choice.

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.

You are calling abortion a choice (which it is) but it is also a right. Google reproductive rights and see that they all list abortion as a reproductive right.

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

Originally posted by Hedera Helix
reply to post by Jenna

 

You stated that a rapist shouldn't have any say in whether or not his victim has an abortion. Does a rapist have any parental rights if she decides to keep it??? The reason I ask is because there have been cases where the rapist HAS done battle in an attempt to establish parental and visitation rights. What's your stand on that issue???

Well I would HOPE the rapist wouldnt have any rights to the child as should all of his rights be void, as he is thus a criminal, once he committed the crime of rape.

For a judge to even consider such a case would be madness.

You're assuming the victim went to the police and there was a trial in which the rapist was convicted. That rarely happens. What about the other victims... who hide in shame and have to carry the burden ALONE???

reply to post by Edrick


Live past the point of a developing potential to me has to do with brain development, which also houses our souls, which do not enter developing fetus's but established ones. I agree that many abortions performed in the US are murders and even dismemberment. Brain development begins in earnest past the first trimester, and hence nor abortion, even if the woman didn't know she was pregnant should occur at that stage. In a life threatening case, ie a woman's heart won't hold up, then a balance must be made, to take the child at the earliest stage where it still has a good chance to survive with modern care, and less stress on her body, at least thats how I would want it done, ie, caesarean at 20-24 weeks with a lot of effort to save both mother and child.

But abortion and adoption are very extreme measures, they are not equivalent to good safe birth control, which doesnt really exist, the pill for example can only be taken by 50% of women, it may have improved a little over the decades since that stat was released, but I was one that had to be taken off right away. And IUDs are dangerous.

So good birth control for men and women, safe with no side effects, would be highly prized.

But adults have a responsibility towards their children. This is not debatable.

I don't know if I was misreading you on what you posted, a couple pages back, but it seemed you were bringing up the issue of abortion so I linked these two in your stance. If incorrectly, I'm sorry, it wasn't intended that way.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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'm nice to people until they get nasty.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic But if a woman chooses not to abstain, she can whine about a baby and child support all she wants, right?

So many single parents sacrifice everything for their children, trying to bring them up on their own and unable to actually get even the pittance the court has awarded them in child support, and yet you have the cheek to belittle them in this manner for finding things difficult. Oh, sorry, you're only belittling the female single parents.

You contend that when a pregnancy happens, caused by two parties who agree to have sex, each knowing sex can result in pregnancy, the man should have a free out just because the woman can supposedly have an abortion.

Yet you speak out of the other side of your mouth claiming you would not dream of putting pressure on the girl to have an abortion. You're plenty smart enough to know that denial of fatherhood from the father will be one more pressure forcing women into having an abortion, so I have lost the respect I used to have for you as an honest poster.

You support a law to say that once a man has renounced paternity, even if the child is born, he will not be a father and have no responsibilities to them.

What about the rights of the child?
"Oh, the woman should have thought of that and "kept a nickle between her knees."

Either you are saying women should be forced to get abortions at the man's choosing, or you are saying children should have no right to have support from their own father.

I've seen what it does to a child to be denied by his father. I have 2 handicapped sons who try and be brave about it, but who adore their father from afar and blame themselves for the fact that their father does not want to know them. One only talks about it in the middle of the night, when he's struggling against urges to kill himself for being no good.

And you want to change the law to put more children into this situation.

And you know what will happen if you change the law like this?

Any change on the womens' part to have fewer babies will be counteracted by an even greater freedom for men to screw all they want without fear of repercussions.

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.

***He already has that right, already covered by me, but will reiterate bith male and female start with the same right to decide freely. I already put the man in the equation, because the male and female both are entitled to the same rights. And they both have those rights, and they are on equal ground before the act commences, so where is this cry of unfair coming from?*****************

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.

******************************I have used other terms for the subject in question, fetus parasite baby child bun deposit clump of cells kid. I find that quite varied.**************

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

I am assuming that when she exercises her Reproductive Choice to abort, it is legal or safe. The Right is safe or legal accessto have one, when she does it becomes choice.

Originally posted by Hedera Helix
You're assuming the victim went to the police and there was a trial in which the rapist was convicted. That rarely happens. What about the other victims... who hide in shame and have to carry the burden ALONE???

Even for those who had their rapists convicted, they sometimes have to fight the 'fathers' of their children in court because they sue for visitation rights from behind bars. There have been some who were ordered to take the children to visit the 'fathers' in prison with the threat of having their children taken from them if they disobeyed court order.

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

really again? artificial insimination? 2 lesbians want a child, so I guess one of them HAS to have sex with a man to become pregnant.

No, they need the man for the sperm. So, even then there still needs a man involved for a child to be created.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
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?

I know exactly what THIS feminist wants.

I want all females to be able to live a life free of oppression. Unfortunately, most of female oppression comes from men.

It has nothing to do with some mythical same footing or equality with a man. I do not like what I see from a patriarchal society in regards to oppression of women. We live in an oppressive patriarchal society at the moment. Thus I have a vested interest to myself as a femal and my fellow and future femmes to ensure we are not oppressed. At the moment, all I have is my voice. I use it often and I use it loudly.

When we revert back to matriarchal (as others have stated the poles always reverse), we shall see if we are still having these types of discussions.

Originally posted by peck420
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

What field are you in that still forces illegal quotas?

reply to post by Edrick


I don't know. I don't make the rules I just play by them.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

I want all females to be able to live a life free of oppression. Unfortunately, most of female oppression comes from men.

What cracks me up about the Feminist rants - - - is Empowered Women are attracted to Empowered Men. The last thing a Feminist wants is an insecure man - - one who feels threatened by an Empowered Woman.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by airspoon
Well then the women can get an abortion if the man also chooses not to have a child. Why should the woman get the choice if she isn't ready to have a child but the man doesn't?

Going out on a limb here, and I know this is a stretch, but it might have something to do with the fact it is her body and her life that will be affected the most; a father assumes no risks whatsoever to his life-and-limb during pregnancy and childbirth.

I think this is more about controlling women than "father rights".

Really? Because, today's court system makes it possible for a child to pose extreme risks to a father's freedom, wallet, and social status.

A father may not get stretch marks, but he most certainly would have little reason to have a nice body after the fact.

If that's where you want to go with the argument... because it is vanity and the court system, in a more perfect world, would not serve VANITY.

I just feel the need to say that stretch marks are the least of a womans worries when pregnant. Let me just share a few of my own personal experiences since I have a child and I'm 13 weeks pregnant with my second.

My first pregnancy was great, with a only a little morning sickness at first. The worst parts were the headaches, colds and flus that I could't take any medications for, and high blood pressure that had me on bed rest during the 3rd trimester. Labor was a different story, with 20 hours of labor, 8 of which were very intense, a lot of stiches resulted from an episiotomy that left me unable to sit and stand unassisted for 2 weeks after birth, and heavy, intense bleeding that lasted for 6 weeks after birth. Oh, and it took about 2 years for the pain to be completly gone from the episiotomy during sex.

This pregnancy is a lot different, I've just gotten over 6 weeks of nausea, vomiting and food aversions, I've lost about 10 pounds and missed 3 days of work. It's left me so weak that of course I've just caught the first cold to swing my way, and I can't take any medication to alleviate the symptoms, nor can I miss any more work to stay at home and rest.

All I'm saying is that a mother who wants her babies like me will happily put up with with these "inconveniences" as someone put it, but to force it on someone against their will is torture and will cause a lot of stress and depression which would not be healthy for the unborn child no matter what. After 6 weeks of morning sickness I was despairing myself, even though it's taken me 8 months to conceive this child.

Yes, every pregnancy is different, and some women might just float through it, but the majority of others will suffer in some shape or form, and yes, some people still die from it.

My sister-in-law almost bled to death after returning home a day after giving birth, and lost 50% percent of her blood volume by the time she was rushed back to the hospital to have a D and C and blood transfusions.

Another friend of mine was hospitalised 4 times because she was so dehydrated from morning sickness that lasted her entire pregnancy.

It's a very different scenario between forcing someone to do something they don't want to do with their wallet, and forcing someone to do something they don't want to do with their bodies.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the whole child support debate, since I believe this is an area with many different shades of grey. But I wholeheartedly believe that no woman should be forced to carry out a pregnancy they do not want, and if abortion is their only solution then so be it, it's legal, and they are the ones that must live with that for the rest of their lives.

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

really again? artificial insimination? 2 lesbians want a child, so I guess one of them HAS to have sex with a man to become pregnant.

My reply did not exclude those scenerios. No matter the manner of conception, I am correct in stating who else would be standing there but a MAN as only through the union of the male and female tissues do we produce offspring.

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

Look, it's not the feminist movement. The feminist movement is one that supports equal rights for men and women. I am a feminist. Stop blaming the feminist movement for everything. People are individuals with different opinions on things.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Again, I am a woman and a single mother at that.

However, I side with the Mens Rights activists on this issue, because fair is fair.

Thank God! I thought I was alone here. Great points.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Again, I am a woman and a single mother at that.

However, I side with the Mens Rights activists on this issue, because fair is fair.

The women I have brought this issue up to can't stand that fact, yet they are not able to provide a sound argument against it.

The Point: Women have the LEGAL right to decline motherhood at any time, but the father does not. MORALLY, neither party should go around having babies and not take care of them through adulthood, but the Men's RIghts Activist group's issue is not a moral one..its a LEGAL one.....LEGALLY only the woman has the right to decline parenthood and it is socially acceptable, yet the man is called trifiling if he declines.

Double Standard.

Women, we can not say we want to have the same rights as a man, but that man cannot have the same rights as us.

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

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

If you press the button at the bottom of this post that says thread, you will find I have given more than several rebuttals to your points. Starting with men and women both have the same reproductive rights, again linked previously in my posts.

Have you noticed in this discussion the Prominence of the Man's Wallet?

I'm not really seeing Love for the Child that much.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


When men can bear a child that is when they get a choice after conception. As I previously stated, paternity is usually not declared until after birth and thus the delivery of a legal entity.

What you advocate is abdication of male responsibility before parenthood has even been established.

Until his body can produce a baby, why in the world should he have the right to walk away? The mother does not ever have the chance to "walk away". Abortion is not walking away.

And giving birth to a child the father says he does not want nor ever wanted?

I have to ask again, why were you engaging in an activity which often times ends up in the one situation you are declaring to NEVER desire?

On all points of the argument it is abdication of responsibility on the man's part; once he is finished with the sex act, he knows it is a waiting game there is no way around it.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Right.....however, UNLIKE the female, who if she does not opt out of the fetus, is facing child support, he gets to walk away from not ONLY the fetus but the resulting legal entity as well. That is why it is an abdication of financial responsibility.

Wait. If the man does not opt out, he is facing child support, too.Just like the woman.

She can opt out (have an abortion)
She can walk away.
She can opt in (and have financial responsibilities)

He can opt out (have a male abortion)
He can walk away.
He can opt in (have financial responsibilities)

If HE opts in and she opts out - If he wants the baby and she doesn't, He's SOL.
If SHE opts in and he opts out - If she wants the baby and he doesn't, She's SOL.

It's a lot more equal than it is now.

Once born the fetus is a child, and is a legal entity and laws are in place protecting the child.

That's how the law is now and I say that it violates the man's reproductive rights. Because he's being forced against his will to have a child.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Semantics. A woman is exercising her reproductive right to a safe or legal abortion by the act of choosing it.

Rights and choices can be comutual.