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: 45
56
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We differ on a point, and that is I do not consider abortion "opting out". I consider it her reproductive right.

And if she makes that choice that is her right alone, due to the fact that it is her body that hosts the baby.

Opting out for a female would be realizing the pregnancy test had been wrong, and she were really not pregnant after all. That is the onloy scenerio in which a male opt out and a female opt out are equal.

That is her only out, because once she learns she is pregant she is not merely walking away, she is facing one of two outcomes, abortion or live birth.

The male is never faced with either of these options after sex, so why should be able to opt out? How is that fair again?




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


or you could just go do what alot of america and the world does and go buy boobies and in context of the argument that is something you could do and would be a physical possiblity regardless of gender so kind of bad example



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


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.


I can agree On Paper. As laws are not supposed to be based on personal experience or emotions.

I still do not see Equal - - until the woman can walk away. The man can get up and walk away immediately after the sex act. The woman can not. And any woman going through a pregnancy is always at risk of damaging her health or even death.

My ex-husband's wife's pregnancy resulted in her becoming totally deaf.

It is not Equal.

Maybe everyone should have their tubes tied at birth - - - then when they are ready to reproduce - they can have them untied. Then all would be equal - - at least in one area.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


i want to state for the record that is is just an example i do not believe these statements personally so please dont flame me for this

ok so people want to bring "natural law" into this (ie nature made women have the baby so fairness is moot and whatnot) so if we follow natural law we shal use lions as an example. a male lion will often kill a cub of his own or another lion who fathered cubs with a female in his pride just so he can breed or to make sure his line goes further then that other lions as hes the alpha male using natural law or at least what im seeing it as then by right if a female gets impregnated by a man other then her husband the husband legally can kill that child to protect his line kinda slippery slope if ya ask me

again not saying i believe this just figured id devils advocate this one a bit my interpretations of how natures law works may be different then yours but as alwase comments are incouraged



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
I'm nice to people until they get nasty.


I wasn't even talking to you. And I used the word "whine" because I was responding to hotbakedtater, who used that word:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
If you choose not to abstain don't come whining about a baby then.


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 took my statement out of context, so I won't argue it further. If you want to think I was being nasty, so be it.



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.


It wouldn't be "free", There would be a fee. Maybe $1000 to pay for the abortion (if the woman chose) and a couple days lost wages. And yes, because the woman has a LEGAL out, I think the man should have one as well.


I have lost the respect I used to have for you as an honest poster.


I have been completely honest. Your choice is yours.



What about the rights of the child?


Since the woman might be left holding the bag, she should definitely consider that before she even has sex. And the man should consider it, too. I would also support a contract that holds a man liable, should he create a child.

The problem is that men AND women have sex without considering the consequences, without thinking about the future. They are BOTH completely irresponsible. That's why we have so many single parents and unwanted children. Since women have most of the power when it comes to sex, I think they should refuse sex unless the guy signs a legally-binding contract. Why not? But if it's a one-night-stand or casual sex and a pregnancy occurs, then both parties should have an out.



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.


You can say that a million times and it won't make it true. I'm not suggesting women be forced to do ANYTHING.

I am saying that children would have no legal right to support from their father. Because he would have opted out of parenthood, just as a woman who has an abortion opts out of parenthood. Once the man opts out, if the woman decides to have a child, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I would also support a situation where, if the MAN wanted the child and the woman didn't (but she didn't want to have an abortion), she could absolve her responsibilities, financial and otherwise, and turn the child over to the man... And then the child would have no right to support from their mother. It's equality.



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.


In the situation I'm talking about, the child would never even know their biological father. I'm very sorry about your situation, but the children were born before the father left, am I right? The situation I'm advocating would abdicate the man's responsibility LONG before any child was even born. The child (should the woman decide to have it) would never know their sperm donor.



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


I do not.



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.


They can't screw (legally) without a woman's consent.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
When men can bear a child that is when they get a choice after conception.


Why? They are precluded from bearing a child. Why should they not be allowed some choice in the matter? WHY?



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


I'm assuming paternity. Two people. One sex act. Pregnancy.


. Abortion is not walking away.


You say that but I don't agree. It's relieving one's self of ALL responsibility to the fetus that they helped create. That's why people get abortions! Because they don't WANT a baby.



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?


Seriously? For the same reason a woman does it. Because it feels good. It might not be that he NEVER desires a baby. It might be that he's just not ready for one (just like women) but still likes a roll in the hay. Just like women.




edit on 9/18/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


"Since the woman might be left holding the bag, she should definitely consider that before she even has sex. And the man should consider it, too. I would also support a contract that holds a man liable, should he create a child.

The problem is that men AND women have sex without considering the consequences, without thinking about the future. They are BOTH completely irresponsible. That's why we have so many single parents and unwanted children. Since women have most of the power when it comes to sex, I think they should refuse sex unless the guy signs a legally-binding contract. Why not? But if it's a one-night-stand or casual sex and a pregnancy occurs, then both parties should have an out."

Now how would a woman be left holding a bag if both parties have an opt out option?

And if both parties are sexing without considering the consequences why does only one the man get to shirk the responsibility?

How do women have the most power when it comes to sex? I suppose the male had no part of ending up in her vagina.

Nice theory on having people sign contracts for sex (wait, it is not a theory anymore, don't they call that marriage?).



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Here's an issue not discussed in the context of "choice" and "responsibility" at all (that I've seen so far, and I've read most of the posts)
The "safe-haven" laws not only allow a woman to abandon children without legal repercussions, but also, controversially, without notifying the biological father. They came about because so many women were throwing their babies in bathroom garbage cans and dumpsters. An 'overarching social interest' that I cannot argue with. However, to ignore these laws in the context of parental "choice" and "responsibilities," is to embrace a legal double-standard, and is intellectually dishonest. Of course, to my mind ignoring the basic constitutional disparity if only considering abortion and adoption options, or arguing that this disparity is justified by biology, fails to honestly address the civil rights question. But this third option should at least put the disparity in sharp relief, and give the parties' that claim "both parties are held equally responsible," pause. One would hope so, as the mental gymnastics required to justify the disparity, in this case, are of Olympic proportions.

en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 18-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to fix link



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I still do not see Equal - - until the woman can walk away. The man can get up and walk away immediately after the sex act. The woman can not.


What about the morning after pill? I think that's pretty much equal to walking away. It's as close as we're going to get, given biology.



It is not Equal.


I know.It CAN'T be equal. And I don't pretend that it can be. But it can be more equal than it is.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Why? They are precluded from bearing a child. Why should they not be allowed some choice in the matter? WHY?

I'm assuming paternity. Two people. One sex act. Pregnancy.


You say that but I don't agree. It's relieving one's self of ALL responsibility to the fetus that they helped create. That's why people get abortions! Because they don't WANT a baby.


Seriously? For the same reason a woman does it. Because it feels good. It might not be that he NEVER desires a baby. It might be that he's just not ready for one (just like women) but still likes a roll in the hay. Just like women.




edit on 9/18/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Yet unlike a woman, he knows he can leave his load all across America and not have to deal with the messy inconvenience of things like pregnancy and abortion.

You said it yourself, he cannot bear a child, so his options regarding his offspring are vastly different than mine.

There is no opt out for a female, abortion is not opting out, it is very much a parenting decision, the mother's first parental decision....whether to parent or not.

The father's first parental decision?

To have sex with a female.

How is it fair he gets to decide first?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



We differ on a point, and that is I do not consider abortion "opting out". I consider it her reproductive right.

And if she makes that choice that is her right alone, due to the fact that it is her body that hosts the baby.

Opting out for a female would be realizing the pregnancy test had been wrong, and she were really not pregnant after all. That is the onloy scenerio in which a male opt out and a female opt out are equal.


100% in agreement with the exception being that I don't believe in any abortions taking place past the first trimester for human brain growth is equivalent to a a more fully established potential human, and we are our minds/souls.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Being precluded from "bearing" a child physically is not something that makes women have more equality. Women are being suppressed world wide, and even forced to wear Shrouds in public in some countries.

Men should have no say over a womans body and her decision to bear a child. But if and when, due to her decision, a child is born, the reality is, there are two parents, and the child is the child of both.

All of these things are apples and oranges.

As to the first issue, take it with this hollographic universe's designer, Prime Creator. I take a lot of problems up with Her since I dont believe in harsh dualities, but I'm always answered, and shown that everything here is a test, and that we are really here to learn love, equality, and to really be kind and care for everyone. To say no to war or inequality, and poverty. To yearn for a eden. Doesnt matter if you bleieve in God, or call God the Great Pumpkin in the sky either or, if like me you believe infinity makes all things infinite and = to the infinity in size, and thus all children would be equal in size to any creator/parent too, so infinity equalizes all forever, endlessly and we are instead, The Infinite Family of Light in Progression learning love. And there are infinite universe/holograms/schools with infinite Prime Creators, our Future/Higher Selves in Progression.

But this universe is about overcoming duality, and lack of love.

The most important person in this equation is not the mother, or the father. Its the child. Their rights trump all .





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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


"There is no opt out for a female, abortion is not opting out, it is very much a parenting decision, the mother's first parental decision....whether to parent or not.

The father's first parental decision?

To have sex with a female.

How is it fair he gets to decide first? "

How exactly is it that the mothers first parenting decision is to parent or not but Dads is to have sex with a female?
I am not sure I follow the argument here. Does the woman not have a choice to have sex with a male? It seems to the untrained eye here that both kinda made the decision when they decided to have sex with each other.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Regardless of fetal brain development, there is not a single situation, legally, that a person can be required to provide "life support" through use of their body and bodily functions. If you ran over somebody drunk driving and they needed a kidney transplant and you were the only available match... can they make you donate?

Didn't think so. This issue boils down to men getting angry women can't be forced to be brood mares. The issue isn't that men want to abdicate their responsibility, if you look at the motives of most "men's righters" they are obsessive control freaks, and almost uniformly "pro-life" once you get past the mens rights crap. The issue is they want to tell women what to do. It is that simple. They think they came up with a clever rhetorical device to make their "point", but it's all crap.

It's a red herring. A strawman. And if you follow the law as they claim we all should, you are unable to get past the point where you can't force people to provide life support for another living organism.

Men have no comparable situation in a pregnancy, and once a woman carries to term the issue is not what the biological parents did, it is about the child. I am sorry women having the power to choose not to go through the physically deteriorating condition of pregnancy is threatening to some men, but all your crying about the law is a cover up of your true desires: Control of Women.



edit on 18-9-2010 by Crimelab because: added men



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimelab
 


Nonetheless, a civilized non-barbaric advanced species, whether spiritual or not, would not murder a developing child who had brain functioning, being dependent on someone is not the same thing as being human. Human brains equivalent human beings.

Sometimes you have to make compromises. Life is not always fair. The first trimester is the only one where this decision should be made and I'm spiritual not religious, but was raised on science articles all my life.

However the issue of aborting has nothing to do with a father thinking he may ignore the reality of his own child who is born and exists and whose rights should trump both his parents.


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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crimelab
This issue boils down to men getting angry women can't be forced to be brood mares. The issue isn't that men want to abdicate their responsibility, if you look at the motives of most "men's righters" they are obsessive control freaks, and almost uniformly "pro-life" once you get past the mens rights crap. The issue is they want to tell women what to do. It is that simple. They think they came up with a clever rhetorical device to make their "point", but it's all crap.


I thought the discussion was about men being able to opt out of child support since they don't have control over a woman's right to choose.... I must be in the wrong thread. Can you direct me to the thread that is about women being control freaks who want to control mens pocket books?


edit on 18-9-2010 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Annee
I still do not see Equal - - until the woman can walk away. The man can get up and walk away immediately after the sex act. The woman can not.


What about the morning after pill? I think that's pretty much equal to walking away. It's as close as we're going to get, given biology.



It is not Equal.


I know.It CAN'T be equal. And I don't pretend that it can be. But it can be more equal than it is.


If we were discussing the Physical Power ability of men over women - - - - men with be laughing at even the thought of women being on a physical par with men (although some women are and some men are not).

I know - I've seen that debate here on ATS (like women in the military or as firemen). Some men think its ridiculous to even consider women as Equals physically. That discussion is in Their Territory. Always takes a different turn when its in male territory.

Equality of Men and Women is in Intelligence. Although all areas of life should allow for Equal Opportunity. Now - understand - Equal Opportunity does NOT necessarily mean Full Equality.

Men and women have Equal Opportunity to choose the person they want to be with. It does not mean the partnership is going to be Equal.

As said in previous post. As women were told "YOU picked the wrong man - - - so goes for men picking the wrong woman".

I am positive there have been situations where the woman went to full term and gave the child to the father.

But - this is NOT an Equality that can be forced.

What concerns me more is "Protecting the Wallet".



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimelab
 

Well, since I posted OP, and the only other men's reproductive rights thread found on ats, I feel I should respond to this. I support abortion rights. I support safe-harbor laws. I have no interest in controlling any women, and my abiding interest has always been equality and freedom. I am an opponent of tyranny wherever I see it. You can't just assert that an argument is "straw man" and leave it at that. Pointing out the disparity between the sexes in a civil rights context is my only agenda in regards to this issue. Fairness in law is my only goal. Your argument holds no water, as there are others on this thread that are women, agree with the principles in the OP, and could be hardly said to be working a "straw-man" argument so that they can be better controlled by men. It's laughable.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
"As said in previous post. As women were told "YOU picked the wrong man - - - so goes for men picking the wrong woman".
I am positive there have been situations where the woman went to full term and gave the child to the father. "


You are correct this is why my son and I live in Florida and my sons mother and my ex-wife live in Ohio. Still waiting for the child support its only been 4 years.


edit on 18-9-2010 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Punisher75

Originally posted by Crimelab
This issue boils down to men getting angry women can't be forced to be brood mares. The issue isn't that men want to abdicate their responsibility, if you look at the motives of most "men's righters" they are obsessive control freaks, and almost uniformly "pro-life" once you get past the mens rights crap. The issue is they want to tell women what to do. It is that simple. They think they came up with a clever rhetorical device to make their "point", but it's all crap.


I thought the discussion was about men being able to opt out of child support since they don't have control over a woman's right to choose.... I must be in the wrong thread. Can you direct me to the thread that is about women being control freaks who want to control mens pocket books?


edit on 18-9-2010 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



You cannot opt-out of child support until there is a child. That happens about 40 weeks after the sex act. A woman is not opting out of child support by having an abortion. She is choosing for whatever reason to not continue a pregnancy. There is no child involved except in the fevered imaginations of "pro-lifers".

Sorry, women win all the way around on this one. The law is on their side and you still have to pay for whatever children you father. What I was also trying to point out in a round a bout way was that for most men's righters, the real issue isn't when a woman chooses to CONTINUE a pregnancy, they want the law applied in their skewed way so woman don't have a choice to END it. Which was my alluding to the fact that most "men's righters" are also "pro-lifers" when you get below the surface.



new topics




 
56
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join