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: 51
56
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Yes, quite valid points you make! It certainly would require sacrifices by both parties, but at this point no one seems to want to do so. But we have to remember, both men and women, that the sacrifices that we would make would also be for one's own benefit as well.
But no one wants to admit this. Both sides seem to really like their view from their soapbox, I think because it allows them to promote their entire agenda as well.
Discussing solutions in a productive way is the only way to go









edit on 9/18/2010 by sindeestarr because: formatting, using my phone to post is nearly impossible





edit on 9/18/2010 by sindeestarr because: same as the first time....




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by lordtyp0
 

Here are some articles for various Maryland schools for you to peruse.

Sex in the States - Maryland

Md. State Board Approves County's Sex-Ed Curriculum

Maryland School Board Approves Pro-Gay Sex Education Curriculum --Rejects Ex-Gay Viewpoint


TY for the info, if you have linked more I havn't gotten there yet (Im on page 40 as of writing this.).
Basically MD seems to be the exception. In Utah school level sex-ed was "You are underage so it is illegal. Do not do it until you are and adult and married.". And given the fact this is Utah-Parents wouldn't teach their little angels anything at all.

But thank you for the info. Given the article states the board is responsible for determining what is age appropriate material it is hard to get a bearing on what is taught in say: Grade 7 compared with Grade 11. But it's nice to see at least one state out there has some sanity in approaching these things pragmatically.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sindeestarr
 




I would like to pose a question. Would men be appeased by making abortion illegal? No one could, legally, "walk away" (as said many times in this thread, because that is the issue at hand here, yes?) Thus creating an equality between men and women as far a reproduction rights,


The answer, for me is an unequivocal "no." If the woman were still able to give the baby up for adoption, or legally abandon the baby through "safe haven" laws, and the man was not, you would still have an unequal situation.

But more importantly, I believe the Supreme Court was correct in their finding that forcing parenthood upon the individual represents an unconstitutional governmental overreach.

I just don't believe that finding has been applied to men and the laws that have grown up since Roe. v. Wade, pertaining to males and their reproduction have largely gone unchallenged, and completely unchallenged at that level. I believe the last thing one would want is to remove rights in order to achieve balance or equality. Apply your idea to any rights, (suffrage, anyone) and the illogic is obvious.


edit on 18-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling again, i'm beginning to think I'm getting alzheimers!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Agreed, But once again why compromise is needed give up lesser things for gaining the greater things for thier benefit.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but we need a male version of the pill.

I heard a few years ago they were working on it.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Spoken like a true Feminist.

Now that the Emotional Rant is over, can you please explain to us why women need to blame all their shortcomings on men in order to achieve stuff? Your deep-seeded resentment of men and disregard for their rights are beginning to show.


edit on 18/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: reworded



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Uh Oh.

Someone called the whole lot of people on this thread on their biggest lie.

That this has anything to do with abortion.

Abortion could be illegal.

And these guys would STILL talk about this.

These guys act like they are something new.

There is nothing new under the Sun. You are the exact same guys that have been walking away since the beginning of time. Only now you want people to make you into a HERO for doing it.

Suck it up - you suck. You've always sucked. You guys have caused more misery on a more personal basis than every War combined throughout all of humanity.

Now instead of just leaving your families, your children, and women to clean up your myriad of human messes, now you want a legal stick to force people to live with your messes.

This doesn't have anything to do with abortion. Only men who lie through both sides of their mouth and their ass pretend it does.


The topic is more or less a woman has all the rights on reproduction. A man is just regarded as a paycheck in many courts-it is seen as ignoble if the man cannot pay. This is commonly taken to extremes.

Consider all sorts of cases such as the lesbian couple who asked a friend to donate. Had the kid-split up and then sued him for child support-even though he was never allowed to be seen as the father.

Or the case where a woman kept frozen embryos, fertilized them, implanted and then sued the 'father' years after they divorced for child support.

exampls of the evils of man.

Great trolling though. Truly spectacular. At least I presume it is trolling as to think of it otherwise would simply show a stunning lack of capacity to grasp concepts in any sort of rational or pragmatic manner.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You certainly make a good point! You believe it is a government over-reach to force parenthood on an individual, as I'm sure many would agree. So why would legislation to allow a man to decline fatherhood in an unplanned pregnancy be ok? Why is that the government's business as well? Your position is illogical in that it's ok for the government to legislate one thing on an issue but not another on the same issue. Should we have any reproduction laws at all then?

As mayertuck mentioned, it is a biological issue. Because women are solely responsible for the well being of the baby from conception to birth, she will always have more options. It's simple biology really. And there's nothing anyone can do to change that, unless pregnant men become more common. And honestly, I do not forsee that becoming a popular trend. Men are not optimally built for birthing, women are.

However, since this biological advantage gives women power (and extra options) over men in this regard, women have the resposibility to not abuse this power. And this is the real issue at hand- is it not?
How does the quote go? "With great power, comes great responsibility."

What constitutes equality? Is it the same number of options? Is it for every extra option a woman we have to legislate options for a man to make it equal? These are the things that we have to figure out.

So how do you suggest that we, as a country, legislate the resposibilty of women to not abuse their power in regards to reproduction rights? What do you think of a pre-coital agreement? And remember....a woman will always have an out in ending the pregnancy that no one can take away, because no one would know in the first place.


edit on 9/19/2010 by sindeestarr because: clarity of thought.....it's getting late




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 
According to the Op and this entire thread, it is the men doing the complaining about having babies.



I like apples do you like apples?..... Yes they complain because they either want the babies, and the courts don't let them. Or they don't want to pay for the babies because its a form of entrapment were the female just uses the kid as an excuse for money or control or some sort of venomous revenge.... And they are right, I know personally one dude who got stuck in to this kind of relationship, but there are millions... I'm guessing by the length of this thread, and daily experience.... The guy I know he hated the girl that tricked him...and I used to tell him, "# happens and watch were you stick it in, its your fault for thinking with your dick, now you got to pay"....but he got over it, spends time with the kid, pays the female, and eventually he will move on..... But he is an engineer so he can afford it, lots can't afford to fall for this. Its plain and simple, and the only one that comes out on top is the system.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


As well they should.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StarrGazer25
To Punisher and Joe, you guys are a rare breed. and dont think your efforts dont go unnoticed, your child loves you and in the future will do anything for you and Joe, Im sure your woman appriciated everything you did...wish there were more guys out there like u too thats for sure!


Thank you for that StarrGazer.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sindeestarr
 


Explain, taking abortion out of the issue (not that I feel you have to but for purpose of examining your original proposition) how it is a biological issue that a woman, unprepared and ill-equipped to raise a child may give it up for adoption, or if she is truly incapable of planning that far ahead, drop it off at a fire station, hospital, or with the police, walk away with no legal ramifications or financial obligations. But a man, similarly unprepared and ill-equipped, may not absolve his responsibilities at all. Explain how having one gender use the governmental apparatus to enforce parenthood upon the other, (when the supreme court clearly found that the government enforcing parenthood upon the 'individual" was unconstitutional governmental overreach) is not the self-same overreach. This is a civil rights issue, not a biological issue.


edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: i left out words




edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: i'm tired and repeating words, forgetting words, words are swirling, swirling...



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


I'm afraid I have no idea what your talking about. Care to elaborate? You are responding to me, or my post rather, and there are more that one "they" and more than one possible "should" potentially discussed in said post. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Please see my edited post to clarify what I was saying. It's getting late
and my thoughts weren't too clear but I elaborated on my point.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You


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


Me


As well they should.


Is this confusing?

I think men should have a say in whether or not they decide to be a father. I don't think men should be tricked in to support or fatherhood. What's the problem? I will try to slow it down.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   


You certainly make a good point! You believe it is a government over-reach to force parenthood on an individual, as I'm sure many would agree. So why would legislation to allow a man to decline fatherhood in an unplanned pregnancy be ok? Why is that the government's business as well? Your position is illogical in that it's ok for the government to legislate one thing on an issue but not another on the same issue. Should we have any reproduction laws at all then?
reply to post by sindeestarr
 


You seem like a nice person, not agenda-driven necessarily, so I'm interpreting the above quote as a stunning lack of understanding of how law works, and not a troll post. Please don't be offended. I do not mean to offend. I'm very tired, but I'll attempt a brief explanation of why my position is not illogical, but yours is and wildly so. No legislation is required to allow a man to decline fatherhood in an unplanned pregnancy, the legal system uses courts to overturn prior legislation forcing said fatherhood. If legislators pass laws that are later found to have infringed upon "rights," the judicial system is correct, and in no way overreaching, to overturn such laws. That is what happened in Roe v. Wade, for example. More could be said on the topic, but chew on those concepts a bit and get back with me later.


edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: clarification



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Kailassa
 


And please tell me you know this for a fact. Or are you just jumping to conclusion to try and support your position?


How I know what for a fact?
That a child needs a father?

Well, forgive me for not fitting the feminist stereotype, and clinging to ancient ideas, but I believe men have a great deal to offer children, and the child with no father in his/her life is missing out on something really important.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
You know your case is the closest so far in the discrepancies of the burdens of child birth........ but why dont you take in to account that the father might not want , or can not afford dealing with all that a child "is" and entails...So why whine about something that you don't agree on...compromise. And most importantly why try to force something on anybody that, will in all likelyhood never conform to your understanding.....

I hear this form people with babies all the time, "I'm not ready for this, I can't cope, I didn't want this ..."
The differences between sexes is that the males who feel like this feel more free to skedaddle, (many don't, many hang in there and gradually start fnding it's worth it,) and the women rarely feel free to up and leave, and are left handling all the responsibility on their own.

To say a girl can freely have an abortion, (which is the basis of this "male abortion" argument) is not quite correct. Sure, abortion should be available to all women, nad a large percentage of women do use it. And, in this overcrowded world, it would be silly to stop them. However, some women have such strong parenting instincts they could not possibly go through with an abortion. In this case, unplanned pregnancies will result in babies, and these babies need to know their fathers. It's been found that even when children are adopted and loved and well cared for, they still often feel a need to know their blood parents.

So a child can arise, and children should have rights. I believe the resposibility to meet those rights lies on both the creators of the child, if a child arises from the union.

If two people commit a murder, there is no dividing of responsibility. They can both be totally guilty. Responsibility is like that. A parent does not have half a responsibility to a child, they have full responsibility, as does the other parent. Both mothers and fathers in this thread have accepted that responsibility even when the other parent has not, and have worn it.



And no the fact is that most men in comparing to women dont screw aroud so much...why..... because its expensive.....

So do you mean some women are having sex outside marriage much more often than men? This would mean fewer women than men are having sex outside marriage.
Or do you mean more women than men are having sex outside marriage? This would mean that the women who do are, on the average, having fewer partners than the men who do.

Either way it's irrelevant, and generalising this way with a complete lack of evidence indicates a degree of misogyny.



It takes two to tango... Even the ones that screw around, well they need a female to screw, don't they. So if they are animals and screwing everything, who do you think there screwing around with?.... But fear not a change in these sittuations by force of law, will not play favorites, so women's part in having many babies will not be trampled on, they and the men will have the freedom to screw all they want, with more equal repercussions. And the state and lawyers will still get to have a job, limiting there interactions in such personal discrepancies... It wont solve the problem...because the problem is of a personal matter and nature, individually...But it would get more to think before crossing the road, and bringing a child in to the world. There by limiting this enterprise.

Part of what you imply here is that women need to consider the consequences before sex. I'd go further and say they need to consider these consequences long before getting into a position where sex may happen. Some of the behaviour that takes place these days is downright disgusting.
However the same needs to apply to men. I believe this whole concept of a right to screw who you want with no consequences damages the whole fabric of society. Has everyone forgotten how to treat others with respect and play solitaire if the need arises? It's not as if any contraception gives 100% protection against STDs or pregnancy.

However, children have been born out of wedlock right through history, and always will be unless (God forbid) all children are sterilised. These children need parenting, and both the people making the child share equal responsibility.

The fact that some men get off scot free because the women has an abortion is irrelevant. Having an abortion is not getting off scot free for a women. It's a terrible decision, generally made because it's the lesser of two evils, not because it's something the woman wants. It can be painful, it can damage the woman's body, and it can leave her emotionally scarred.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


here's an interesting question....
a girl goes and drops a baby off at the hospital, for some reason, she doesn't want it...
the girl makes good money working...
the community is close knit, they all know who the baby's mom and dad are...and are making good money!
the baby ends up in foster care...
now, I've known some who've had their baby's taken by social services and placed in foster care....
the parents end up paying support...
so, would it be possible that our little fictitious mom and dad above would get hit with child support payments as well?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

That abortions would automatically jump up?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join