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

Yesterday, as I was in the midst of some rather heated debate in this thread, a friend happened to offer me some advice. This friend suggested that my position might be effected by the reality that my own life experiences, as spoken of earlier in this thread, might be effecting my objectivity here. After all... My own opportunity to be a father to my eldest child had been removed from me. One could understand how I would be hesitant to accept other men screaming that making them be fathers is Constitutionally unfair.

So, I removed myself from debate and spent a great deal of yesterday really thinking about this issue. In fact I fell asleep, last night, lost in thought about every aspect discussed here. This choice did help me gain perspective.

One aspect of this that I chose to utterly ignore is the "right to life" undertone (And undertone is generous as there is nothing at all subtle about it here). I do think that this entire thread is probably less of a study of law and more of an indictment of abortion for many people. One poster, in particular, replied to most statements about fatherhood with hyperbole filled statements about the "millions of dead babies". Emotional? Yes. But an empty argument.

Is the answer to "millions of dead babies" from abortion really to argue for a society which would probably include millions of starving and dying children, who would have inadequate support? Obviously not.

I concluded that, for some, this thread is much less about giving fathers more rights as it is about wanting mothers to have fewer rights. And, as I said, I refuse to address this issue from that perspective. I personally don't like abortion. I find the idea barbaric and mostly irresponsible (excepting extreme situations which have been discussed, as naseaum before.) But abortion is a reality as we sit here today, so to me it is settled law. And, for those who will tell me that slavery was once settled law, thus stealing all the thunder of my position, my answer is simple: Change the law, but I don't feel compelled to join you in that battle so please don't try and insist in my participation in such pursuits.

I have been, and will continue to, approach this thread from one perspective. And that is simply stated as "Because a woman has the option of choosing abortion, then should a father be allowed to refuse paternity - thus giving both parties an "equal" chance to avoid parenthood"?

My thoughts, in this regard, remain unchanged.

It's easy to get caught up in ideals here, without regard to reality. It's also seemingly a trend here for people to simply discount the welfare of the child in favor of the abstract concept of equity between the parents rights.

And, yes, I know, millions of dead babies. So, in light of that - let's go ahead and decimate the welfare of millions of living children too. I mean, fair is fair. Death is death. Let's augment those dead babies with dead toddlers too. I mean, who cares as long as everyone feels that it's done in the name of fairness.

Oh, and I also know, only women with a lot of money should be having sex anyway. Those whores and their reproductive pyramid schemes. So my dead toddlers point is moot. Because only parasitic whores have sex without independent wealth,

And if I sound a bit bitter here, it's because I am. I don't like the divisiveness of arguments like this. I don't like these little word games that politically inept people tend to dream up. It's the kind of brilliance that leads people to burn down the house because they don't like the drapes. It's a ploy to diminish freedom in the name of freedom and it's obscene and corrupt. But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by lordtyp0


You gave two extreme and rare cases to prove your point of women snookering men.

Yet in both these examples and the OP the semen was given voluntarily and had the male exercised his Reproductives Rights he would not be in any of the situations we have come across.

reply to post by sindeestarr


Reproductive Rights are not abused.

How in any single case presented, has a female (and please note I am not discussing criminal acts) abused her reproductive rights?

I would have to say depositing sperm into women not fit for motherhood by one's own personal standard and then crying DID NOT WANT when said woman gets pregnant, is what shuld be classed as abusive.

Originally posted by joechip
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...

There has been nothing presented in this massive thread that proves your postulation the government is enforcing parenthood on anyone.

In the original case, can you tell me where and when Matt's civil rights were violated? Was it when he voluntarily slept with his child's mother?

And I am sure both genders had something to do with Roe v Wade because male justices decided that law, so how again do females get to "use" the government to enforce parenthood?

Were these men all ignorant? How could they have gone and done something like give females the right to govern their own bodies? And then not give that same right to the men?

Oh right.

Men already had that right, and they still do, have the right to decide where their body and its fluids end up.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


No, I gave examples of how the system is weighted. Those are a bit extreme yes, however 99% of all custody items that I have heard about-the mother has custody. The father either pays 70% of his paycheck or similar.
The courts are extremely unfair in matters of custody and child support. This is fact. I know a person first hand who had a medical career destroyed because his ex would file an amendment every singly month and try to claim his student loans as income, he could not afford a lawyer. He was forced to drop out of med school and wound up in jail for 6 months because the child support about jumped from 350/month to 4,000/month. The judge told him "well I have to raise it because it was requested by the mother of the children". The judge said that verbatim. It had nothing to do with means or ability.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
No, I gave examples of how the system is weighted. Those are a bit extreme yes, however 99% of all custody items that I have heard about-the mother has custody. The father either pays 70% of his paycheck or similar.
The courts are extremely unfair in matters of custody and child support. This is fact. I know a person first hand who had a medical career destroyed because his ex would file an amendment every singly month and try to claim his student loans as income, he could not afford a lawyer. He was forced to drop out of med school and wound up in jail for 6 months because the child support about jumped from 350/month to 4,000/month. The judge told him "well I have to raise it because it was requested by the mother of the children". The judge said that verbatim. It had nothing to do with means or ability.

Sure, the judge could not possibly take the student's income into account and had to award $4000.00 a month because the mother asked for it ...

I sincerely hope for the young man's sake you are talking crap.

I was awarded 1/10th of my ex's income and never saw it anyway because he moved interstate.

By the way, while calculating their losses, men rarely consider the income loss the woman experiences while taking care of the children alone. Even if she works she has to pay childcare, and is unlikely to advance professionally because she has to be home after school, she has to take time off for childrens' illnesses etc.

The idea that women are getting rich and living a life of ease while being single parents is far removed from the harsh realities most experience.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Yesterday, as I was in the midst of some rather heated debate in this thread, a friend happened to offer me some advice. This friend suggested that my position might be effected by the reality that my own life experiences, as spoken of earlier in this thread, might be effecting my objectivity here. After all... My own opportunity to be a father to my eldest child had been removed from me. One could understand how I would be hesitant to accept other men screaming that making them be fathers is Constitutionally unfair.

So, I removed myself from debate and spent a great deal of yesterday really thinking about this issue. In fact I fell asleep, last night, lost in thought about every aspect discussed here. This choice did help me gain perspective.

One aspect of this that I chose to utterly ignore is the "right to life" undertone (And undertone is generous as there is nothing at all subtle about it here). I do think that this entire thread is probably less of a study of law and more of an indictment of abortion for many people. One poster, in particular, replied to most statements about fatherhood with hyperbole filled statements about the "millions of dead babies". Emotional? Yes. But an empty argument.

Is the answer to "millions of dead babies" from abortion really to argue for a society which would probably include millions of starving and dying children, who would have inadequate support? Obviously not.

I concluded that, for some, this thread is much less about giving fathers more rights as it is about wanting mothers to have fewer rights. And, as I said, I refuse to address this issue from that perspective. I personally don't like abortion. I find the idea barbaric and mostly irresponsible (excepting extreme situations which have been discussed, as naseaum before.) But abortion is a reality as we sit here today, so to me it is settled law. And, for those who will tell me that slavery was once settled law, thus stealing all the thunder of my position, my answer is simple: Change the law, but I don't feel compelled to join you in that battle so please don't try and insist in my participation in such pursuits.

I have been, and will continue to, approach this thread from one perspective. And that is simply stated as "Because a woman has the option of choosing abortion, then should a father be allowed to refuse paternity - thus giving both parties an "equal" chance to avoid parenthood"?

My thoughts, in this regard, remain unchanged.

It's easy to get caught up in ideals here, without regard to reality. It's also seemingly a trend here for people to simply discount the welfare of the child in favor of the abstract concept of equity between the parents rights.

And, yes, I know, millions of dead babies. So, in light of that - let's go ahead and decimate the welfare of millions of living children too. I mean, fair is fair. Death is death. Let's augment those dead babies with dead toddlers too. I mean, who cares as long as everyone feels that it's done in the name of fairness.

Oh, and I also know, only women with a lot of money should be having sex anyway. Those whores and their reproductive pyramid schemes. So my dead toddlers point is moot. Because only parasitic whores have sex without independent wealth,

And if I sound a bit bitter here, it's because I am. I don't like the divisiveness of arguments like this. I don't like these little word games that politically inept people tend to dream up. It's the kind of brilliance that leads people to burn down the house because they don't like the drapes. It's a ploy to diminish freedom in the name of freedom and it's obscene and corrupt. But that's just my opinion.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce4f64014de.gif[/atsimg]

Well said.

reply to post by Edrick


A baby becomes a person when he/she can breathe its own air, eats its own food, drinks its own liquid and can sustain life on its own... untill then an unwanted pregnancy is much like a parasite sucking all of your nutrients....I know it seems harsh..but isnt that exactly what it is?? Scientifically speaking??

reply to post by hotbakedtater

When men can bear a child that is when they get a choice after conception.

And why is that?

Seems to be, that nature chose the woman to bear the responsibility.

Her choice is to mate with a man who will shoulder his responsibilities, and help her raise the child.

Just because she can get some pretty, bad boy, or some guy above her means to hold, to sleep with her, doesn't mean he must remain beholden to her. That is the way nature set up the game, and why should laws make it any different?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is why it is an abdication of financial responsibility.

It is all about the MONEY to you, isn't it.

Is there anywhere on this thread where you recognize the right of a man to be a father of the child for which he is supposed to be financially responsible.

The women who play these games, and the lawyers and the courts who join with them, that is all they want, is to take the man's money. They aren't about to make the effort to defend the rights of a father to have an equal say in how his child is raised, as he should have.

Oh, you got some woman pregnant way back when, and now you owe us, er the child, every nickel we can take. Never mind that you were never told, and have never had the opportunity to even see your own child. No matter how horrid the conditions in which the child is being raised, the courts only concern is taking your money, and will do nothing to reunite father with child.

If our family courts had one shred of dignity, one ounce of honor, any sense of justice,

Then when they found the welfare raised child's father, if he had any financial means for them to take, then they would send him the address so that he may go to his own child, and immediately give him the custody rights to which he should be entitled.

If the guy is a bum, and has no money to take, the courts are not going to bother with him.

If he is a typical working class guy with a wife who bore him children about which he was informed, they will take his money, and screw his wife and children. Where is the justice in that?

Whether she is a bum, a struggling single mother, or married to a guy of means, or has means of her own the guy gets screwed, and there is no justice in that.

Each situation should be considered on its own merits, but our courts are too busy playing silly games to justify their jobs to actually consider what is just.

I'm CF.

That means Child Free By Choice.

And the next time anyone asks me why all I will have to do is point to this thread.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Just for the sake of equality one could say that the woman could have kept her legs shut and exercised her reproductive rights and we would not be having this discussion at all.

It takes two to tango.


As I said in my original post on this thread I think both parties should share responsibility and raise the kid or give it up for adoption. Low and behold though the woman has the final say on all of it. Why not give the man a chance to add his opinion?

Regardless of what side you take in the average case both parties are to blame. The semen might be given willingly but it is also taken willingly as well. If both kept their stuff in their pants we would not be discussing it, since that does not happen we are discussing it.

Raist

reply to post by StarrGazer25


There are many adults who cannot breathe their own air, eat their own foods, drink their own drinks, or sustain their own life.

For that matter even an infant cannot do many without an adult to help them, nor can a toddler.

Try leaving a kid home alone before they can take care of themselves and you get neglect charges (which is the proper thing to happen).

That is not a real valid argument.


Added comment: The child is not taking all the nutrients or the mother would die.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
As I said in my original post on this thread I think both parties should share responsibility and raise the kid or give it up for adoption.

You've found the perfect way to enslave women.
"Do what I say or I'll renounce fatherhood and you'll be forced to put your baby up for adoption."

Congratulations

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Just for the sake of equality one could say that the woman could have kept her legs shut and exercised her reproductive rights and we would not be having this discussion at all.

It takes two to tango.


As I said in my original post on this thread I think both parties should share responsibility and raise the kid or give it up for adoption. Low and behold though the woman has the final say on all of it. Why not give the man a chance to add his opinion?

Regardless of what side you take in the average case both parties are to blame. The semen might be given willingly but it is also taken willingly as well. If both kept their stuff in their pants we would not be discussing it, since that does not happen we are discussing it.

Raist

I'll just assume that you aren't including rape victims in this blame game.

reply to post by poet1b


Very well written.

I agree with you on your full response.


Raist

reply to post by Hedera Helix


Nope just consensual sexual encounters.

Raist

reply to post by Kailassa


Just like a woman can say “I do not care if you want a child I will murder this one” or “hay I am going to go sleep with these other fellows over here and leave you alone, but since this is your kid you will pay for it”?

Yep makes perfect sense to me.


Added: Did you miss where I said both parties? That would be man and woman together. Oh I know it makes more sense to make the statement fit your side.


Raist

HH -

Sorry - I'm not gay. Nor ugly. Nor any of your fantasies. I just chose to focus on my education. And I'm mostly a loner and a geek type person.

For the audience in general here on this thread - see how a woman who has not done one thing against a man - not rooked him of money, not lied to him, did nothing to harm another -

And -just because- SHE chose a different path - see the crap you take?

This is why I posted my first thought - I knew men would get mad - even over some unknown female who chose to take a different path and did nothing to them nor any man.

See how angry they get?

They take it as personal - that you don't want them.