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

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Edrick

 

Why do you double space your sentences and take up so many pages of the thread with just a few posts?

We are supposed to minimize external-text material in an effort to save space, and they are both content.
You are taking up a great deal of extra room with nothing.

Extra room with nothing

You`d do well to contemplate on just one of Edrick`s posts,because he is one of the most insightful and healthy minded people discussing this subject.

Its best he posts exactly as he does just for clarity to what he`s responding to.

To top it off his wit and humour is a needed refreshment.

Poor attempt to stop his message,but you didn`t care wasting bandwidth with that post did you.

No I believe you took it the wrong way or maybe I didnt put it out the way I wanted too, but I did say SINGLE parent.. meaning a caregiver to a child... a child that is alive and sustains life on its own... the other half SHOULD NEVER have the right to financially walk away and I also stated in an earlier post, that women have the EXTRA responsibility of carring the fetus, parasite which ever u want to call it, so we do have the EXTRA option of ending such a parasitic situation

reply to post by StarrGazer25

This is an example of confused thinking. If the woman has a right to give the baby up for adoption or utilize the safe harbor laws with no legal or financial repercussions she has "financially walked away" from the child. I'm not arguing a woman's exclusive or "EXTRA" option of abortion, let's just focus on the issue of walking away from a child already born. I think this gets to the heart of the matter and I'm glad you phrased this the way you have. The problem you (and many women) obviously have is not a "father" "financially walking away" from the child, as women do this every day, but rather him "financially walking away" from the woman, herself. Now that that's cleared up, let's examine that idea. It is basically saying that she has the right to "walk away," but if she decides not to, he is financially liable for her decision. In other words another "EXTRA" right! They are starting to stack up, are they not? If she gets to decide for both of them whether either will be "caregiver" to the child, there is no question that she retains the ability to "financially walk away" in any situation you can imagine, so your contention that you believe that "the other half SHOULD NEVER have the right to financially walk away" is a spurious argument. The "other half" is conveniently always a man. Again, your seeming embrace of equality are so many pretty words that don't mean anything.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Badgered1

 

I agree with you on ever stance accept not wanting to hear the sides of pro-lifers if they have not adopted.
. . .
However, to just brush off anyone pro-lifer because they do not adopt is still biased.

Exactly, one can morally be a pro-lifer and not adopt. - And without trying to remove the choice of legal abortion for others. Not everyone is in a position to do that. I was alone when I had my first child, with no family or friends and no money, and was offered an abortion but refused. My baby was diagnosed with Down's and the hospital tried to prevent me taking her home because of her situation. I took her home despite being ill and we had to eat out of rubbish bins at first. Now she's a wonderful and successful young woman who turned out not to have Down's, only the physical symptoms. Because of birth complications that nearly killed me I was advised to never have a baby again. So I trippled up on birth control but still got pregnant, (married by then) and just couldn't bear to abort even though I knew the risks. It would not be fair to tell you the birth details, but I believe something greater than me helped me through. And after my husband left because our sons were handicapped I had to raid rubbish bins again for a while, but I also studies, grew our own food and now they are wonderful young men and I finally bought us a house. -With no help from their father.

And some fool thinks I can't be a pro-lifer because I haven't adopted as well. ...

I am pro-life due to a personal experience. I have seen what my first born looked like. He was still born at 22 weeks. He was nothing less than a little baby boy. Aside from that I have a second born son, that is all that my wife and I can afford financially therefore we have not brought another child into the equation.

I was honoured to have my daughter ask me to accompany her for her 10 week ultrasound. The baby was moving around, kicking and punching, and she looked happy. She had all her little fingers and toes already.

One reason I'm pro free, legal abortion is that it means people have abortions ealier on, and if you do have to do such a thing, the earlier the better.

My abortion stance is why I'm against "male abortion."
Such a law would put more women into a position where they feel they have no choice but to have an abortion, because the baby will have no chance of knowing its father.

Since when has if been moral to put someone in the position where they have to choose whether a foetus in their own womb will be killed or a child will be raised without any contact or support from its father?

Yes, sex was the first choice, and I'm all for both sexes keeping their pants zipped. However no amount of guidance will altogether the birth of babies to parents who weren't planning to have them.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Ok what is your point my own grandmother raised some kids to, so did my grandfather. I ain't making fun of you its impressive really truly, but people have been doing it for centuries.

You were lecturing me as though I was busily screwing around without regard for the consequences. I was pointing out that's hardly likely in my case.

And it sucks that your husband didn't like your kids.

They were just as much his kids as mine. You calling them my kids says a lot about your position here.

Children need fathers, I know from experience. And "male abortion" will not stop these men's babies being born if the mothers can't handle aborting and can't handle giving away the baby they've carried 9 months.

Thats not what the feminists say...you are not a very good feminist.....

Who cares what stereotype I may or may not fit?
Should I deny mens' rights or childrens' needs just because I've fought for womens' rights?
Btw, I've fought for mens' rights too when I discovered there were local men needing rape counselling and the council rape counselling clinic was not open to them. We need to do more standing up for each other instead of to each other.

There is no male abortion issue...there is a female abortion issue...and a male and female relations issue.

Tell that to the people in this thread arguing to legalise what they term "male abortion." That's what this whole thread is about.

- Unless you do it chinese style, drag the crying mother to the abortionist and forcibly remove the foetus from her womb.

I don't understand this fascination with babies that women have.....And no I don't want to drag anyone around, or force anyone to get any abortion, or anything against there will.

I don't have any fascination with babies. I just don't want to kill one after it's begun growing.
You've never had a baby growing inside so of course you're not going to understand, unless you develop empathy with someone in that situation.

And please, do some adding up. I don't know how to explain to you that it's not possible for more women to be having sex with men than there are men having sex with women.

Many things are possible, this would be on the bottom of the list of things possible... I know how to explain it to you, so you would understand, but its a waste of time, and does not matter....All in all you said it yourself, your a grandmother, you were raised in a different time and world....Things change every day.

Basic arithmetic hasn't changed That much ...

reply to post by Kailassa


First off I am sorry about the circumstances that you went through. I am glad that things. Furthermore I am glad that you are able to see beyond your gender. Kudos to for for all those reasons and being civil.

Now it mighr put women in a horrible situation and it might not, If they were being made to be responsible for their actions and knew they would "going to possibly go it alone" they might use their choices better, I can not say for sure either way. One of the reasons we have laws in place, as an preventive measure. Sure you are going to have people still break those laws, but the majority will follow unless pushed to extremes.

Here is an interesting opinion on the Male Birth Control Pill. Not saying its wrong or right just interesting.

www.glennsacks.com...

Exert:
Similarly, while women legitimately complain that biology has condemned them to bear the burden of contraception, this burden also gives women control over one of the most important parts of any human being’s life--reproduction. The male birth control pill will shift much of that control from women to men. Is the following conversation far away?

Woman #1: “My [husband, boyfriend, significant other] is selfish. He's on the pill and won’t get off. I’ve asked him to stop taking it but he always says he’s not ready. He just won’t grow up. I don’t know what to do.”

Woman #2: “That’s what the pill has given men—a right to be perpetual adolescents. It’s given them veto power over women who want to have children.”

And another about one of the reasons why its not here yet.

Here is an exert:

What's particularly sad -- and particularly amazing -- is that the decision to put the male birth control pill on the backburner is apparently driven in part by false stereotypes about men.

Enjoy!

glennsacks.com...

reply to post by Kailassa

We need to do more standing up for each other instead of to each other.

I couldn't agree more. I appreciate the viewpoint you express here. I actually believe this discussion need not necessarily be discussed in terms of men v. women. However, when women express a disregard for a man's freedom and equality, it tends to devolve into that rather quickly. I believe that is largely what we've witnessed here on this thread. Not entirely, but enough to be the overwhelming sentiment. Really, the attempt to demonize and intimidate on this particular thread was largely led by women. I do not place your participation in that category. But put yourself in a man's shoes reading these posts. Hard to avoid polarization when you're being verbally abused.

Tell that to the people in this thread arguing to legalise what they term "male abortion." That's what this whole thread is about.

I disagree that that is what this thread is about. Male reproductive rights is what this thread is about. Roe. v. Wade for Men, as the article in the OP termed it, isn't a great term IMO, but it is somewhat apt, as Roe v. Wade guaranteed reproductive rights for females (and I believe the Constitutional principles on which it is based apply equally to men). I actually think a new term needs to be coined to better sum up what this movement is striving for. But who is using the absurd term "male abortion," anyway? I haven't used it. It's not in the article cited in the OP. I feel your statement is either based on confusion of what is meant by the term Roe v. Wade for men, or a misunderstanding of the position. It's incorrect in either case. And it's the last thing I would want to identify my own position with.

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Kailassa

 

First off I am sorry about the circumstances that you went through. I am glad that things. Furthermore I am glad that you are able to see beyond your gender. Kudos to for for all those reasons and being civil.

Now it mighr put women in a horrible situation and it might not, If they were being made to be responsible for their actions and knew they would "going to possibly go it alone" they might use their choices better, I can not say for sure either way. One of the reasons we have laws in place, as an preventive measure. Sure you are going to have people still break those laws, but the majority will follow unless pushed to extremes.

Thanks

Imagine you are woman who finds herself pregnant. Even if you are married you have no guarantee you will not end up raising the child alone. The less solid the relationship is, the less likely she is to get any support.
Child maintenance laws have attempted to remedy this, so the non custodial parent helps with child support. However few single parents I've known have actually received payment, absent parents ofboth sexes often find ways of getting out of it.

I agree some are too high, my daughter is now having to pay $150p.w. out of a $450p.w. salary to her ex, who has persuaded their daughter to live with him, but still has to pay rent on a two bedroom place for access visits. However he was getting away before that with paying $15 a week, because he'd only work cash in hand, and rarely paid that. Jail for non-payment is something I've not heard of here, in Australia. It's illogical, as a jailed man can hardly pay, and jailing is a cost to everyone. So it's usually garnishing salaries or taxes or nothing if the payments are not made freely.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that women have always known they would possibly have to go it alone.
But there have still been babies born out of wedlock right throughout history.

Making women carry the burden alone will not stop this now any more than it has in the past.
The proposed legislation will push some mothers into having abortions, it will leave some children fatherless, but it will not stop girls having sex.
- and contraception is already considered a must by any woman capable of thinking two days ahead.

I dread the possiility of my sons accidentally getting a girl pregnant and being caught in an unwanted net of fatherhood. So I've done all I can to teach them the dangers, and I've explained to them they can't trust a woman they don't know just as I explained to my daughter girls can't trust guys they don't know.
But they all know, if they cause a pregnancy, they are responsible for the results of that pregnany, no matter what that would do to their lives. (Sadly, we often can't even trust people we think we do know.)

Once there is a baby, it's the baby's rights and needs which are paramount.

reply to post by Kailassa


I understand where you are coming from, I hope you can understand my position also.

Nevertheless.
I dont think females would stop having sex. Just as I have posted many times how ridiculous it is that a guy should just have sex. I know wat you are talking about, and fully agree the child should be the priority. One of the biggest reason I feel everyone should be responsible not just men. But that is not realistic at all. Why something needs to be done so that the one with the least amount of control over the situation does not have to shoulder all the blame. of not holding up their end of responsibility.

As with you and your sons I feel the same way. Furthermore I feel its going to get worse for my boys with all of the other issues that are facing men and boys, that no one wants to really listen too.

Anyways thanks again for being civil. It is the only way to solve this.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by Kailassa

 

We need to do more standing up for each other instead of to each other.

I couldn't agree more. I appreciate the viewpoint you express here. I actually believe this discussion need not necessarily be discussed in terms of men v. women. However, when women express a disregard for a man's freedom and equality, it tends to devolve into that rather quickly. I believe that is largely what we've witnessed here on this thread. Not entirely, but enough to be the overwhelming sentiment. Really, the attempt to demonize and intimidate on this particular thread was largely led by women. I do not place your participation in that category. But put yourself in a man's shoes reading these posts. Hard to avoid polarization when you're being verbally abused.

If you think it's only men being abused I could go through the thread and c/p the pieces lumping women all together in an insulting manner, some are disgusting, or we could both agree that insult-stuffed posts are worth ignoring.

Tell that to the people in this thread arguing to legalise what they term "male abortion." That's what this whole thread is about.

I disagree that that is what this thread is about. Male reproductive rights is what this thread is about. Roe. v. Wade for Men, as the article in the OP termed it, isn't a great term IMO, but it is somewhat apt, as Roe v. Wade guaranteed reproductive rights for females (and I believe the Constitutional principles on which it is based apply equally to men). I actually think a new term needs to be coined to better sum up what this movement is striving for. But who is using the absurd term "male abortion," anyway? I haven't used it. It's not in the article cited in the OP. I feel your statement is either based on confusion of what is meant by the term Roe v. Wade for men, or a misunderstanding of the position. It's incorrect in either case. And it's the last thing I would want to identify my own position with.

Benevolent Heretic was when she was arguing for it. For all I know she may have been the only one, but I found the term highly memorable. - and absurd.

The arguments in the OP are, I agree, for men's rights. However these rights would take away rights from the child, unless they also cause the pregnancies these men have helped cause to be aborted.

I'm pro children knowing, and being at least partially supported by, their fathers.
I'm against women being pushed into having abortions.

Originally posted by mayertuck
Why something needs to be done so that the one with the least amount of control over the situation does not have to shoulder all the blame. of not holding up their end of responsibility.

Perhaps you have to be a woman to see how much mothers are blamed.

If children go hungry or are abandoned, society blames the mother rather than asking, "where's the father?"

I was blamed by psychiatrists for the fact one son has Asperger's, despite it running in the family and him being more independant and outgoing than his cousins who have it.

I was blamed by the hospital for the fact that I "let" my husband shake our first son until he went half blind, despite me being semi unconscious on the floor from his attack at the time. And the police wouldn't get involved in a "domestic dispute". The police attitude has changed since then, thank goodness.

Homosexuality and autism used to both be blamed on the mother.

Comparitively, in the blame game, fathers get a free ride.

As with you and your sons I feel the same way. Furthermore I feel its going to get worse for my boys with all of the other issues that are facing men and boys, that no one wants to really listen too.

I hope that, with your help, your sons navigate the maze of life safely and find fulfillment.
But think, sometimes, "how would things be for them if they were girls?"

Anyways thanks again for being civil. It is the only way to solve this.

No worries, mate.

reply to post by Kailassa

I'm pro children knowing, and being at least partially supported by, their fathers.

If by "pro" you mean to imply that you believe it just to enforce this by law, then you are inconsistent unless you believe the same about their mothers. The child's rights to "know and be at least partially supported" by their mothers is not even a concept being considered. Nor should it be, in my view, as it represents unconstitutional governmental overreach as well. But let's be consistent.

reply to post by Kailassa


We all have been blamed for stuff out of our control. I remember going into social services to apply for food stamps and being told I shouldn't be applying for them because I am a man and should be able to support my children by women there. It cuts both way and it sucks for those parents that truly only want the best for their kids. I don't need to be a woman to understand that. I have a unique gift in having to look at all sides of an issue. These days the rage is blame the dad. A while back its blame the mom. It sucks. As I keep saying the pendulum keeps swinging to opposite ends of the spectrum, and that needs to stop.

Thank you I hope I am able to guide them correctly. I am not so much worried about my daughter, I am more concerned she will not use her head and fall victim to an idealogy instead of using her brain. Neverless I try and impress on my children empathy for others so that they can handle conflicts as they come their way.

Everyone gets so emotional on this.

It should be up to both to decide, what if your with a girl for years, she takes the pill, you wear condoms, and she says she would have an abortion if she got preggo (you can also add you had a vasectomy because that's not 100% either). She ends up getting preggo and you bring up the abortion because financially you both could not support the kid, but then she changes her mind and wants to have it.

That's pretty much game over for the male and that isn't right in my opinion, especially when child support isn't a set price. Someone like me would pay $500 a month (a little steep for something that just eats and poops), someone like tiger woods would pay $50,000+ (how can a kid possibly cost this much?) for 18 YEARS. That can ruin lives, including the kids. This is where the vulture women come out and target rich men, and say they are on the pill when they aren't just to get a free paycheck.

And vice versa if she wants an abortion but the male doesn't, ok she has to deal with it growing for 9 months but at least she isn't in an 18 year financially devastating contract.


half of these arguments are ridiculous too, like the judge saying "its not fair but thats the way it is", thats almost like telling an african american hes a slave because "thats just the way it is".


lets just have a little bit more say from both parties involved instead of just making the males on-demand paychecks.

Originally posted by Kailassa
You're lecturing a grandmother who has raised three children on her own, with no help from any man, (and two of the kids are handicapped, which is why husband left,) and who has raised her own children to be responsible.
...
Children need fathers, I know from experience.

These statements seem to contradict each other. You've raised 3 responsible children on your own (without their father), yet children need their fathers?

The truth is that children of single parents do very well. As you know. Why do you insist that children need their father? Maybe that's a basic assumption you're making that isn't really based in fact, but opinion?

Sometimes children of single parents do better than children of married parents. For example, a study of hundreds of 10- to 14-year olds and their parents showed that in their day-to-day lives, single parents were friendlier to their children than were married parents. The children of single parents also spent more time with people in their extended families than did the children of married parents.

But if two-parent households have twice of everything that adults have to offer children, then why don't the children in those households do far better than the children in single-parent households? And why would they ever do the same or even worse?
...
The first is to let go of the fantasy that all children living in nuclear families have two totally engaged parents who lavish their love and attention on all their children, and on each other, in a home free of anger, conflict, and recriminations. The second is to grab onto a different sort of possibility - that many children living with single mothers have other important adults in their lives, too. I don't mean just kids who have Grandma living with them. I also mean all of the kids who have grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, teachers, family friends, and others who care about them and make sure they know it."

Source

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I'm pro children knowing, and being at least partially supported by, their fathers.

If by "pro" you mean to imply that you believe it just to enforce this by law, then you are inconsistent unless you believe the same about their mothers. The child's rights to "know and be at least partially supported" by their mothers is not even a concept being considered. Nor should it be, in my view, as it represents unconstitutional governmental overreach as well. But let's be consistent.

You can only find inconsistency there by confusing "fetus" and "child."
The mother is legally responsible for the fetus because it is part of her body.

Both mothers and fathers are legally responsible for the child.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Benevolent Heretic was when she was arguing for it.

I used the term "male abortion" because it exists and has been proposed as such.

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.
...
McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options.'

It is but ONE reproductive right that could be possible for men. I'm sorry if you're offended by the term. It's just a word. Seeing as a mother dumping her unwanted child at the fire station is legal under the "Safe Haven" law, I'm sure the real male abortion law would not be called "male abortion", but something else, like "Honorable Paternal Denial" or "Freedom from Fatherhood" or "Roe V Wade for men" or "Pro-Choice for Men".

reply to post by Raist


The woman has an opt out of pregnancy? Yes her opt out consists of removing the pregnancy from her body. Once something is put in it has to come out. (example, sperm.)

Men have an opt out too, but with examples like this thread and the OP have shown, they would rather whine after the fact rather than exercise their reproductive rights before something they do not want with all their lives and souls and wallets happens.

reply to post by Raist


Other than the choice to willingly give away his sperm, he has the choices of prophylactics including vasectomy.

He can also choose a sex partner who would also be a good mother, and was a good person whom he loved or cared enough for to support no matter the outcome.

But I guess men would rather sex it up with abandon (and boy do I mean that pun) than exercise their reproductive rights, according to your post.

Gotcha. Good luck with this in the courts.

Oh wait, as I previously posted, this has already been tossed out, years ago, for not having merit.

reply to post by mayertuck


Why do you assume the opposition has not been hearing your side for years, not days as this thread is aged, and have thought about them, found them ludicrous and flawed, and remain strong in thier own position?