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: 59
56
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


How has he lost any of his rights??


Does he forfeit them once the sperm is out of his penis?

He still has every single reproductive right he had ten seconds before, because if he does not can you explain why/how he lost them?

What does a females reproductive rights to her egg have to do with the male reproductive rights to his sperm? (it is the same right, they are both body tissue/fluids).





posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Okay, I will rephrase what I said before.

Am I right when I say it is your belief that males have full control over their reproductive rights while their own sperm is still inside their testicles? You believe that once it leaves their testicles, they have lost "ownership" of what would be referred to - initially - as a part of their reproductive rights?


edit on 20/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

Actually she is utilizing a law that was put in place to give her the ability to walk away from those responsibility.

Nice try again. Try harder. I'm sure something will eventually stick that won't sound like hogwash or hypocracy. That or you will see how ridiculous you are making yourself look and stop.
I don't have to try harder, maybe try taking your own advice, I don't need advice from you I need a valid point fom you.

To walk away from responsibility means you abandon the responsibility.

In the case of safe harbor, the law is assuming parental obligation for the child.

Basically she is making sure her parental obligation to financially support the child IS taken care of, because she is allowing (as in adoption) a transferance of her rights and responsibilities to a willing entity, ie the state.

When a man walks in the case of the OP or a (ha) male abortion, he is not securing a transference of his responsibilities nor is he making certain the responsibilities of his progeny are taken care of.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

How is this a generalization, it is a comment on you. Are you the totality of womanhood? No you are not. Now if I said all women had the women good man bad philosophy that would be a generalization.On your thought process which is painfully obvious. Once again try again.

Now the hurt part was put in because more than likely YOU have that philosphy because you were hurt and found feminism or found it before then, Either way the entire statement besides the one about males was about YOU,


edit on 20-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)

Quoted to showcase gross ASSumptions and generalizations, and admitting ofprior personal remarks directed towards me, not the debate.

I am not the one trying to bolster my points with a sob story about my life. And here we have you plain just making things up about me and my life!

I do not need to use my own life to validate why I hold my opinion.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Both here and on other threads. Here with paternalistic societies are warlike maternalistic are spiritual. seems like a man bad women good thing to me. Unless for some reason you think war is good and spirtualism is bad.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Hmmm seems to me you have posted on here a "sob story" or have you conviently forgotten that. Granted its not as long as mine but still a feel bad for me moment.
"Where is MY gold star? I raised two kids for five years alone. I guess only gold stars for parents who did right AND agree with you?"
from here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=hotbakedtater

My story is not to ellicit pity nor admiration, just to illustrate what type of person I am and where I am coming from. Not only that with my story I should have the opposite position should I not?

You lose more and more credibility with every post.

And I gotta ask, the females that post similar stories are they just trying to bolster there position with them?



edit on 20-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)




edit on 20-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)




edit on 20-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Losing sperm is not losing reproductive rights, it is losing a glob of body fluids. The right comes in your control over where that fluid is placed. Once it is placed, you have exercised your right and are free to exercise it again and again and again.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Oh? What sob story would that be?

ETA I do not consider that a sob story, it was one line of sarcasm.

A sob story is trotted out when someone wants to gain sympathy for their points.








edit on 20-9-2010 by hotbakedtater because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
For example:

Single-parent children more at risk: study

Children growing up in single-parent households are twice as likely to suffer a mental illness, commit suicide or develop an alcohol-related disease than children who live with both parents, a study has found.


And also from your link:


However, their findings stood even when they adjusted for socio-economic status and other confounding factors such as parental addiction or mental illness.


Your second link seems to be about children of separated and divorced households. In other words kids who HAD a father around, but no longer do, which I believe is your situation. I have never advocated that fathers of children abandon them.




edit on 9/20/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

But if a law like this would pass then he would be. As I said again try harder.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I editied the post to include it but here it is again in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=hotbakedtater

And since I have to take my daughter to a doctors appt, I shall have to reply when I return.






edit on 20-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Losing sperm is not losing reproductive rights, it is losing a glob of body fluids. The right comes in your control over where that fluid is placed. Once it is placed, you have exercised your right and are free to exercise it again and again and again.


What about when the body fluids of men are used without their permission, for nefarious purposes?

E.g. Groupies having sex with a celebrity and using the "glob of body fluids" to impregnate themselves?

Or the more common method where women who are unsure of who the biological father of their child is, present traces of sperm found in areas they were not initially released as "proof" in their eyes of which father is probably the biological father.


edit on 20/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Am I right when I say it is your belief that males have full control over their reproductive rights while their own sperm is still inside their testicles? You believe that once it leaves their testicles, they have lost "ownership" of what would be referred to - initially - as a part of their reproductive rights?

Both partners are a bit short of rights regarding what happens to the egg and sperm.
Will they meet? Will they unite? Will a joining of them create an embryo healthy enough to survive? Will the enviroment be suitable for embyonic growth?

Once the embryo does grow it is, for a time, part of the mother's body. During that time, others have no more right to it than they'd have a right to cells grown from a steak they gave her.

Once the baby is born, if that does happen, both parties have both rights and responsibilities. They have the right to contact with that child, they have responsibilities to provide for and nurture that child.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
No matter how you choose to cut it it is walking away, throwing in the towel. etc etc.


When a woman literally lays her own child (not fetus) down in a church and WALKS AWAY, I would say that's pretty much walking away from the responsibility of a child and laying it on someone else.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
When a man walks in the case of the OP or a (ha) male abortion, he is not securing a transference of his responsibilities nor is he making certain the responsibilities of his progeny are taken care of.


You're talking about the law as it stands today. If the law were to change, as is being proposed, then the man WOULD be securing a transference of his responsibilities LEGALLY, just as a woman does when she takes advantage of the Safe Haven law.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Kailassa
For example:

Single-parent children more at risk: study
Children growing up in single-parent households are twice as likely to suffer a mental illness, commit suicide or develop an alcohol-related disease than children who live with both parents, a study has found.

And also from your link:

However, their findings stood even when they adjusted for socio-economic status and other confounding factors such as parental addiction or mental illness.

Yes, Researchers will generally check to see if other factors negate their conclusions. They checked, and the other factors did not. So what's your point?


Your second link seems to be about children of separated and divorced households. In other words kids who HAD a father around, but no longer do, which I believe is your situation. I have never advocated that fathers of children abandon them.


No, you just argued that no children needed fathers. And don't try dishonest tactics of pretending you were saying something different, thanks. You were even using my personal situation (husband leaving later) to prove your point.


Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThese 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?

The above, as you know full well, is what I was replying to. See any clarification in your question that you were asking about children who had never known their fathers?

I also asked for proof of the contention in your question:

why don't the children in those (two parent) households do far better than the children in single-parent households?

Got some proof yet that the average income rate, suicide rates, life expectancies, education levels, addiction rates and crime rates are not better for children, or the adults they grow into, from two-parent families?

Or are you going to take the easy way out and ignore questioning of your claims when you can't back them up?











edit on 20/9/10 by Kailassa because: formatting



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

But if a law like this would pass then he would be. As I said again try harder.
How? Who is assuming his fair fifty percent share of the load when he bails?

In all choices by the mother, she is fufilling her half of the duties.

Also in safe haven why is it assumed a man can't be part of that choice?


Because in safe haven both halves of financial responsibility are assumed by the state, who is willingly offer to assume it when safe haven laws apply. Just like adoption.




edit on 20-9-2010 by hotbakedtater because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Losing sperm is not losing reproductive rights, it is losing a glob of body fluids. The right comes in your control over where that fluid is placed. Once it is placed, you have exercised your right and are free to exercise it again and again and again.


What about when the body fluids of men are used without their permission, for nefarious purposes?

E.g. Groupies having sex with a celebrity and using the "glob of body fluids" to impregnate themselves?

Or the more common method where women who are unsure of who the biological father of their child is, present traces of sperm found in areas they were not initially released as "proof" in their eyes of which father is probably the biological father.


edit on 20/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling

I don't see anything in your post that represents sperm being used without permission.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I know I am talking about the law as it stands today.

I do not forsee it changing, considering the Supreme Court already whacked this notion from contention years ago.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're talking about the law as it stands today. If the law were to change, as is being proposed, then the man WOULD be securing a transference of his responsibilities LEGALLY, just as a woman does when she takes advantage of the Safe Haven law.


You speak about the safe haven law, which is hardly relevant because only a very few girls in very desperate circumstances use it. It's a way to save the lives of children who would otherwise be murdered by being dumped in garbage bins. And you try to make out this is something applicable to women in general.


Most of us mothers are not considering murdering our newborns.

When a mother is desperate enough to use this facility she has handed her baby to someone who has publicly made an agreement to care for that child. This constitutes a legal transference of responsibilities.

If a father chooses to opt out, this can never constitute a legal transference of responsibilities because the mother has not made a previous agreement to accept full responsibility.

In other words, it can never be any more legal than dumping your kids on a neighbour and pissing off for good.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Of course you wouldn't. But thats ok.




top topics



 
56
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join