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: 61
56
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 

Kudos for your insight.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


LOL
cowardly scum?

I support it, family law is so screwed up, and most men do not have parental rights btw because we cannot afford the lawyers to apply those rights, because we are to busy paying the blood money to our magnificent ex's or whatever you call them in your land.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


well im sorry you felt blamed for those thats not right either way but as parents i would think that if you love your kid you dont care if he has aspergers you dont care if hes gay or if shes a lesbian etc it dosent matter there your children so how does geting "blame" for homosexualty come into this those are YOUR feelings you CHOSE to feel that way and take Pressure from an outside source effect how you raise your kid and to clairify i think its great you raised 3 kids disabled or not so i do not want to come off as attacking your character just trying to interject some of my own opinion hope i did not offend you and i am sorry people stigmatize you for your belifes or they just do it cuz there mean dont make it right either way



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by A-Dub
 


on the tiger woods issue one point that i dont know if its brought up but tiger woods isnt allowed to have HIS children around any of his mistresses because HIS wife says so if they see one of the mistresses(which i think he should be able to see who ever he wants) he looses all custody and visitation of the children dosent excuse his cheating but cheating works bolth ways i dont think any one should have the power to tell people they cant see there children unless RAPE ABUSE INCEST or something of that ilk happens this is the power we males see to over turn not the ability to abandon our children(that is the articles point of view) but the ability to not have our children USED as weapons against us when the woman feels slighted

did tiger bang a bunch of chics yep he did but i dont see how that effects his ability to help with and be a part of his childrens lives in the TIGER case we see the males point of view a bit more clearly hope this made sense and if asked i will find the article about tiger woods if anyone dobuts me



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


well said BH and i believe it was ruled in California supreme court that a child has NEITHER THE RIGHT OR THE REQUIREMENT of a mother or a father(this was pertaining to gay marriage ie mommy and mommy raise the child or daddy and daddy raise the child so im with you on this one
PS im glad to see you back here as your point of view is surprisingly neutral and open minded thank you for that and your intelligent discussions you are a credit to feminists everywhere



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


so by the same token where we put our sperm dosent matter i hereby rename you queen of the flipflops and swiss cheese arguements you have pingponged back and forth so much its like watching pong keep it up though you do do a good job of arguing like a broken record

giveing up baby to safe haven not giveing up on your blood riiiiiiiight just like when a male decides he dosent want a kid he can walk away right? thanks for the laugh



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


lol again bad argument how many times did it take for you to leave the realm of property? did you get to vote before black men,no thats right you didn't because it didn't pass years before it eventually did blacks used to be property then it was voted on it failed numerous times and then passed does that make it any less vaild or do you want to go back to the horrible dark days where your property of your father until your married to be the property of your husband?hell look at pot it used to be legal then illegal then legal for medicinal purposes now its on the ballot in cali to be LEGALIZED a journey begins with a single step regardless of it its in the right direction



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa


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.




I apologize for the longish quote. It was necessary after so many pages to provide context.
I have to ask, do you really fail to recognize that I'm discussing the "child's right to know and be at least partially supported," its parents? That I'm not at all talking about fetuses? Mothers are NOT legally responsible for their children unless they decide they want to keep them. In the fact of the ability to decide, lies the difference. No one forces a mother to be a parent in the first place. I've made this point repeatedly. My contention is that if your original statement were true, adoption and so-called "legal abandonment" would be illegal and not an option for women. As I've made abundantly clear, this is not a position I support (or indeed, anyone is likely to support) my point was made to point out the inequlity of the law, and the inconsistency of your stated position.


edit on 20-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
If the man agrees to pay full amount of termination then I strongly feel this should be law. To many men are locked in to fatherhood when they should not be fathers just because some bimbo is pro life.


Yes it is her body, but in going against his choice she should be sole parent and sole provider.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


thank you for responding and props to everything you have been to "sob story"(mrs potato heads words not mine) or not and if you are in fact scum cowardly scum(again hers not mine i wonder why there isnt a mr potato head) your the most remarkable and admireable scum ive ever heard of!


(seriously though not trying to rip on you good job!)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Kailassa
You speak about the safe haven law, which is hardly relevant because only a very few girls in very desperate circumstances use it.


Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday, three fathers walked into two hospitals in Omaha and abandoned their children. One left nine siblings, ages 1 to 17.

What about when a father uses it?

So what if men use it too?
Your argument was that, because women had certain choices, men should have the choice of "male abortion", as you put it.
What relevance does men making use of these choices have to your argument?
In what way does this disprove my argument, when speaking of womens' choices, that only very few women use the Safe Haven Law? Of course I was not talking about males using it because that is not relevant to the discussion.



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.

Maybe she should...


I could reply with, "and maybe men should," but I no more want men to wear sole responsibility than I do women.


You make all sorts of claims without providing any evidence and then demand that I have proof when I disagree with you... That's not fair either, is it?

Really? you want proof of what I said about the safe-haven law?


Infant Safe Haven Laws: Legislating in the Culture of Life

This Article analyzes the politics, implementation, and influence of Infant Safe Haven laws. These laws, enacted across the states in the early 2000s in response to much-publicized discoveries of dead and abandoned infants, provide for the legal abandonment of newborns. They offer new mothers immunity and anonymity in exchange for leaving their babies at designated Safe Havens.



"Safe Haven" laws:

The intent of these laws is to save the lives of newborns whose mothers had concealed their pregnancy, given birth alone, and then discarding the newborn in a hazardous location -- in a trash can, dumpster, park, forest, canal, church, carwash, somebody's front door, etc. Many states passed this legislation in response to a tragedy which caused the death of a newborn. The names of these laws differ: Safe Haven, Safe Place, Baby Moses Law, Safe Arms for Newborns, Safe Delivery, Safe Surrender, etc.

Before the states passed safe haven laws, about 33 newborns were abandoned in Texas each year; 33 in Illinois; 9 or 10 in Washington State; 5 to 7 in Massachusetts, and probably similar numbers in other states. Typically, one out of three of these abandoned newborns did not survive.


Now let's try again:




(Kailassa) asked for proof of the contention in your question:

(Benevolent Heretic) 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?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Kailassa
 

well im sorry you felt blamed for those thats not right either way but as parents i would think that if you love your kid you dont care if he has aspergers you dont care if hes gay or if shes a lesbian etc it dosent matter there your children so how does geting "blame" for homosexualty come into this those are YOUR feelings you CHOSE to feel that way and take Pressure from an outside source effect how you raise your kid and to clairify i think its great you raised 3 kids disabled or not so i do not want to come off as attacking your character just trying to interject some of my own opinion hope i did not offend you and i am sorry people stigmatize you for your belifes or they just do it cuz there mean dont make it right either way


No worries, I understand.
However this was nothing to do with how I felt.
The people passing judgement in this way can have a lot of power. For example :

At one stage I got into a row with family services who were trying to take my oldest brother's children off him. I was able to prove HACS was incorrect in their accusations in court, so, out of spite, they targetted me.
They tried to prove that I'd caused one son to have Aspergers, that I'd caused the other to become effeminate, (he has Klinefelter's, which causes feminisation,) and that I was an unfit mother because of my ex husband having shaken our oldest son many years previously. I was even accused of being "overprotective" because I'd meet the kids and bring them home after appointments with the HACS psych. It was dark by then, in a distant, unfamiliar suburb.
I got the best lawyer, and he advised me to pack up and move, because in his experience no-one ever wins against HACS. In many ways they are above the law, and they were under pressure from the State Premier.

So you see it's not just about the mother's attitudes, this judgementalism can have drastic implications.

Btw, I stayed and I won. - Gave the bastards rope and had a hilarious time helping them hang themselves with it in court.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


What about the woman’s reproductive rights? She can just as easily say she is not having sex with the guy. How are you missing that? You go on and on about the guy can make the choice to have sex but never once lay that same blame on the woman.

I never said opt out of pregnancy I said opt out of motherhood.

The woman can have an abortion, give up for adoption, keep the child, do safe harbor. A man who wants the child and the woman does not gets no say. The say on whether the child lives or dies lays solely on the woman. The decision to be a mother or not (and thus have a father) lays solely on the mother. You make it seem as if the woman is totally innocent in this whole thing. You make it seem as if the woman never lies or never chooses to be promiscuous. If I felt a need to I could go out tonight and find a woman that I can guarantee is not using anything to stop pregnancy and would not care if the guy did get them to have sex with me knowing it was a one night stand. There are just as many slutty no good women out there as there are men.


If you happened to find one of those guys (I sort of suspect you did being that you are not even trying to view the other side) I am sorry, but trust me there are worthless women out there too just as many as there are guys. I know of women who got pregnant just so they could pull in a paycheck and spend little of that money on the kid but the rest on themselves. I know of women who have had sex with guys just to get pregnant in hopes of “trapping” the man into whatever because women are often just as dishonest as men and there are just as many bad women as men.

This law will never affect me either way. I am married with a son I will never leave. However, I think men should have some way out of something they do not want a part of.

In a perfect world the two would both take responsibility and be a parent, but this is the real world it is never going to happen. In the end women have the choice of having sex even more than men, men want it women know this. The woman can do a better job of choosing mates instead of opening up to any who say nice things to them. Men could say no as well, but in an earlier example I speak about driving and only depending on yourself for protection. Never believe others are looking out for your safety, same goes for sex.


Raist



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


ok yeah i was off on that one i was looking at it as people not orginizations those cps people and there ilk are realy at the core of the whole issue here thank you for helping me see it from your prospective and congrats on winning any victory over people like that needs to be celbrated because male or female it happens entirely too infrequently for my liking

and just on a side note u2u me if u dont wanan put it up here but how could they acuse you of that (not dobuting you just think its crazy they would try to blame u for that) as from my limited understanding is Aspergers is something your born with i dont get how they could try to blame you for that! dosent mean they wouldnt or didnt try just trying to learn a bit as a friend of mine has Aspergers and hes alwase seemed a bit off but i never could get him to talk about it and one more thing does Aspergers normaly relate to "feminization" as you put it because the person im talking about is a 6'8 guy whos 280 kinda looks like a vikeing but either way if its too personal feel free to decline



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'd like to point out some issues I have with safe harbor laws.
1) They represent another option in the realm of "parental choice" for women. To claim otherwise is dishonest on its face.
2) Though in many states a father may also, in theory, make use of these laws, we can assume he either did it on behalf of both parties, had the mothers consent, or kidnapped the child.
3) They were enacted in response to a growing epidemic of women essentially murdering their own "born" children, and as such represent an extreme example of basic sexism with regard to criminal law.
4) They generally are accepted as "protective laws" as though the only way to deal with female negligent homicide is to "discourage" it by broadening her "parental choice."

I nonetheless support these laws, in the interest of child safety. And because I believe that governmental enforcement of parenthood is unconstitutional overreach. But I contend they open a whole new can of worms, and illustrate, rather clearly, the back-flips our current system of law will take to avoid the concept of female reproductive responsibility, while strengthening the accepted notion of female "choice."



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
eh i think any argument against them being able to have an abortion will go no where

its legal and it dosent seem like its gonna change so for the intents of the rest of this discussion I atleast will say (as i belived even before this article) that women have a right to choose as its there body we cant make them do anything now that aside the safe surrender does apear to be a cop out on some levels(ie they dont have to pay and in some cases make money off giving there child away)is one of the hotter forms of contention amongst us as well as the fact that as of now there are no equivlent options for males availble at this time does that seem to be the case to every one else?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
I have to ask, do you really fail to recognize that I'm discussing the "child's right to know and be at least partially supported," its parents?

You are discussing a case asking for the legalisation of abandonment of the fetus in the womb by the father.
Your discussion implies you want the ensuing child to have no right to any support from his/her father.


That I'm not at all talking about fetuses? Mothers are NOT legally responsible for their children unless they decide they want to keep them. In the fact of the ability to decide, lies the difference. No one forces a mother to be a parent in the first place.

Mothers are legally responsible for their infants, which is why it's illegal for mums to starve their babies, to leave them alone too long, to deny them medical attention or to put their babies in dumpsters, even if they decide they don't want to keep them.
No-one forced the man to become a father. He willingly planted his seed and it grew.


My contention is that if your original statement were true, adoption and so-called "legal abandonment" would be illegal and not an option for women.

Adoption and legal abandonment under the safe haven law are legal because the baby has been given to a party who has formally agreed to accept full responsiblity. The mother is fulfilling her responsibility by handing the baby to this party.
What has been called "male abortion," (see B.H.) is not the same because it is forcing all the responsibility onto a person who has not legally accepted it.


As I've made abundantly clear, this is not a position I support (or indeed, anyone is likely to support) my point was made to point out the inequlity of the law, and the inconsistency of your stated position.

Women did not decide to take over the process of gestation. I know many people who believe it's unfair that the father's and mother's baby grows in the mother's belly, but that's just the way it is. Thus the law is necessarily unfair in the eyes of some, and always will be.

As for my inconsistency, sorry, there is none.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 

Aswering via PM



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
God(s)dess(es) and the Universe, bless the real men. Nothing makes me appreciate my husband more than the wretched sacks that are supporters on this thread.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





Mothers are legally responsible for their infants, which is why it's illegal for mums to starve their babies, to leave them alone too long, to deny them medical attention or to put their babies in dumpsters, even if they decide they don't want to keep them.


The part I put in italics should make clear to any honest reader the inconsistency I am talking about. I believe you cannot honestly avoid this inconsistency, and therefore choose to talk around it. Our discussion began with the rights of the child to "know and be at least partially supported" by both parents, and if if this is indeed a rightit would not be subject to a woman's decision to the contrary. I've already decided I'm not going to debate with intellectually dishonest persons (on this or any other thread) as it's pointless and exhausting. I'm afraid we've reached that point, here. Good day.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join