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: 65
56
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


yes i have a huge ego thats my problem,,,,, again is any one up for even a half hearted intlegent discussion that isnt just a blame game or are we gonna let each ohters respetive sides keep demeaning us all? and im quite happily awake thank you very much you can keep attacking me all you want ill just say here repeating the same old song LETS DISCUSS IF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No, It's the Abortions, and the Legal Child Abandonment that give women a sense of entitlement to the "Gift" of life, and the "Miracle" of birth.

It's the Abortions. The Abortions.


The Child Abandonment and the Abortions.


The Mothers leaving children to the state because they wanted sex but didnt want the burdon of having to raise a child....

It's the Abortions, and the Child abandonment.


-Edrick (Abortion, Abortion, Abortion, Abortion, Abortion.)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Here is another interesting take on the Male Contraceptive (should this have its own thread?)

Male Contraceptive Pill Mooted Again, Still a Dreadful Idea

About once every six months there is a breakthrough on the male contraceptive pill. Everyone gets excited for about five minutes, then realizes it's an appalling notion. Here's a reminder why.

gawker.com...



You know why it isn't here?

Because on a very primitive level men don't want it.

Even birth control that is around and aimed at men is actually using advertizing which appeals to their desire to procreate. The names and advertizing of men's reproductive control devices clearly demonstrates this.

Men, even men on here, have almost all taken extreme disregard for personal safety and fertility control. Some will deny it - and most of you know they are lying, and if you are honest with yourself you have done so in your lifetime.

Men don't WANT to control their fertility. Even when they say it, even when the campaign on it....their basic primitive desires, their very genetics, over rules them.

Then in the most amusing example of projection, these men then blame the fact that their genes fool them by claiming WOMEN have fooled them. This is so much more personally satisfying than admitting lack of personal self control.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


Yeah, I agree, let's discuss the Constitution.
As a matter of fact, I'm getting prepared to do just that in a one on one debate in the debate forum with Jenna, a woman who disagrees with my position, but is interested in discussing the issue in those terms. I'll let everyone know when that starts.
But for now:
The 14th amendment: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


The Supreme Court has determined that the due process clause implies that governments cannot pass legislation that intrudes too deeply into the personal life of its citizens. There are limits to the ability of states to control personal behavior.

www.religioustolerance.org...
Now taking a look at this, one could argue, and many have, that this is not the best argument that could have been made for abortion rights, but since it's the one the Justices used, let's examine it first.
Could it really be reasonably argued that the current system of enforced parenthood for men and the Federal system of child support enforcement itself does NOT represent "legislation that intrudes too deeply into the personal life of its citizens"? How personal can you get?
Discuss!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Do you know what the word "Vasectomy" means?


An estimated 526501 vasectomies were performed in the United States in 2002

www.cdc.gov...

Plus, Words Never Die.

Nor do their Definitions.

-Edrick


edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: Addition



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


yeah that does seem to be the tricky part but i dont want religion dictating reproductive processes thats just my personal opinion so is the core issue with legality the old question whats good for the goose is good for the gander implying that even though we have different parts we can still be held to a uniform code of laws and justice regardless of sex orientation gender or religion or politics idealy we could all try to figure this out and work something out to everyones satisfaction but to do that we have to talk and try to reason with eachother and not play the blame game im male and id take male birthcontrol id also like to see more options for men but not if it takes a right away from a woman does this make sense to any one?

PS did you get my u2u? with the compermise?


edit on 21-9-2010 by KilrathiLG because: to ask a question



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Expecting men to "exercise self-control" in that sense is the equivalent to asking women not to get moody when they are menstruating. It is unnatural. Men are biologically (not psychologically as is the common myth) programmed to desire sex and they need it more than women to ensure their physical and mental health is balanced. You wouldn't understand this because you are a woman who is only concerned with the issues facing women, and looking at these issues from the female perspective.


edit on 21/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: grammar



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Annee
 


yes i have a huge ego thats my problem,,,,, again is any one up for even a half hearted intlegent discussion that isnt just a blame game or are we gonna let each ohters respetive sides keep demeaning us all? and im quite happily awake thank you very much you can keep attacking me all you want ill just say here repeating the same old song LETS DISCUSS IF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT.

Would you quit taking everything so damn personal.

What is you're problem? Does the world revolve around you?









posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Aeons
 


Do you know what the word "Vasectomy" means?


An estimated 526501 vasectomies were performed in the United States in 2002

www.cdc.gov...

Plus, Words Never Die.

Nor do their Definitions.

-Edrick


edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: Addition



Oh. About twice as many women are sterilized, and women have a LIMITED window of fertility so they have even less reason to do so. Just to put your numbers into "willingness" context.

There are about 315,000,000 people in the USA, just under half of which are males. Most of those males are above 19 - Like 95% of them.

So let us be generous. We won't even factor in that 30,000 to 40,000 men in the USA who REVERSE their vasectomies per year, and we can round up.

So over a 10 year person we'll say 600,000x10=6000000. We'll use just this years population figures.

6000000vasectomies over 10 years/157000000males alive this year x 100 (to create a percentage = 3.8% or so.

WOW. Overwhelming.




edit on 2010/9/21 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



Stuff



Yeah.... Nice and all.


Your entire post basically said that men do not want to excersize reproductive self control.


The word Vasectomy defeated your entire argument.


Your Defense is somewhat meaningless.

-Edrick


edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: error correction




edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: SPELLING!




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


I did get your U2U, see the previous page 5th post from the bottom. Above the repetitive post insisting that I "don't get it."
Unfortunately it looks like 'another one bites the dust', in terms of intelligent, reasonable disagreement. Really a shame, in my view.
But yeah, I fully endorse the compromise.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Aeons
 


Expecting men to "exercise self-control" in that sense is the equivalent to asking women not to get moody when they are menstruating. It is unnatural. Men are biologically (not psychologically as is the common myth) programmed to desire sex and they need it more than women to ensure their physical and mental health is balanced. You wouldn't understand this because you are a woman who is only concerned with the issues facing women



edit on 21/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



I actually snorted while laughing. Twice.

Your understanding of women is absolutely profound.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Aeons
 



Stuff



Yeah.... Nice and all.


Your entire post basically said that men do not want to excersize reproductive self control.


The word Vasectomy defeated your entire argument.


Your Defense is somewhat meaningless.

-Edrick


edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: error correction




edit on 21-9-2010 by Edrick because: SPELLING!




AWESOME.

Yes, well, we wouldn't want FACTS for anything to clog up your rhetoric. Carry on then.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



AWESOME.

Yes, well, we wouldn't want FACTS for anything to clog up your rhetoric. Carry on then.


Are YOU, Ma'am... Implying that you did not Write... THIS:


Men, even men on here, have almost all taken extreme disregard for personal safety and fertility control. Some will deny it - and most of you know they are lying, and if you are honest with yourself you have done so in your lifetime.

Men don't WANT to control their fertility. Even when they say it, even when the campaign on it....their basic primitive desires, their very genetics, over rules them.

Then in the most amusing example of projection, these men then blame the fact that their genes fool them by claiming WOMEN have fooled them. This is so much more personally satisfying than admitting lack of personal self control.




Did You? or Did You Not?

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 





During Menstruation, when the Uterus sheds it's lining... the Egg that was released from the fallopian tubes leaves the body, unfertilized. Now.... these usually leave in the Urine Stream.... and into the Toilet, and is then Flushed. If we could somehow construct a complicated Human Egg catching device behind the water trap... we could theoretically TAKE the "Discarded" Egg, and it then becomes OUR Egg. (Or we could Grab Pads and Tampons out of the trashcan) If we then used complex laboratory equipment to fertilize that egg, and incubate it in another woman (Yes, people *women* actually sell 9 months of their Uterus for barren couples to have a child... so it WILL work) Then, we could send the woman a Bill for the total cost of raising HER child. Because it DOES have HALF of her DNA...



Now that is thinking like a evil scientist or even a feminist...but this way is also possible, instead of using a woman as a host for the baby.....we could create a device that could mimic the process of what happens inside a females stomach...So the problem is solved...test tube baby's....and since women complain so much about birth and all that. This is an answer to them as well.........
We can go the way of the greys, a giant factory and computer creating baby humans....no more stress of parenthood....No more of these power games among the genders. Or I quess we can all try to get along.........Can't we all just get along....Probably not.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
And again, the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Before, we examined briefly the due process clause of the 14th amendment and Court's contention that this clause conferred a "privacy right" in that it implied government could not intrude too deeply into the personal lives of its citizens.This is the basis for abortion rights (as well as contraception rights, gay marriage rights, and many more) All you have to do is go one clause further to find the "equal protection clause" which ensures that a right or law, apply to all citizens equally. It seems very clear that if:
1) Forcing parenthood upon unmarried biological fathers represents the same, or same order of, intrusion into his personal life, as illegal abortion does upon a woman, then:
2) The law forcing him is also unconstitutional by way of the equal protection clause.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 





You know why it isn't here? Because on a very primitive level men don't want it. Even birth control that is around and aimed at men is actually using advertizing which appeals to their desire to procreate. The names and advertizing of men's reproductive control devices clearly demonstrates this. Men, even men on here, have almost all taken extreme disregard for personal safety and fertility control. Some will deny it - and most of you know they are lying, and if you are honest with yourself you have done so in your lifetime. Men don't WANT to control their fertility. Even when they say it, even when the campaign on it....their basic primitive desires, their very genetics, over rules them. Then in the most amusing example of projection, these men then blame the fact that their genes fool them by claiming WOMEN have fooled them. This is so much more personally satisfying than admitting lack of personal self control.


Say what? men want to screw around and make baby's, so that is why they are not making a male "pill".....Really first you say men are all dogs and sleep around and leave there kids everywhere....then you say these same dogs if given the chance to sleep around all they want without the government coming down on them....and all the strings attached..... don't do it because they secretly love leaving there kids everywhere and paying the government and the females that they did it with, and are not interested in being with...The pill would probably be there dream....screw all you want....then whenever you decide to have a baby screw without the pill....You make no sense.....If the government released the pill for men, there would be a lot less kids around. And that is probably the reason there isn't one...But anyways what exactly is you problem with males?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Admittedly I am not scanning through roughly 70 pages to see if this is already posted. So please forgive me if it has been.

In the interest of information the following are excerpts from, and a link to the transcript from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, regarding Dubay v. Wells. Which includes...


Dubay cannot prevail under any of these equal protection theories. First, strict scrutiny does not apply because the Michigan Paternity Act does not affect any of Dubay’s fundamental rights. In N.E. v. Hedges, we found that the right to privacy, articulated in the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, does not encompass a right to decide not to become a parent after conception and birth. 391 F.3d 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2004). See also Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 580 (1987) (finding that a “putative father has no legitimate right and certainly no liberty interest in avoiding financial obligations to his natural child that are validly imposed by state law”). In doing so, we explicitly rejected the argument, which Dubay raises in his brief, that “fairness” dictates that men should receive a right to disclaim fatherhood in exchange for a woman’s right to abortion.3 Hedges, 391 F.3d at 835. Our discussion clarified that it is not a fundamental right of any parent, male or female, to sever his or her financial responsibilities to the child after the child is born. See id. Thus, to the extent that Dubay claims that Michigan is not affording him equal protection of the law by denying men, but not women, “the right to initiate consensual sexual activity while choosing to not be a parent,” see Pl. Br. at 11, his argument must fail.


... as well as,


However, undeterred by this lack of legal authority, and failing to cite the specific statutes that he challenges, Dubay further argues that “under Michigan’s safe haven and abandonment laws, a mother can also unilaterally drop off a newborn at the hospital, police department, or clinic without any legal or financial recourse whatsoever, something not afforded men. It is also easier for a woman to place a child for adoption, and again avoid being forced into unwanted parenthood.” Pl. Br. at 26. As with his challenge to the Paternity Act, this argument lacks legal foundation.


Here is a link to the PDF of the decision.


edit on 9/21/10 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Thanks for that. It does indeed show the tendency of courts to devalue the "privacy" of men, while holding a different standard for women. The argument that such laws do not violate either the "due process" or "equal protection" clauses of the 14th amendment requires a kind of doublethink that judges are certainly not immune from. This includes the Supreme Court as well, of course.
Here's an interesting link that describes the interesting political timing of the two cases Roe v. Wade and Gomez v. Perez, which set the legal framework for the child support statutes concerning illegitimate children.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

edit to add: This article in counterpoint:

www.alternet.org...



edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: grammar




edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I have to say that I agree with you Aeons here.

The only reason I agree is because I remember when I was young,I could have easily been talked into sex condom free by a women I was attracted to,especially if I hadn`t experienced it.I kind of get the feeling we men have a bit of a design fault that in our younger years we are full of desire but without the maturity to handle it,then later on in life the maturity with not so much desire,women on the other hand should not be allowed to take advantage of this design fault if they do then face the consequences,this also sounds and is terrible to me,but over a period of time I can only see things improve on what we see in society today.

If its not something men can control (much more so young men) then I can also then see that this scenario "Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy" to be the lesser of two evils.As this would create women to think seriously hard about their sexual partners be it for a fling or marriage etc.

It would be a fantastic contraceptive for mine,which would eventually bring about less fatherless children, unsupported children ,single mothers etc etc etc.The reduced amount of single mothers that eventuate after the said new laws would still get support under the current systems already in place,it costs tax payers one way or another,though I can only see a reduction in births and costs and many more real people starting to love their partners and children,brought by better selection by females,they need to find the right lid for the pot.

Which has also made me ponder whether the elites really do want dramatic population reduction that I`ve read in threads here on ATS, because if so, to bring in such laws as this one we are discussing would dramaticly reduce the population imo.So why haven`t they pushed for something like this? I know human rights and all but in the long run, progress.

Anyway if any disagree,this is just some pondering from an oldish fart,I wont linger too long and I hold no delusion that by discussing these things we would/could change anything anyway,I just see society families etc getting worse not better as the years have rolled on and I don`t wont to continue to watch it degrade and become a grumpy old man.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join