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

reply to post by mayertuck


Not a reliable website source considering it's creation and where it came from. Got a Federal Govt site?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Wow seriously. Did you click on any of the links within it? Or would you like me to strip them out for you. The data on child abuse gors to the dept of human services.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Here stripped it anyways.

www.acf.hhs.gov...

Now I showed you mine, your supposed to show me yours.

Really, thinking about it. My take on parent hood is simple. If you don't want to become a mom or dad, don't take your pants off....

If you want to sleep with some one, then you need to stop and think... Hmm, do I want a baby with this person? Yes, I realize that reality dictates that wont happen, and in all honesty I am guilty of messing around with girls and not thinking about the risks involved....

But really, at the same time if I had gotten a girl pregnant I would never consider running off and abandoning my duties as a dad. Nor do I think any man should. If you are man enough to get with a girl, you need to be man enough to deal with the consequences...

Sorry I haven't read the replies in this thread but I think us men should have the right to decline fatherhood... Do we have a say if your gf at the time can get an abortion or not... no.... If men can't have a say in that matter than I say we should get the right to decline fatherhood plain and simple......

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

And I fully agree with you.
And just as I would not personally do it, there are men that would.

My problem lies with allowing a female an out of the situation and not the man when both are just as responsible. If females did not have these outs I would not say one word about calling men who walk away scumbags or the like.

Originally posted by mayertuck


My problem lies with allowing a female an out of the situation and not the man when both are just as responsible. If females did not have these outs I would not say one word about calling men who walk away scumbags or the like.

Oh, I am with you 100% actually. You know, like I said, if you sleep with some one, you need to be willing to accept the outcome. man or woman, if you sleep with some one there is a risk of pregnancy and if you are not ready for that, then you don't need to be having sex anyway.

But again as I said, people just aren't always going to think about those things, and I am guilty of not thinking first as well. So perhaps I am speaking of conditions in an ideal world... but really, man or woman, if you are not willing to accept the risks, such as pregnancy, then you need to keep your pants zipped.

At the same time, I think, if one gets an out, then, both need to be allowed that out. It is only fair. Either both get an out, or no one.... and really, I think it should be that no one gets an out... maybe then, people would start to think first.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Exactly!

puts on his hat he wears when hes about to get yelled at i give you the following link hate it like it or ignore it i dont realy care just adding to the discussion rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com...

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Good post. Prepare to be flamed and called a misogynist lol. Might be good to post it in the feminist ruining relationships thread.

Highly pertinent especially here:

Advancing male contraception technology. Lawsuits and boycotts against companies that portray men, husbands and fathers as dogs, pigs, horses asses, donkeys and jack asses. Revision of sex offender laws so that 8 year old boys are no longer arrested and marked for life for playing doctor.

Protections for boys under statutory rape laws some of whom have been ordered to pay their rapist child support. Protection for sperm donors anonymity and liability as some have been tracked down by lesbians and ordered to pay child support. Code of ethics laws so that male genes are not just handed out to anyone but limited to those with problems conceiving and for married couples only. The concept of trivializing the role men play in reproduction and the lives of children should be legislated against. Selecting male genes from a catalog by what celebrity the male specimen looks like is amoral and reprehensible. It is no different than men selecting female genes and growing children in artificial wombs from the comfort of our home. We have laws against cloning and stem cell research meanwhile it is legal to cut men out of the process of reproduction with a simple doctors note and have male genes sent overnight male to your front door.

and here:

Next is getting women to share custody of children and thus expect them to financial support their own children equally while providing meaningful contact with the father, paying on dates, and not expecting men to support them after they leave in divorce.

Removing female gender separatist and secular representation in government which is in violation of the Constitution and Equal Rights Amendment. This would include all "women first" and "women only" provisions in all political, economic and social policy.

Laws against and penalties for paternity fraud, enforcement against parental alienation, extending rape shield laws to protect the accused, providing equal domestic violence and family trauma services to men.

And then there are those who will say its not reliable. lol. But since it has been asserted that men don't care about this stuff, or if they were unhappy they would try to change the law. Think this and others out there should show that yes there are men and women concerned. Sadly though they shall still be blind.

reply to post by mayertuck


ha thats where i got it i have read bolth threads in there entirety to try to get a more open minded aproach to the issue vaild points were made in bolth threads from bolth sides and bolth sides also embaressed them selves and there genders with there comments and actions

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by mayertuck

 

ha thats where i got it i have read bolth threads in there entirety to try to get a more open minded aproach to the issue vaild points were made in bolth threads from bolth sides and bolth sides also embaressed them selves and there genders with there comments and actions

aww lol, i wondered where i saw it before lol. Just wasn;t sure. Im going through now and rereading stuff. Yup fools on both sides and the sanes ones stuck in the middle lol.

Here is another possibility. which would require give and take for both sides.

At the onset of puberty, boys and girls are sterilized. By whatever means they or their parents choose. Then when a couple decides they want to have a baby they go get unsterilized. The both men and women would bear approx the same amount of risk in having sex. What exact technology, procedure, pill. or hormone would accomplish this I have no idea. Also don't know how to handle any failure rate.
Hopefully it would cut down on unwanted pregnancies, abortions, adoptions, etc. It could also controll the population.

What do the members of this thread feel about that?

Originally posted by mayertuck
Here is another possibility. which would require give and take for both sides.

At the onset of puberty, boys and girls are sterilized. By whatever means they or their parents choose. Then when a couple decides they want to have a baby they go get unsterilized. The both men and women would bear approx the same amount of risk in having sex. What exact technology, procedure, pill. or hormone would accomplish this I have no idea. Also don't know how to handle any failure rate.
Hopefully it would cut down on unwanted pregnancies, abortions, adoptions, etc. It could also controll the population.

What do the members of this thread feel about that?

Legalities aside...

Making everybody have a procedure, to prevent some people from choosing to have another procedure seems rather rash to me.

reply to post by Hefficide

I completly understand that, I am simply looking for a way to even the playing field more. Hope you can appreciate the spirit of where I am coming from heff.
But thnx for your input.

reply to post by mayertuck


I do appreciate the spirit and definitely commend you on wanting to discuss compromise! It'd be a great thing if one of us (somewhere in the world) found one that worked! I'd be 100% behind it!

reply to post by Hefficide

pretty much where I stood from post one. Now if people will just jump on board, despite all the bickering there are alot of intelligent people on this thread. And I am willing to bet WE could all come up with something. Is everyone going to happy probably not, but I know if a compromise could be reached I would be more than willing to go with it.

yeah seems like an extreme example but hey it would make us equal sorry this will be my last post for a few hours as my house may or may not be on fire we had a fire in the fireplace and smoke was comeing out of a knothole on our wooden/stone mantel(its about 7 feet long and 3 feet high so we took the logs out side hosed them off flooded the liveing room by putting a hose down the chimney but that SHOULD have put out the fire long story short and an advanced apology for the off topic post but if im not online tomrrow say a prayer wont ya as my hosue may have gone up in flames([problay being over dramatic and parinoid but hey its what i am at the moment) WISH me luck and i hope to see you tomrrow

reply to post by KilrathiLG


good luck lol.

reply to post by mayertuck


As my primary concern in this issue is the principle of personal liberty, which I believe to be a more fundamental right than equality, I could never support such a measure. To put it another way, if we were to value equality to the extent that we socially engineer away our freedom in order to achieve that equality, we have lost sight of what the Constitution is all about. The founding document of this nation is less a collection of laws than a framework of protection against unjust laws. The protection of the individual's liberty is the basis of our republic. As it should be.

The good news? Liberty in its very expression in law, ensures equality. For example, slavery is illegal. Denying women the vote is illegal. When these restrictions upon liberty were removed (determined to be unconstitutional) the cause of equality was served. Both African-Americans and women gained equality as a result of their liberty. I believe the same can be said of the reproductive rights of women as represented by Roe v. Wade. The same principle applies in this issue. No real "compromise" is needed. At least no compromise of our liberty. Just let people determine their own destinies; both women and men.

edit to add: I should point out here, because this seems like a particularly good place to make this point; just as the concept of duties and privileges are intertwined, and indeed provided the basis for the concept of 'no taxation without representation', and define the difference between a slave and a free person, so in the modern context, are responsibilities and rights. This concept is central to the idea of liberty. If one has no reproductive rights, what burdens are imposed upon him can not be called responsibilities. And likewise, if one has reproductive rights, responsibilities follow, and are the natural result of their own choices.