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: 72
56
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


I have not seen any logic to rebut, why would I not defend and reassert my position? That is how debate works.


I am saying there is not equal rights in the manner.

I am saying women "claim" they want equal rights.

The reality of the situation is they want more rights than men.

That is the logic, if you couldn't see it I doubt me clarifying it will change that.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


I have not seen any logic to rebut, why would I not defend and reassert my position? That is how debate works.


I am saying there is not equal rights in the manner.

I am saying women "claim" they want equal rights.

The reality of the situation is they want more rights than men.

That is the logic, if you couldn't see it I doubt me clarifying it will change that.

That is not logic that is opinion.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Doctors will not give you a vasectomy unless you are in your late 20s, in most cases. They deem you unable to make the choice not to have children. Same for women. If I could, I would get a hysterectomy RIGHT THIS SECOND, and I am 19. But they wouldn't let me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

No, it isn't the CHOICE of the minor to tell her parents she wants an abortion. It is the LAW in several states. In many states, they will not even let you get birth control without parental signature. Please inform yourself more about the difficulties faced by women seeking abortion in different places before you assume you know everything.

"But a woman can drive hours to an abortion clinic."
Excuse me, but I am a woman, and I do not have a driver's licence because I have no way of attaining my full licence. It is not a choice I made, it is a decision that was forced upon me, because I do not have someone over 25 who has over 5 year's driving experience to drive around with me for the first 6 months before I would be allowed to drive on my own. Nor do I have a job or qualify for any sort of financial assistance due to how long it has been since I had a job, and how new I am to the province (and have never paid taxes to this province, therefore do not qualify for any sort of social assistance, even though the reason I haven't paid taxes is because I haven't had any income because I am disabled and unable to get through so much as an interview, let alone 5 years of working full time before claiming benefits). Neither is this a choice, because despite my complete inability to work, I still try applying to places constantly.

"If she CHOOSES not to drive to them, she's made her choice. If she has to wait overnight, that doesn't take away the abortion option, She can STILL have an abortion."
How will she stay overnight? Where will she be sleeping? In a hotel? Where is the money for that, considering most women who get abortions more frequently are low income, and therefore cannot afford even the cheapest place to sleep.
Where then, her car? What if it is too cold to survive the night in her car, as it is here for almost half the year? Is it still, then, her "choice" to not bother getting an abortion?

"In my scenario, the man (sperm donor) would pay for the abortion, plus something for suffering. Say $2000 total. "
And then, if she is pregnant due to a rape, and doesn't know who it was, who will pay for it? Who will pay for the trip, the food required on a trip where you cannot cook yourself and must spend many times more money than you would at home? (don't tell me they wouldn't have to. I can eat on 20c a meal if I absolutely need to, so where will she find food that doesn't require cooking for that price?) And who will pay for the actual abortion?

What if she is homeless? Who will pay for all of this then?

Hopefully you will admit that maybe you are wrong, and maybe there are some chances, no matter how small, that someone could not manage to get an abortion. If not, I honestly don't see how I could change your mind. But I know for a fact that I wouldn't be able to, if I lived in the US.
Even if I lived right next door, I wouldn't be able to pay for the procedure. How would I, I do not even have money for food or rent and rely on my boyfriend for that, and if he were to not approve of it, then I would have no choice, unless I stole his bank card or prostituted myself, so basically I couldn't without breaking the law, which is by no means a safe way to get an abortion.
And honestly, if we are not taking into account the safety of the procedure, yes, by all means, any woman can have an abortion. They can also kill themselves in the process of trying.

One girl in the US had her boyfriend stand on her stomach every day to try to abort to fetus. It survived and came out deformed and flattened severely.
Or you can try the trusty coat hanger method, and bleed to death from not knowing what you're doing.
So the kind of abortion I am talking about is not that kind. It is the kind that takes place in a medical center, done by professionals. And no, not EVERY woman can get one of those. Most women can. Some cannot.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Annee
Many women (still) are subservient to men - - - and will go through with an abortion because the man demands it. That kind of force.


She still chooses to do it. She chooses to be subservient and chooses to stay with a man who would "demand" she have an abortion. She has all kinds of choices in this scenario.




Like an abused woman chooses to be abused.

I've been in a mild mentally abusive relationship. You really don't understand that you have Choice.

But that's a whole different discussion.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiohazardsBack
No, it isn't the CHOICE of the minor to tell her parents she wants an abortion. It is the LAW in several states. In many states, they will not even let you get birth control without parental signature.


Look, I'm not interested in getting caught up in various state laws regarding minors and abortion. That's not EVEN what this thread is about. If she chooses not to tell her parents, then she's limiting her own choices.



Excuse me, but I am a woman, and I do not have a driver's licence because I have no way of attaining my full licence. It is not a choice I made, it is a decision that was forced upon me, because I do not have someone over 25 who has over 5 year's driving experience to drive around with me for the first 6 months before I would be allowed to drive on my own.


Please, you're just complicating the issue with your personal story. People can get to anywhere they want, whether it be a taxi, a bus, a friend, hitchhiking, government assistance or whatever. Claiming that a woman doesn't have a choice because she lives too far from the abortion clinic is ludicrous! I'm talking about the LAW. It's LEGAL to have an abortion, period.

This isn't about abortion and I'm not interested in arguing further about whether or not the law allows abortion. It's OBVIOUS that it does.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Like an abused woman chooses to be abused.


No, of course not. But she DOES choose to stay with a man who is abusing her instead of getting help.



But that's a whole different discussion.


Yes, it is.



edit on 9/22/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


www.blogher.com... thats the link to the texas judge who banned the woman from having more kids for ten years i didnt find the original source and its been kinda hetic here today but if i can find the original news story ill post it



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, you can believe both parents should be responsible all that you want. The fact of the matter is, the woman has the choice to NOT be responsible for her child. She can refuse to divulge who the father is, and then she can put it up for adoption, immediately, or later in life (or she can purposefully be so negligent as to have social services take the child away)
The man has no rights in this way. And that is why the LAW is not equal, the woman can put up her child for adoption whenever she wants just by not telling anyone who the dad is, and can actually put up her baby for adoption even if the father disagrees with that choice and would rather keep the child, as long as she does it before the baby is born.
The real point here is that the woman has many times to decide what she wants to do with this child AFTER it has happened. The father has absolutely no choice. If he wants to be a part of the child's life, the mother can fight him in court so that he is never allowed to speak to the child. If he wants nothing to do with the child, the mother can take him to court and force him to pay for things, which, trust me, do not always go to the child. My mom raised me on one small salary, we lived in nice parts of town, we ate healthy food, and I always had clothes that fit.
I didn't have everything I wanted, but neither do many children with both parents. But one parent can provide what a child NEEDS. There is no reason someone should be forced to financially care for another living being in which they only had a 5-minute part of the creation thereof.
Women are not forced to take care of their children, why should men be?
THAT is the issue here.
Not that "children need both parents", because that is bull and people can grow up fine with one or neither even, as long as someone is taking care of them.
Not that men "made their choice", because women made their choice to have sex too, they can still find a way to not have the child they made be a part of their life.

If you're going to force a man to "Take responsibility for his actions", force him to be a PARENT, not a BANK. Children will do much better having attention and love from their parents than a few extra hundred bucks a month, most of which they never see. A child really only costs about 100-150$ a month to feed, less if they are not picky. Maybe $100 per season on clothing. $100 extra in rent to get a 2 bedroom instead of a 1 bedroom (legitimate cost increase, that is the difference in cost in my building which has many children in it)
So all in all, under $250 a month to take care of a child. That really isn't much money, considering the amount welfare benefits go up when you have a child. (benefits here go up by about 50% when you go from being a Single Adult to a Single Parent)
And if you have a steady job and are not on benefits, then you ALREADY make enough to be a single parent. Even on minimum wage, trust me, I have done the calculations. We have 2 full grown adults, one of whom eats like a pig, living on what amounts to half of a minimum wage salary (20ish hours a week instead of 40) and we still manage to put money in savings, and recently bought a new computer without going into any debt whatsoever.
The idea that moms "need" this money from the fathers is laughable. If you "need" hundreds of dollar more a month, then you probably need a financial advisor. Or to talk with a college student paying their own way through life without credit cards.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Annee
Like an abused woman chooses to be abused.


No, of course not. But she DOES choose to stay with a man who is abusing her instead of getting help.



But that's a whole different discussion.


Yes, it is.



Its easy to say an abused woman chooses to stay with her abuser.

That's another one of those "Black & White" on paper vs reality.

>>>>>>>> Back on subject.

On a personal note - - - I would say no child should be kept if not wanted fully and the parent(s) do not have the means of support (both emotional and financially).

I personally don't think a woman should keep a child if the man is adamant about not wanting it.

I she decides to keep it - - I think it should be her own responsibility.

I think if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to tell the father (sperm donor) - - - best case scenario is to discuss it with mature intelligence. If the father wants the child - - it would be considerate - if she carried the baby to term. But then she could be financially responsible for support - - - same as a man would be.

Therefore - - in legal terms - - I can only look at the welfare and financial support of the child - - - who is completely innocent.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


The courts have addressed this in an attempt to balance the parents' rights with the rights of the minor. While supporting the concept of "notification" they have generally either invalidated or mitigated the idea of "consent."


The ability of a minor to acquire an abortion against her parent's wishes became a recurring theme in several more cases following Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. Bellotti v. Baird (1979) addressed a Massachusetts law that required a minor to acquire parental consent before an abortion was performed. But, unlike the Danforth case, this law allowed for judicial bypass if consent could not be acquired. Similar reasoning can be found in H.L. v. Matheson (1981). This case ruled on the relatively milder regulation of parental notification as opposed to parental consent. In this case,the Court ruled that parental notification is constitutional since the parent could not veto the adolescent's final decision to acquire an abortion. In Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively on the constitutionality of parental consent laws– parental consent was found to be constitutional so long as it also allowed a judicial bypass if such consent could not be acquired. In Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court placed parental involvement firmly within a broader set of legal principles governing a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Parental involvement, and other regulations, were constitutional so long that they did not place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to acquire an abortion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bold mine.


edit on 22-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling




edit on 22-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to add source



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


In my defense, you were the one saying Every Woman can have an abortion, not that every woman has the RIGHT to have an abortion.
Legally, in the western world, technically, and when not counting minors, yes. Logistically, no.
Taxis do not drive for 5 hours to get you where you need to go. Nor are they free.
The bus, again, is not free.
Not everyone has friends. I do not know a single person in my city who does not live with me.
Hitchhiking, again, falls under what I would consider to be "unsafe" abortions.
Government assistance does not apply to everyone. Not everyone who needs assistance qualifies for it.

But yes, every Adult woman can legally get an abortion.
There are obstacles though, and ones that it is flat out condescending to decree are a matter of "choice"



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiohazardsBack
In my defense, you were the one saying Every Woman can have an abortion, not that every woman has the RIGHT to have an abortion.


You're right. I misspoke. I should have said that every adult woman has the legal right to choose an abortion.

There certainly are some logistical issues, but that really isn't involved in the RIGHT.



There are obstacles though, and ones that it is flat out condescending to decree are a matter of "choice"


I don't disagree that there might be obstacles. And I am not being condescending. It may "sound" that way to you through the computer, but that is not where I'm coming from.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

I had a long post in response to this, but it amounted to the fact that while some states are working to make abortions more accessible, others are working to make it less accessible. I would really like to point out all the things that are done in clinics and the lies that doctors are forced by law to tell prospective patients, but it really is not on topic and so I will not.

Either way, talking about it here will not change anything, and for that matter, neither will talking about it anywhere.

So in other trains of thoughts, I think that if a mother intends to put her baby up for adoption, the father should have the right to be screened for adoption free of charge, if he wants to take care of it.
But unfortunately, with most baby adoptions, they are done through private agencies, and the mother gets to hand pick who gets her child, so it probably wouldn't end up with him having the child anyways. Maybe it should work like a public agency first if the man wants the baby, he should be screened to see if he can take care of it financially, and screened for mental issues that might cause damage to the child (some moms have great reasons for not wanting the father to have their child!) and if he passes, he should get to "adopt" the baby, just as any other family waiting for a baby could (but without the competition, seeing as he is the genetic and legal parent), and the mother should be able to release herself from the child legally just as in an adoption, or have any type of adoption that would normally happen, like an "open adoption" where you get letters, pictures, can send them birthday gifts and maybe see them once in a while, etc.
Kindof like custody, but without the inherent "battle"
Of course, people would still have custody battles where both parents want the child and do not want the other to have the child, but this would ensure that the father had more rights in terms of being a part of the child's life, just as the ability to "opt out" would give them the right to NOT be a part of the child's life.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 



In my defense, you were the one saying Every Woman can have an abortion, not that every woman has the RIGHT to have an abortion. Legally, in the western world, technically, and when not counting minors, yes. Logistically, no.


As you state yourself, the RIGHT is guaranteed, but that does not in any way imply that the logistical problems involved, or the economic realities of your situation must magically vanish. Or, that if they impede your choice, they have impeded your "right to choose." As this discussion is centered upon reproductive rights of men, or the lack thereof, I fail to see your point.
As far as your clause, "and when not counting minors," see my post above.

edit to add: I do not mean to seem unsympathetic to poor women, and also believe that over turning the Hyde amendment which restricts medicare payments for abortion, is a great place to start, if attempting to broaden access to abortion. However, I don't think easy access necessarily represents a state's burden in guarantee of a right. Merely its legality.


edit on 22-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
If the man had kept his "decision" IN his hands he would not be responsible for anything.


He's not responsible for anything by having sex with a woman.

The woman that ''invited him in'', for want of a better phrase, is entirely responsible for her actions, and the resulting consequences that may occur from her decision to have sex.

The only way that he could be responsible for any offspring is if ''human being'' status was granted at conception, or the formation of a embryo.

However, you and I both know that that's not the actuality, so I'd suggest you stop being disingenuous on this issue.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
That is exactly when the man decides the act of sex is worth the potential 18 yr price tag. Nothing to do with abortion everything to do with caring where a mans sperm ends up.


Nice try, but no.

A man's sperm fertilising a woman's egg does not create a human being - this is defined by law.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the abortion issue, a human being is regarded as a baby that has been birthed, or has passed a certain stage of development in the womb ( depending on which country you live in ).

A human being is created in a woman's mind, after the conception has taken place; ergo, it's 100% the woman's choice and responsibility.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Feminism has nothing to do with this topic. Men who do not want to take ownership of where their semen ends up, that does have to do with the topic.


With respect, it does.

Men do not have ownership of where their semen ends up, because there is a ninth-month break after it ''ends up'' somewhere, that their rights and responsibilities are put on hold; that does not correlate with their supposed ''ownership'' of their mutual creation.

Suddenly, after a nine-month break, they have to reconvene this ''ownership'' and responsibility, purely because it benefits the woman.

This is where feminism comes in; or should I say the ''have your cake and eat it'' brand of feminism.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
When I bake a cake I always expect to eat it, and usually cut the best slice. What does cake have to do men running away from responsibility?


It's just an expression.


As previously explained to you, a man does not have a responsibility, because it is not his choice to have a child.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Women can have risk free sex? How so? They risk the same things as a man (being dumped std etc) except they risk getting pregnant too.


Of course it's not risk-free in terms of STDs and such, but it's risk-free in terms of the pregnancy department.

If a woman gets pregnant and she wants the child; she has it.
If a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want a child; she doesn't have it.

No risk involved.

Now compare that to the alternatives that may befall a man after being involved in the same act.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
But thank goodness men know the women they have sex with have the right to choose. Thus the mans choice becomes all the more important.


There's no ''man's choice''. Of course, I realise you are being facetious, but the fact of the matter is that a child being born is 100% the woman's choice, and consequently 100% the woman's responsibility.

It's not the man's fault that so many women lack personal responsibility for their actions, and look for the easy way out when they fail in their task of personal responsibility.










edit on 22-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: Messed up multi-quoting.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 





Maybe it should work like a public agency first if the man wants the baby, he should be screened to see if he can take care of it financially, and screened for mental issues that might cause damage to the child (some moms have great reasons for not wanting the father to have their child!) and if he passes, he should get to "adopt" the baby, just as any other family waiting for a baby could


Being "screened" for fitness both places the father in the position of "guilty until proven innocent," something not done with women, as well as illustrates the principle that his rights derive from her, not from his biological relationship with the child. Unequal, yet again.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


The court will probably rule that he waived his rights to decline fatherhood when he consummated his relationship with the woman. That would probably be better than a ruling that fathers have the same right to kill their offspring as mothers do.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I have said many times and still stand with the both parties should take full responsibility of any outcome involving sex. It should be taken very seriously. However in today’s society of instant gratification that is just not going to happen, in a perfect world yes, reality no.

What you have said here is exactly what BH, myself and other posters have been saying all along.


Originally posted by Annee
On a personal note - - - I would say no child should be kept if not wanted fully and the parent(s) do not have the means of support (both emotional and financially).

I personally don't think a woman should keep a child if the man is adamant about not wanting it.

I she decides to keep it - - I think it should be her own responsibility.

I think if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to tell the father (sperm donor) - - - best case scenario is to discuss it with mature intelligence. If the father wants the child - - it would be considerate - if she carried the baby to term. But then she could be financially responsible for support - - - same as a man would be.

Therefore - - in legal terms - - I can only look at the welfare and financial support of the child - - - who is completely innocent.



What if the man cannot support the child emotionally or financially, but the woman believes she can and decides to keep it?

This of course is not an option all men would take. I personally never would have taken it.

However, in today’s standards the woman can opt out of motherhood by having an abortion, putting the child up for adoption, or using safe haven. At this point, the man has no option of opting out of fatherhood.

Most of the posters here are asking for nothing but an equality in the choice of parenting. Granted there are some on here that are nothing but woman haters, but you have to admit that there are also some man haters on here as well.

Raist



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Human being status is granted at birth, so of course when that happens he must provide for what he made.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


i thought it took two to tango? or as you said earlyer she grows it as a parisite her growing it decided to force him to take care of it you cant have it bolth ways either its all the mens fault as you claim or as you have also said the woman grows it so its hers if its hers why does he have to help?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join