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

reply to post by Edrick


No worries, I know what you mean, I just don't want to alienate, those that actually can look beyond what the movement has become. I happen to agree with everything you say,just might be easier to differentiate them.

basically no matter what one "calls" themselves, I believe it is their actions show who they are.

reply to post by mayertuck

those that actually can look beyond what the movement has become.

Become... Eh?


No... the Women's Lib movement was designed from the start to be used as a instrument of population control.

Abby Rockefeller (b. 1943) — The eldest and most rebellious daughter (Of David Rockefeller), she was drawn to Marxism, was an ardent admirer of Fidel Castro and a late 60's/early 70's radical feminist who belonged to the organization Female Liberation, later forming a splinter group called Cell 16.[57] An environmentalist and ecologist, and an active supporter of the Women's Liberation movement, she also funded Ramparts, a left-wing magazine.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...




-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

Well that may be,regardless it has morphed into 2 main factions, 1 for equality and 1 who wants "female privledge" I for one would stand with anyone who's actions and philosphies strive for true equality regardless of what they call themselves. But that is just me.

reply to post by mayertuck

Well that may be,regardless it has morphed into 2 main factions

Yes... Those who fell for the lie of "Men and women are Equal", hook, line, and sinker.


And those who design the Lies.



You say that there is a Group of Feminists (the Good ones, If I am correct in assuming) that only want "Equality" as opposed to the "Mean" feminists.



As it stands now... Women in the Western World have More Privileges, and Less Responsibilities than men do.


So, if they really ARE for true Equality, we should start by Addressing the CURRENT INEQUALITIES, which would be the Feminine Privileges that Females in the western world Enjoy.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


yea if you get the chance check out ifeminist.com, pretty much what they are trying to do and acknowledge them. I actually found them by reading on Glenn Sacks. .

Originally posted by Edrick



And those who design the Lies.



*[snpped just for clarity for this reply]*


So, if they really ARE for true Equality, we should start by Addressing the CURRENT INEQUALITIES, which would be the Feminine Privileges that Females in the western world Enjoy.

-Edrick

I don`t believe Western societies could get this ...(pick a word)...UP! if it weren`t by design

You touched briefly on TPTB who were/are behind it.

Now even if by some miracle women as a whole saw the injustices,saw the inequalities,saw they were being used,I still doubt many more would speak up about it,why? why would they and lose their previleges over males.

The women that have been very vocal within these threads in support of the current system are the women of today who are aware of it imo.Some have made it so damn hard for myself to even treat as a woman.

Now if women were so hard done by and oppressed by men in the years gone by,why then were families stronger than today? sounds like the lesser of two evils to me when concerning laws,though I believe the vast majority of men in years gone by loved their wives,these feminists will say otherwise,just watch an old movie,women were still treated as something precous and to be loved cherrished and protected.

To me,today they`re riding proud and cheer on the coat tails of the NWO,while dragging the rest of us with them,mothers,fathers,men and women,sons and daughters.

Depopulation? yeah I can go with that...

I watching something the other night on TV and they were discussing Japans falling population rate,they said at the end of the show that by 2050 following the same decline as today, Japans population will be 1.

Though I also believe it to be much more than just population reduction,its about control,order out of chaos,for examples sake....at a pure guess I`d feel safe to say 50% of men in western societies have had their hands full with feminism affecting their very household,thats alot of men taken out of the way,for other major injustices for TPTB to better accomplish with less resistance and all they had to do to have this was remove mens/fathers rights and create a war between the sexes.

reply to post by gps777


Yeah.... it's spelled out quite plainly here:
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

Google: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.pdf

-Edrick (*Also the "Foundation Series"*)

Originally posted by gps777
The women that have been very vocal within these threads in support of the current system are the women of today who are aware of it imo.Some have made it so damn hard for myself to even treat as a woman.

Now if women were so hard done by and oppressed by men in the years gone by,why then were families stronger than today? sounds like the lesser of two evils to me when concerning laws,though I believe the vast majority of men in years gone by loved their wives,these feminists will say otherwise,just watch an old movie,women were still treated as something precous and to be loved cherrished and protected.

I'm not entirely sure that's true of some of the younger women; many people grow up just accepting any unquestioned social norms.

I'm still a young( ish ) man that grew up in the 1990s, and I just ''went with the flow'' with most social issues, not really questioning things such as abortion, child support etc. It wasn't that I necessarily actively agreed with them, but I didn't disagree with them.

Now, when I start thinking for myself about these sorts of issues, I realise the inconsistencies and double standards that arise from the current legislation.

So, I think it's likely that most younger women aren't intentionally upholding these double standards, but are just living their lives without questioning them.

The finger of blame should be pointed at the older women who went through the feminist ''struggle'', and have seen the tide turning, while knowingly accepting that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but still perpetuate the unfairness of these issues by accepting and supporting the double standards that are intended entirely to benefit their gender.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm not entirely sure that's true of some of the younger women; many people grow up just accepting any unquestioned social norms.

I didn`t mean to say or imply otherwise,to me that goes without saying.

I'm still a young( ish

) man that grew up in the 1990s

no need to rub it in.

But I`ve read some of your thoughts on these issues and know you have a good head on your shoulders and see these issues for what they really are.

, and I just ''went with the flow'' with most social issues, not really questioning things such as abortion, child support etc. It wasn't that I necessarily actively agreed with them, but I didn't disagree with them.

Your no lone ranger there pal,difference is nowadays at least most people are aware of what could/would happen in seperation/divorce,not so much luck for the people it affected when first initiated.

So, I think it's likely that most younger women aren't intentionally upholding these double standards, but are just living their lives without questioning them.

Well to me its ,monkey see monkey do,and they get that from their mothers,media,friends etc etc.

The finger of blame should be pointed at the older women who went through the feminist ''struggle'', and have seen the tide turning, while knowingly accepting that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but still perpetuate the unfairness of these issues by accepting and supporting the double standards that are intended entirely to benefit their gender.

Yeah I can agree with that,but I dont blame it on any women,the blame is on the laws and those who made them for our control.It only disgusts me when women see it (or even don`t see it) but use it to their personal advantage.

Also though when talking to older women they will commonlly say,"whats the matter with girls today?"

I just finished reading the link above that Edrick posted,its a darn good or I should say creepy read,some of it I have known from my own conclusions,as in it has to be by design,can we change it? doubt it.

reply to post by gps777

can we change it? doubt it.

How can you Ever learn anything, if you already know everything?

"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
-John F. Kennedy

-Edrick

reply to post by gps777


I am an older woman and never have I said or thought what is wrong with girls nowadays?

Girls born into today's world have an explosion of choices in front of them, how exciting to be a child of these times.

reply to post by joechip


You obviously haven't seen the parents and their children that I have seen.
Yes, some people SHOULD be screened before becoming parents. And since you can't pick them out of a lineup, that means ALL parents should be screened. Just. In. Case.
Parents abuse their children, parents RAPE their children, parents have and will continue to force their children into prostitution. It is not common, but it happens more than every once in a while, there are probably at least thousands of cases in N.America alone where a parent has sexually abused their child, and at least a hundred cases of forced prostitution by parents.
And as I said, there is no way for the government to do this kind of screening, because they would inevitably mess it up and use it to push their own agenda, instead of just making sure that these people wouldn't intentionally do anything that hurts a child.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the adoption process usually works out pretty well, mostly because of the way they screen people for instability. These methods are usually done by private agencies which have no ties to the government in terms of ideology, and unless they are some sort of "specialty" adoption agency, it is only an assessment of your ability to raise a child, not of anything else.


reply to post by Edrick


Yes. And if you give up a baby at birth, someone is taking care of it who has wanted nothing more than the ability to have a child, and yet has been unable to do so through a chance of nature.
Trust me, adoptive parents LOVE that people give up their children. It makes them happy and changes their lives and gives them exactly what they wanted. I highly doubt that any adoptive parents (who did so legitimately, not through someone just giving their baby to them without going through the "process") at any point wish that their child's "parents" had kept them.
Maybe when they become teenagers and act like total jerks, there might be those moments, but most parents have instants where they wish they had never had a child, be it the midnight feedings and lack of sleep, or acting up later in life. And they are just that, tiny fleeting moment. Especially for adoptive parents who know just how lucky they were to find a baby. The waiting list here for a newborn healthy baby is upwards of FIVE YEARS.
It is much better for a child's health to grow up in a home that wants and loves it, than to grow up in one resentful of the fact that they are banned from giving it up, by what I'm sure you think should be an enforced law.
If people were literally forced to keep their children, then rather than having dead fetuses who never gained consciousness, we would have dead babies and dead toddlers, because parents would either outright kill the child they never wanted, or they would neglect it due to not caring and not wanting to have it around anyways.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


Feminism is a Self Admitted Equality Movement.

Will You Address the Inequalities of the Females OVERABUNDANCE of Choice, Juxtaposed with the Males COMPLETE LACK OF CHOICE?




Listen little lady... You go have All of the Irresponsible Sex that you Want.

If you accidentally get pregnant (or intentionally), you can keep the baby, you can have someone else take the baby off your hands, you can Abort the Pregnancy, Or keep it and have the State track down the Biological Father to PAY YOU money, per month, for 18 years.


Listen son... You stick your penis in that hole, you have no more choices....





If She Says So.




-Edrick

Yes, some people SHOULD be screened before becoming parents. And since you can't pick them out of a lineup, that means ALL parents should be screened. Just. In. Case.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


I can see that you view the role of government differently than I, or the framers of the Constitution, or freedom loving people everywhere, do. As you are apparently Canadian, these attitudes may indeed be widespread and such a role for government deemed acceptable among your people. Presumption of innocence and privacy rights may not be important values in your homeland. I really wouldn't know as your country has never been of any particular interest to me. In America we still give lip service to these principles. Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee them. And some of us still actually embrace them. Nonetheless, they are considered a settled matter as far as broad principles of law are concerned. Therefore, pointing out cases that in fact contradict these assumptions of liberty and privacy is relevant to OUR system, and its incremental slide into a police state. I could really care less what nightmare of state tyranny you espouse. It runs counter to how we pretend to do things here.

reply to post by joechip


The deep deep irony of a representative from NOW talking about the "rights of the child" just about made my head explode. Is this some kind of genius pro-life social experiment or is this guy just a dumb-***?

reply to post by snusfanatic


I'm not sure exactly which guy you're referring to, would you please elaborate? I'm interested in reading anything that you feel represents a "deep, deep irony." This whole issue is rife with irony.

reply to post by joechip


hey there pretty lady....


i find this statement from the president of NOW deeply ironic:

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child.”

After all this is an organization that is so rabidly anti-child when it comes to unintended pregnancy that they often oppose laws that have nothing to do with the right to an abortion. Take for example the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which is the criminalization of a third party killing a woman's unborn child while committing an act of violence against the mother. Or take for example their opposition to expanding CHIP to cover prenatal care and delivery services, something that would undoubtedly HELP women.

NOW views any legislation or ruling that defines a pregnancy as anything remotely human as a threat, even when its unlikely to hurt reproductive choice and likely to help mothers. Now all of a sudden unintended pregnancy is about the rights of the 'child.' I understand that the greater context of this article has Gandy talking about child-support, something NOW is staunchly in favor of, but its the irony of those words coming out of her mouth that makes me chuckle a little in light of the examples I just posted above.

And I'm calling the plaintiff the dumb-a**. I think its a disgusting lawsuit.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Hey there yourself, pretty lady...

I can agree wholeheartedly with your perception of irony in the position of NOW.
I disagree, obviously, with your view that this is a disgusting lawsuit. And that its socially unacceptable status and lack of political correctness is in any way relevant to the law at issue.
I think, as far as the disparagement of the plaintiff's intelligence, I believe his legal team would be the appropriate target for such an attack, if anyone. I managed in about 6 hours of research and reading online to refute the court's dismissal, and showed the ground for it based on a misreading of Roe v. Wade. (see pg.68, posts #1 and #3) I would think his attorneys would have been more than able to prepare for this, and then overturn it upon appeal. Not even sure if they tried, I'll have to read up.
Perhaps the Bradley Amendment is the best and clearest illustration of the disregard for Constitutional rights when it comes to this issue, however, and I'm coming to realize, its weakest link may be the best place to start.
en.wikipedia.org...
Here's an excellent, in-depth piece that discusses both the legal and social problems with the current system.
ancpr.com...
Please attempt to get past your disgust in order to fairly address the underlying issues, legal and otherwise. Thanks.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For someone to claim that one gender is smarter or more powerful than the other is a sign of gross insecurity. And not AT ALL what this thread is about.

I'm superior to a one-legged man, at walking.

Obviously, I must be grossly insecure about having two legs.

Please, let's bring some logic to the table.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I am an older woman and never have I said or thought what is wrong with girls nowadays?

LOL.

And there was me thinking that you were an angst-ridden teenager when I was replying to you.


Seriously though, you should take on board what I've explained to you about child support and the legal status of a human being.

Abortion and child support are incompatible, because it's physically impossible for a man to legally create a ''child''.