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: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck


I personally feel that if a man or woman engages in any behavior that has a known consequence (even with protection in place) and that consequence happens they should face those consequences. As it relates to the tread, yes both should face those consequences, sadly this day and age, one sex has more options in not facing the consequence of their actions than another, and that shouldn't be.
In this day and age one sex has more options? Have men and women only recently developed different sexual organs?


You realize abortion has been an option for thousands of years, do you not?




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck
I agree its is a consequence, but it is a consequence that she chooses to do to not accept responsibility. Yea its not cheap, but compared with 18 years of child support is definetly the cheaper option is it not?

So if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that she is being responsible by getting an abortion because its birth control?

I was under the impression the aim of birth control was to prevent pregnancy in the first place. If the aim of birth control is to prevent pregnancy then how is getting an abortion truly facing the consequence of having sex?


edit on 17-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)

By aborting she IS accepting responsibility. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Does it rile you that her taking responsibility by abortion is "cheap" compared to the man taking responsibility by paying child support?


Once again please do not put words in my mouth. I could care less how cheap or expensive something is. As I said in my post isn't the aim of birth control to PREVENT pregnancy? If that is the case how is an abortion preventing a pregnancy, and by extension how is she taking responsibility for it. let me make it simple....

The result (consequence) of unprotected sex is either a pregnancy or not correct?

If there is no pregnancy then no worries.

If how ever the result is a pregnancy both parties knew the potential outcomes correct?
How is her failure to PREVENT a pregnancy and getting an abortion facing the real consequences of having sex? All that does is take the responsibilty of the action (having unprotected sex in the first place, pregnancy or not) away.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by mayertuck


I personally feel that if a man or woman engages in any behavior that has a known consequence (even with protection in place) and that consequence happens they should face those consequences. As it relates to the tread, yes both should face those consequences, sadly this day and age, one sex has more options in not facing the consequence of their actions than another, and that shouldn't be.
In this day and age one sex has more options? Have men and women only recently developed different sexual organs?


You realize abortion has been an option for thousands of years, do you not?


Yes one sex has more option in handling the "consequences" of having sex (birth control, abortion, adotpion, etc vs. not having a choice), please do not try and misconstue what I am saying.

Secondly whether or not abortion has been around is entirely irrelevant. Just because something has been done for a long time does not make it right or not. Take how women were treated in the past, or how minorities were treated. Were those right, just because they were done for a long period of time?


edit on 17-9-2010 by mayertuck because: changed abortion being done in the past from relevant to irrelevant



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


You brought the quantifier of "cheap" into the conversation. Not me, so how did I put words in your mouth? I stand by my post.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   


Except when sex is involved, no sane man would give anyone the power over him that a woman gains when he fathers a child out of wedlock.
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 

Grady, that should be a published quote! As well as some should take very seriously. In some situations unfortunately we know it happens. I just feel that when a good man is willing to take the responsibility that the woman will not, the court should side with “life” and empower him to take control of the situation that they are BOTH responsible for.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna



Irrelevant and extreme take on my post. Do not put words in my mouth.


Its not extreme nor is it irrelevant when you're trying to argue what is alive and what isnt. Especially when we're talking about justified killings.


Again putting words in my mouth. One in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. Thus the reason for my thoughts on the matter. Until the heartbeat is detectable a woman can miscarry and not have a clue that she was even pregnant to begin with. And even after making it past the first trimester you can still miscarry.


I'm not putting words in your mouth, you just dont seem to like the points I'm making. Miscarriages have nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Lets stay on track here ok?

Week 3 of pregnancy:
While this embryo doesn’t look anything like a fetus or a baby at this point, the brain, backbone, and the cardio-vascular system – complete with a beating heart are beginning to form!

www.amazingpregnancy.com...

SO just because its not detectable means it doesnt exist? Or is this just putting words in your mouth?



I said that a woman seeking an abortion was preferable to her abusing and torturing an unwanted and unborn child. Not that unwanted children are better off dead. Don't put words in my mouth..


Well if she is caught abusing and "torturing" the pregnancy through normal blood testing then she can be charged with attempted murder, manslaughter, or child abuse. I dont know, pick one. If there is some kind of legal consequence I bet reluctant mothers will be more vigilant during their pregnancies. YOU are the one putting words in MY mouth by saying I would prefer abortion rather than the alternative. Wise up.


Which means absolutely nothing to the millions of children who are too 'old' or too 'damaged' to be considered for adoption and didn't make it into the system when they qualified as a baby. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all children in the system make it there when they are newborns and that is simply not the case..


We arent arguing this, so THIS point means absolutely nothing



Weekly blood tests to check for drugs in the system? Seriously? You weren't talking about tests the doctor runs for health reasons, you were talking about blood tests just to check for drugs. Major difference between the two. The former is part of a pregnant woman's care to ensure the woman is healthy and the pregnancy is progressing well. The latter was proposed with the intent to punish.


Yes, seriously. Are you that obtuse? Did you even read what you said? YES, blood tests to check for the overall health in the mother (and baby)FOR health reasons to make sure an overall health is maintained and also not compromised by harmful substances. These tests are routine for pregnancies. If a doctor observes indications a child is being abused by his examination in the office, he may contact the authorities. Why should a pregnancy be any different?


edit on 17-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: add



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
A little off the beaten path but, how about this: Would you believe that if a couple is married, and the woman goes out and cheats on the man, has sex with some other guy, and gets pregnant, the husband is responsible for that child until the age of 18, regardless if they get divorced after. Despite the fact that the child is not his. How does that sound for the rights of men!!!!


edit on 9/17/10 by xyankee because: correction



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


If pregnant women chose to abort should be forced to go full term and hand the kid over to the father who does want it? Statistically, how many fathers be like that out there? A tiny handful perhaps?

Now how many non-custodial fathers out there pay 50% of the day to day living costs of their child from birth to 18 years of age? How many non-custodial fathers out there pay zero and avoid it like the plague? Keep in mind more than half of these children brought up in single parent homes come from broken homes so they were once wanted by their fathers.

No man has the right nor would he ever be given the right to force a woman to go full term - period! In saying that, no woman has the right to force the father of her child to spend time with it but he DOES have the responsibility of paying reasonable child support whether he likes it or not and most men don't like it and all men complain no matter how much he pays - they even complain when they don't pay it.

And these so-called men's rights movements expect the women's rights movement to help them out? Pffffffffff

Grow up, be a man, take responsibility for your own actions, and stop blaming women every time something goes wrong in your lives.

In my opinion, if a man does'nt pay child support, I think jail time is too soft but forced in to hard labour jobs instead.

Takes two to tango!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
men should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the women. it may be growing inside of the woman, but it is just as much the mans child. if a woman wants to abort her child and the father does not, then she should just have the baby and let the father take care of it. i don't see the problem with this concept...


You may not see the problem with this concept but put simply, as natural as pregnancy is, women still fear it. If it was not for medicine then the death rate would still be considerate. A lot of the time after giving birth women’s body’s don’t return to how they were and there skin can be riddled with stretch marks. I feel that although it takes two to tango, if the woman has to carry the child to term (And she went about using contraception and still got pregnant) then she should have the final say over an abortion.

As for the actual topic, If the male in question can prove he used protection (Which could be difficult?) then he should have the right to decline fatherhood. However, i can only see this as being very messy and focused more on "can he prove he used contraception?"



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I have always said this. Actually, I have always said something similar to this.

I don't believe in abortion, though not because I believe it takes life or because of any religious beliefs I subscribe to. Rather, because it is the only way to make things equal between men and women. That or give the guy a window to choose not to participate.

Women, have a choice as to whether they have a child or not, while men aren't given that choice at all and will always be held financially responsible for both the women and child. So, if a male and female get together and accidently become pregnant, the female has a choice as to what her future will be like and whether the baby is born or not, while the man doesn't have the slightest say, eventhough he will be 100% responsible for the child if she decides to have it. On the other hand, if he doesn't agree with abortion or wants the child, it isn't his say and none of his business, until of course it comes to paying for the child.

In most cases, the guy is responsible for most, if not all of the costs (to include the costs to care for the mother too), yet he doesn't have a say as to whether the baby can be born or not. Is this fair? Why should a woman be able to choose, but not the man?

If the woman wants to abort the baby, she can even when it is against the wishes of the father. If she decides she isn't ready to be a parent, she can make a choice not to be. If the father wants to abort the baby, oh well, as he doesn't have a choice and he will be forced to pay for it. He has no choice but to become a parent.

There are only two ways to overcome this inequality and that is to either give the guy a choice or to ban abortions all together. If you get pregnant, you are becomming parents. If you give the guy the choice, then most immature and selfish guys would choose not to be responsible and you would have single mothers all over the place with no financial help and the children would ultimately suffer. If we installed that choice in men, I would argue that the choice would have to be made in plenty of time and in writing so that the woman can include the man's choice in her decision to abort.

It shouldn't only be a woman's choice as parenting involves both men and women. These days, men are forced to pay so the notion that men leave their girls over children never to be seen again is for the most part, wrong. This unless the girl doesn't know who the father is but by law, she can force guys to have paternity tests so that excuse is nill too.

I think that when a female learns of a pregnancy, she has to immediately tell the potential father and the father should have a choice as to whether he wants to become a parent or not. If she doesn't notify him or if he chooses not to become a father, then she can either abort or raise the child on her own. The system that we now have is simply unfair to men, men who aren't given a choice in the matter. The same men who are forced to brunt most, if not all, of the financial burden of the baby. It's simple really, if the women gets a choice but not the male, then you have sexual inequality pure and simple.

What if the guy wants the child but the woman doesn't? If she aborts, then she is a deadbeat, going by the same logic that is used to label deadbeat dads. If she gets the choice, then so should he. I am a single dad and I couldn't imagine if my ex-wife would have chose to abort.

Another thing that this would cut back on, is women trying to entrap men by getting pregnant either because they want to be with the man, make him pay or get a free ride through hefty child support payments. If a women is given the choice to abort, then a male should be given the same option, especially seeing how men bear the brunt of responsability when the baby is born.


--airspoon

p.s. some people may argue that the guy is given the choice by not having sex in the first place but that choice is also afforded to the female. She is responsible just as much as he is. Men should be no more responsible than women, when it comes to force and we should be given every choice that is given to them, pure and simple. I don't even see how anyone could argue against this point because to do so, you would clearly be sexist.


edit on 17-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


DNA tests prove parentage whether or not birth control was used. Test results positive? Tough luck. Deal with it.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
It is really weird this is even debated over. If we want to have equal rights, then there should really be those equal rights all the time, and not only when it suits the feminist agenda.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.


edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: missed a few words in all the excitement



Wow what a violent Heffer you are.

This is why women are property.. because they can't be rational.


edit on 17-9-2010 by HunkaHunka because: misspelling



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by xyankee
 


If pregnant women chose to abort should be forced to go full term and hand the kid over to the father who does want it? Statistically, how many fathers be like that out there? A tiny handful perhaps?

Now how many non-custodial fathers out there pay 50% of the day to day living costs of their child from birth to 18 years of age? How many non-custodial fathers out there pay zero and avoid it like the plague? Keep in mind more than half of these children brought up in single parent homes come from broken homes so they were once wanted by their fathers.

No man has the right nor would he ever be given the right to force a woman to go full term - period! In saying that, no woman has the right to force the father of her child to spend time with it but he DOES have the responsibility of paying reasonable child support whether he likes it or not and most men don't like it and all men complain no matter how much he pays - they even complain when they don't pay it.

And these so-called men's rights movements expect the women's rights movement to help them out? Pffffffffff

Grow up, be a man, take responsibility for your own actions, and stop blaming women every time something goes wrong in your lives.

In my opinion, if a man does'nt pay child support, I think jail time is too soft but forced in to hard labour jobs instead.

Takes two to tango!!!


Its funny how many keep drilling this ill-conceived logic that men should "man-up" or "take responsibility" when they also advocate women to have the option to NOT take responsibility and just abort the child.


Sometimes I don’t think people put a whole lot of thought into their so called "equal rights" rants and self-righteous statements.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


First of all, who are you telling to grow up? I hope you're not telling me to grow up. Please re-read your post and correct the grammar so that I can first understand what you are saying. Then I will respond.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Great subject and one that I have discussed with my husband many times.

My bottom line: If the man doesn't want the child and he signs papers to that effect within a reasonable time period (say 4 months into the pregnancy - so that the woman has time to get an early term abortion if she wants) it would "abort" the man's responsibility and any claim to the child.

The woman can then decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy, knowing that she will have to deal with it on her own.

Of course, there are problems that would have to be worked out. For example, what if she doesn't tell him that she's pregnant?


edit on 9/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: she got the letters mixed up.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Leave it to Ben H. to be the grounded female with an objective view point (from those I have read). Your right Bene. That is only the most logical stand for equality purposes. The man should be given the option to choose in enough time that the woman can consider that choice in her own decision.

--airspoon


edit on 17-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
[more

Azoria, just wondering if your refering to me? I don’t seem to be able follow you. All I am trying to say is it should be one way or the other. For some reason women seem to think that just because god decided that the woman would carrie the child to term, that they have more rights than men. Well, if they want to get all high and mighty about it, maybe they should realize that they them selfs came from the rib of man, and were created to be a companion for men. Maybe that should have been our choice in the first place.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
men should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the women. it may be growing inside of the woman, but it is just as much the mans child. if a woman wants to abort her child and the father does not, then she should just have the baby and let the father take care of it. i don't see the problem with this concept...


You may not see the problem with this concept but put simply, as natural as pregnancy is, women still fear it. If it was not for medicine then the death rate would still be considerate. A lot of the time after giving birth women’s body’s don’t return to how they were and there skin can be riddled with stretch marks. I feel that although it takes two to tango, if the woman has to carry the child to term (And she went about using contraception and still got pregnant) then she should have the final say over an abortion.

As for the actual topic, If the male in question can prove he used protection (Which could be difficult?) then he should have the right to decline fatherhood. However, i can only see this as being very messy and focused more on "can he prove he used contraception?"
When did male contraception become 100 percent effective? Only then can the argument you put forth be reasonable and if contraception were 100 percent we would not have eight pages of discussion.

A man does have access to 100 percent effective contraception.

Seems easier to me to use that method (abstinence) then to let the world know they are a dead beat by trying to "decline fatherhood".

The time to decline fatherhood is before it happens.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Your argument makes no sense. Males and females will never be the smae so they cannot have the same (equal) rights to their own bodies.

Not a difficult concept.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join