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

page: 85
55
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I would agree as long as the same penalty would apply with females that decide on the adoption thing.




posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck


I will say if its true it is impressive. Still doesn't forgive the bias, but hopefully the shell can be cracked and can wake another person up.



Your a lot more optimistic than me MT,to get to her age and still see men as only whinning lazy good for nothings that are bed ridden from a snivelly runny nose,now that will be one hard nut to crack,but I`m a boilermaker by trade and can swing a mean sledge hammer,I`ll give it a crack,but wont waste my time either.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


What part are you referring to?
The jailable offence if contact is made before the age of 21 bit?

If so, I agree too.
edit on 29-10-2010 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I think the issue will be moot as long as men can't carry a child.

I'm big on equal rights for all but there are some things such as child rearing that I have very low regard for. As you guessed it I don't have children and have no plans to have any. I think everyone should have to be approved to have children just as they must be approved for marriage. A couple should not be able to bring a child into the world if they cannot provide a stable household (which includes both financial and mentally). Pregnancies should occur through artificial means only. Men should receive vasectomies if they are going to be sexually active with multiple partners and sperm stored for said said approval. Women should receive tubal ligation (tubes tied) and healthy eggs stored. I don't like the state having control over who reproduces more than the next guy but think about my next paragraph before you blast me for the first one.

I realize this is a very cold way to look at it but really think about this. Why would anyone want to bring a child into this world right now anyway. Food is short in some countries, no one has any jobs, economies are failing everywhere, rape murder and violence are at an all time high, 1/3 - 1/2 of the world is at war and live in poverty and we're pushing 7 Billion people on this planet which exceeds planetary saturation levels. Not to mention the social agencies are biting at the lip to get you, your child and everyone into the system so they can assume more control.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Stryker Ops
 


Sterilising the population has long since been a fantasy for the eugenics fetishists. But that's all it is; just a fantasy.

For the State to have control over who reproduces, would not just mean that the entire adult population would be required to have a sterilisation, but all pre-pubescent children would need to be, as well.

As no decent parent would let their child be sterilised, it would mean the State would have to kidnap, drug and operate on these children, against their parents' wishes.

Are you really sure that that's what you'd want ?


Aside from the ethical problems, you can see that it would be a logistical impossibility to implement mandatory sterilisation of the population.

Theonly way that large scale eugenics of this nature can be achieved, is to kill off ''undesirable'' members of society.

And I think that most humane people would find that option even more morally reprehensible than forced sterilisations.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I actually agree with you 100% but I was trying to convey an understanding that right now sucks to be bringing any child into this world and isn't worth the hassle from everybody else.

I'm kind of backtracking here but I really don't support depopulation in any form. I think that is a last measure only but let's face it 7billion people and counting.

It's unfortunately a reality but many younger generations are growing up with complete lack of control and respect. It seems that values are being bred out of society and not in.

This is all completely off topic I guess but in reality I think that men and women should have the same rights to custody of a child. If that child is unborn then the man should support the woman in any way necessary to make sure that baby comes out healthy (this includes mental health bills as well because it will most undoubtedly affect her psychologically.) I don't know how I feel about abortion and I feel adoption is wrong in terms of the state. If couples are giving up their child they should be able to choose what family raises them and if they want contact throughout. This would implement a style of child raising which draws communities closer. Way too many thoughts about all this to sum it up but I support equal rights all the way through but the issue to me is moot until men can carry children.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





Aside from the ethical problems, you can see that it would be a logistical impossibility to implement mandatory sterilisation of the population.


I dont think so. Just consider the amount of health services already provided and payed for by government, some countries have their entire health system implemented this way. It would be certainly logisticaly and financialy possible to implement such a thing, if the government wanted to. Its just one quite minor surgery.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
This is the best vid I`ve seen on the truth of male female violence.

Where men get screwed over by the media,law enforcement etc.




posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 

Yea sorry I didn't specify.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 

Don't know if its optimism or not, but I know people can and do change if they get the right info and and a willingness to have an open mind. .



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by gps777
 

Don't know if its optimism or not, but I know people can and do change if they get the right info and and a willingness to have an open mind. .


Patience as well as optimism,a couple of things you still have(and good for you MT) I ran out of those dealing with those types of women,who can only see men as abusive unproductive lazy unfaithful cheating oppressive etc etc

These are the sort of women who then blame it on men when they can`t find a good one or hold on to him.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


So 90% of all non-custodial fathers pay child support....

how many pay REASONABLE and FAIR child support?

All the stats claim is 90% of all non-custodial fathers pay some kind of child support and my bet is a majority of them don't even pay enough to purchase a month's worth of bread and milk.

In my view, non-custodial parents should pay 50% of all day to day living costs of raising his/her child in a reasonable home. Your 90% of all non-custodial fathers most probably pay less than 1/3 of those costs (if that!).



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


I don't have a need to impress anyone....my story is probably one of hope for any single mother/custodial parent who thinks there's no light at the end of the tunnel especially going through economic hardship of which happens to a majority of mothers (whether you like to believe it or not) - anything is possible if you set your mind to it. It's called "an idea-wit-hard work"; with that combination, the sky's the limit. For women of today, my advice to them is this...depend only on yourself, and when you do need a man, it's cheaper to pay for an accountant or a bank manager.

The generation of both men and women is what I call the Generation Me. INTIGRITY is a VERY rare commody to find these days. I've only come across three throughout my whole existance so far to date. They are my two sons and a best friend's hubby (he's only 34 years of age).



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5

I don't have a need to impress anyone



By what you have posted within these forums I don`t believe,no.



my story is probably one of hope for any single mother/custodial parent who thinks there's no light at the end of the tunnel especially going through economic hardship of which happens to a majority of mothers (whether you like to believe it or not)


Yeah right,cause there`s no economic hardship for non custodial fathers,which you blatantly leave out.


[Snipped the rest of the dribble]



They are my two sons and a best friend's hubby (he's only 34 years of age).


So yeah in your entire life there is only one male who isn`t a family member with any quality!

Your a man hater through and through.Biased to yourself and women.

Men pay much more than women in child support,and if more men were to get custody of their children as many of them would be a better parent than the mother,I`d bet there would be a large percentager of those men that wouldn`t want a cent from their ex.Not that a large percentage of women would pay anyway,as the real stats show.But please continue in your self glorification, you may fool some.

Oh and I`m also not fooled to think woman in general spend child support only on and for the children,yet non custodial parents (heavily fathers)don`t get a say on what or where the money is spent.

I`ve been there 20 years ago,seen the other side,that you don`t and refuse to see.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


So first it was that they don't pay.

Now it's that they don't pay enough?

90% pay what the courts have deemed is enough.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I dont think so. Just consider the amount of health services already provided and payed for by government, some countries have their entire health system implemented this way. It would be certainly logisticaly and financialy possible to implement such a thing, if the government wanted to. Its just one quite minor surgery.


It's not logistically possible when you consider that many people would not allow this procedure to be carried out on them willingly.

This would mean that for each person who refused, you'd have to send people around to take them away by force, which wouldn't be practical ( or lawful ) in a country with millions of inhabitants.

Not to mention all the doctors and surgeons who would refuse to carry out forced sterilisations because it goes against the Hippocratic Oath.

It's just not logistically possible, regardless of ethics.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Stryker Ops
 


I agree that it doesn't seem to be a good time to bring children in to the world, but you could look at it in another way:

Maybe bringing in more children to the world, will create a larger generation that can fix many of the problems that previous generations couldn't or didn't.

But that thought is probably a bit idealistic and over-optimistic.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Why should noncustodians pay fifty percent of the kids living expenses?

If a parent wants custodial primary, then they ar also taking on primary expenses and housing and such is one.

If my boy comes all summr I still have to pay child support for the months he is with me.

CS is like food stamps, meant to supplement the child's support and contribute towards part of the kids care. The primary custodian assumes primary finances too, since that parent also gets to raise the child.

If you cannot raise a kid without childsupport, why did you have a kid in the first place?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
i think its hilarious how for 85 pages you all have just gone back and forth about whos livelihood should go unhindered.

the childs, or your own. ill just make it simple right now and say you that it cannot be both.

either you get your way and the child lives a crappy life. OR you just have to deal with whatever it takes to give that child a good life.

so stop being all picky choosy.

i see the same people parroting the same defense from 2 completely separate positions.

"i shouldnt have to _______"

"the child shouldnt have to ______"

IF YOU WANT ONE YOU HAVE TO FORGO THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

i also find it hilarious, the amount of sentiment focused on "rights" associated with this topic, yet on other topics when they straight up tell you that you have no rights or say in the matter (like healthcare reform, patriot act, monetizing debt etc...) NOT A PEEP....not a single peep!!!



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
either you get your way and the child lives a crappy life. OR you just have to deal with whatever it takes to give that child a good life.

so stop being all picky choosy.

i see the same people parroting the same defense from 2 completely separate positions.

"i shouldnt have to _______"

"the child shouldnt have to ______"

IF YOU WANT ONE YOU HAVE TO FORGO THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.


Then you pay for 20 years under threat of jail even though you aren't responsible for a child existing. Sure, you shouldn't have to... but if you don't, the child will live a crappy life.

My body, my choice, our responsibility... does that work for you?






top topics



 
55
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join