Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 87
55
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Fiberx
 



You think abortion or giving up a child for adoption are walking away scott free? Ignorance of staggering levels.

Just to simplify it for you, what about carrying the child, even for a month? What about the hormonal changes, physical changes and psychological effects of pregnancy?


Oh Really?


Stress is a term in psychology and biology, first coined in the biological context in the 1930s, which has in more recent decades become commonly used in popular parlance. It refers to the consequence of the failure of an organism – human or animal – to respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats, whether actual or imagined.

Stress symptoms commonly include a state of alarm and adrenaline production, short-term resistance as a coping mechanism, and exhaustion, as well as irritability, muscular tension, inability to concentrate and a variety of physiological reactions such as headache and elevated heart rate.

en.wikipedia.org...

Because Men do not have Emotions, Feelings, Hormones, Etcetera...


Divorce leaves men ten times more likely than women to commit suicide. The "ten times" ratio is under normal circumstances of divorce. No season is less normal, of course, than the holiday season -- long-known as a breeding ground for depression and suicide. And for millions of men this double jeopardy of being a divorced man during the holidays is magnified when he has children he cannot see -- the holidays are the season of the Home Alone Dad.

www.ifeminists.net...


A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and
adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the
downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43
year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said
"You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.

Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the
past decade--as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II.
America is in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as
suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States
today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents. All
Americans recognize that our country is rife with violent crime, but few
know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered.

groups.yahoo.com...

Just as a Few Examples of the "Only Women Feel Pain" bull[snip] that seems to be going around.


What about the Psychological Trauma caused by not being able to see your kids, and yet still having to shell out hundreds, if not Thousands of dollars PER MONTH to the woman that denies you the Right to raise your children?

-Edrick (Your Avatar looks like a Reptile)




posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Becoming

You would have a point if no protection was used.

But they should have the right to decline fatherhood if the woman was on the pill and/or a condom was used and a pregnancy still resulted.


Under these circumstances both of the parties took a gamble upon the chances of pregnancy - as no form of birth control, other than abstinence is 100% effective. The use of a condom or believing a woman who says she is on the pill does not absolve either party of the consequences of their actions.


Originally posted by Becoming

Women have the right to decline mother hood if she chooses to spread her legs. Why must the father be held responsible if a one night fling ended up with a pregnancy and the mother chooses to keep the child?



I don't agree with this logic at all. A one night stand or not, if you're man enough to play, you are man enough to pay. Any man who has sex does so understanding the risks and chooses to run them.



His quote is better than yours. Explain to me why that logic is wrong. Women have a choice, men don't. Explain the fairness and why the logic doesn't apply?
If a woman has sex with a man, she can have an abortion, or she can give the child away. But the man has to let the mother take the decisions. Why can he not financially and legally step away from the table?



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CONFLAG

His quote is better than yours. Explain to me why that logic is wrong. Women have a choice, men don't. Explain the fairness and why the logic doesn't apply?
If a woman has sex with a man, she can have an abortion, or she can give the child away. But the man has to let the mother take the decisions. Why can he not financially and legally step away from the table?


*sigh*

As much as I dread entering back into this thinly veiled anti abortion, bitter male-o-thon, I will hesitantly reenter...

When anyone can bring me an article about a father who died in childbirth then we'll talk about "everything has to be exactly equal." Until such a time, this is all superfluous, ridiculous, and trite. Until this this whole debate is based upon false pretense, agenda, and irrational thought.

Yet, once again, I will explain the difference between an abortion and a father walking away from a live birth. One makes a baby that requires financial support, the other doesn't.

After what feels like months of this debate going back and forth, with no headway in either direction, I personally have just come to the conclusion that there are men in this world who are simply pathetic and sorry enough to try and find any reason to walk away from responsibility - to create rationals for doing so from whole cloth and then to try and mask it all in constitutional fairness - and there's not much most of us can do about it. Other than to voice our disgust.

Well other than have courts to mandate harsh terms upon those men - which makes the ones who want to be good fathers suffer as well... Oh, wait. That's what we have now. Thanks for ruining it for those of us who actually try to be good parents fellas.

Oh, and I do exclude those who simply oppose abortion here. Though a few of you really get under my skin, at least I can see the nobility of trying to argue in favor of life.

But to argue against feeding ones own child?

~Heff



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

And heff while I can see your point and would both sides "feed" their own child, that isn't the case. No if or ands about it. Women are allowed to walk away from feeding their child with many tools to allow them to do so. You want to use biology as a reason things are going to be unequal then thats fine. BUT every other argument where a way around biology is found should disappear as well for issues that benefit one sex.

And heff, you can paint such a wide picture, but I have not once tried to walk away from my children. As well as taking care of one who isn't biologically mine. While his biological father and mother have walk away from him, I am there. So NO I would never do such a thing but I see and support where a man should be able to if females are given so many chances to walk away. I would be overjoyed if people dealt with their responsibilities both male/female, and didn't have an out. And that is how I am teaching my kids, if you create a situation you deal with the consequences and get through it. Is it going to be hard, yes do people mess up you damn right, but the measure of a person is not whether or not a person makes mistakes, but how well they come back from those mistakes. .



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Mayertuck,

Obviously I did not include you in my broad statements, as they don't apply to you in the regard that you've had a rough experience and have still kept up with your responsibilities. I believe, a couple of months ago, I already ceded a respect for you and compassion for your situation.

The family court system in this country sucks. There is no debate there. Women can milk it. But so can fathers. I happen to have a friend now who has an 8 month old son by a guy who dumped her right after the baby was born and he's not paid a single dime in support. In fact I've bought the kid formula once because there was nobody else to do so and I could not stand to let a baby go hungry. And I am on unemployment benefits right now so it's not like I had the money to spare. The babies father, on the other hand, has a job but is keeping things held up in court because he has 3 other children by 2 other women and is crying that he's fresh out of resources to pay more child support (yet he can hire attorneys).

Imagine a world where this d-bag would be allowed to just "walk away" out of "gender fairness" from responsibility. In fact, don't imagine it because even with this system, that's what he is doing. If he was utterly free to do this, without any recourse or hassle, imagine the number of WIC vouchers and welfare checks that this ONE man would be laying at the door of society in general.

It is a very reasonable thing to say "Don't take your pants off unless you are prepared for the potential consequences". And yet, in this thread, over and over again, some males have resorted to arguments that even a school kid would laugh at. "It's not fair", "She tricked me by giving me sex", and the ever popular "She got was she deserved.". You'll notice the word "whore" has been used in this thread. You'll also notice that denial is in effect by the reality that the word "bastard" is not being bandied around. Oh, and another thing to notice, there is no derogatory, dirty, archaic term for a dead beat dad. That's because up until the last several decades, nobody held fathers to their responsibilities. Oh, you'll also notice that older literature and history books are replete with references to orphanages, homes for wayward children, and sweat shops which employed children. The fact that these laws came into being and these other entities have mostly disappeared are related. These laws, making fathers financially accountable are the reason that we no longer have these kinds of exploitations happening, and why there aren't nearly as many orphanages as there once was.

The benefits to society, and most importantly to the children by far and away outweighs all the "me me me" arguments that some in this thread have resorted to.

"Reproductive rights" is just a red herring for the real issues behind the veneer... A hatred of abortion for some, and a way to vent their anger about their divorces for others.

Kids are NOT ropes to be used in a tug of war. Not even in a rhetorical debate.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Imagine a world where this d-bag would be allowed to just "walk away" out of "gender fairness" from responsibility. In fact, don't imagine it because even with this system, that's what he is doing. If he was utterly free to do this, without any recourse or hassle, imagine the number of WIC vouchers and welfare checks that this ONE man would be laying at the door of society in general.


Imagine a world where all of their problems could be solved by either aborting the child before it is born, or living with YOUR decision to keep it.

Fathers should be responsible, so should mothers... alas so should society if that arrangement fails. These are, however, my personal moral standards and I will not force them on anyone else.




posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I know heff you have, but when you say statements like everyone who thinks this should be allowed is using red haerings and the such. I am no such animal nor can I speak for anyone else. The views I post are my views, regardless of the harm to society. In a perfect world both parties would be responsibile for their actions. Sadly that isn't the case, one gender gets the out and the other is expected to just man up. That is ridiculous in my opinion. And i know this is a longshot, but if a female knew that there is a possibility she would be held more accountable for her actions (i.e. if she decides to bring a life into the world) she might weild her choice more responsibily.

I just want both people to be held to the same standard, the way it is now smacks of the old jim crow laws. And seperate but equal is never equal.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
I agree with this member.If you want to play
adult games,then you have to pay the adult
price!


That is fair. And fathers should contribute to the costs of raising their child.

But the cost of raising a child should be based on the child's basic needs and requirements. Not "how much have you got?".

I saw an article once that stated the cost of raising a child to the age of twenty was near $600,000!

That's $30,000 a year! Not all kids end up being meth addicts!



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck

Sadly that isn't the case, one gender gets the out and the other is expected to just man up. That is ridiculous in my opinion. And i know this is a longshot, but if a female knew that there is a possibility she would be held more accountable for her actions (i.e. if she decides to bring a life into the world) she might weild her choice more responsibily.


We definitely diverge here. I have highlighted the above words to point out the one sided nature of them. The same can be said of guys and sex.

If a MAN knew that there is a possibility HE would be held more accountable for HIS action (i.e. if HE decides to risk bringing a life into the world) HE might wield HIS choice more responsibly.

But, of course, we are not focusing upon gender equality in this thread. That is just the pretense. It's the comfortable rationale for other issues. Namely misogynistic tendencies, anger at the womens rights movement, rejection issues, and pro-life agendas. Again and again men here are railing that women have all the choices. But the truth is that this rings empty. Men have plenty of choices as well. Such as the choice of not sleeping with women who would morally be capable of manipulating them. The choice to use, verify, and take precautions with birth control. And, probably most importantly, the ability to openly communicate their thoughts and beliefs about these issues to the women they choose to have sex with before removing their Speedos in the name of love or lust.

Again and again it has been pointed out that absolute equality cannot be created where none exists in the first place. Women have wombs, men do not. There is simply no way to make apples and oranges identical. Apples are apples and oranges or oranges. To say "Well if an apple can't be orange, then an orange should be made to defer to the apple." is nothing more than absurdity. Women have to physically carry a child, for nine months and men do not. Yet this simple difference in biology, time and time again, is ignored, marginalized, and painted over in this thread. It is sloughed off with a shrug. Yet this is the crux of the matter. This is the Rosetta stone of this argument. There can be no absolute equality in "choices" because there an inherent disparity of role and function.

The whole "Well she can have an abortion, so why can't I?" argument is fundamentally flawed from the start. The answer is glaring simply. She has a uterus and you do not.

YOU can have a vasectomy. She cannot. Shall we start a thread stating that women should have the right to force you to have a vasectomy if that wojman wishes to avoid the pitfalls so inherent in this thread? That if you refuse a vasectomy then SHE would be entitled to leave an infant upon your doorstep if one were to occur and to be totally free of liability from that point forward? Or a law that states the same for broken condoms, failed vasectomies, etc?

The "blade" of this whole "male reproductive rights" issue, over and over again, ceaselessly tends to want to cut only one way. In fact I honestly find the whole subject so excessively pedantic as to almost be beyond comprehension. Wanting to debate the morality, or lack thereof, regarding abortion is one thing - though couching the argument in these "clothes" is rather distasteful to me. But to truly believe that the answer to this "inequality" is to allow fathers to disavow their children, spuriously, and easily is at best naive and, at worst, pathological.


Originally posted by mayertuck

I just want both people to be held to the same standard, the way it is now smacks of the old jim crow laws. And seperate but equal is never equal.


Then write your Congressional representation and lobby against abortion. You have that right. And, frankly, with your level of opinion on this subject, the responsibility to do so. Become the catalyst for the change that you seek. If the SCOTUS bans abortions then it will be the law of the land and you can say that you had a hand in bringing this to pass.

But coming at this issue from such a backwards angle lends little credence to that cause. Demanding an equality that violates biology cannot be made to happen no matter what the motives or how motivated a person or group of people are.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I agree that we diverge, but as I pointed out before biology is easily avoided when it comes to other issues, yet here it shouldn't be the issue. Yes guys should be more responsible, I will be he first one to say they should, but the responsibility should not be one sided, which is is. I listed this in another thread, and I will link to it here:


Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

This is off topic, but you do they both do not have the same reproductive choices.
REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
Female
Abortion
Adoption
Reproduce
Condom
Morning After Pill
Diaphragm
Withdrawl
Absitnence
IUD
Depo shot
Keep the child
Unprotected sex

Male
Condom
Abstinence
Vascetomy
Unprotected sex
Willingly pay child support
Willingly have a child
Withdrawl




Might of missed some, now if gender isn't an issue shouldnt both sides of the above quick and dirty table have the same number of choices Regardless of what column their gender is? Now do they?


edit on 26-10-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)


Now you might say others are not focusing on gender equality, and as I said before I can only speak for myself and I am.

And as I have pointed out before that when it comes to biological differences accomendations are made for gender differences to "even the playing field" because of the biological differences. Not that I would want those to go away but your argument would carry more water with me if you took the same stance on biology should be circumvented (gender norming and the like), you may not like to think they are linked but they are, when you cut down to it we are talking about the difference between men's and women's bodies. There is nothing we can currently do at this point to change that. But in some issues that "shouldn't be an issue" and in this one issue it should be an issue, and a complete stop sign. I do not nor will I ever buy it.

Please do not try and misquote me, while I feel that women should be just as responsible for their decision (i.e no abortions etc) I know realistically that that will NEVER happen, nor would I want to force my way of thinking on anyone else. Everyone should make their own decisions and that will not change. If one "side gets a way to escape those responsibilities for their choices, then the other side should as well.

As for writing my congressman or representative 1. what good will it do? and 2. as i said before I do not wish to exert my will over ANYONE. I realize that I have a unique viewpoint (gained from looking at all sides, and the whole picture). While I know that a man can not have an abortion in a physical sense, he should have the right in a more figurative one. Especially since females have more than getting an abortion as an option in being able to not face their part of the consequences. I do not know how many more times I can say this, nor how to phrase this differently, but I believe it is wrong to let ANYONE escape from their responsibility MALE OR FEMALE. Yet we allow females to do just that with no corresponding right given to males. Whether I would personally do that is not an option for me, but for others they should have that option.

Now for this:
"But coming at this issue from such a backwards angle lends little credence to that cause. Demanding an equality that violates biology cannot be made to happen no matter what the motives or how motivated a person or group of people are."

But yet when it comes to gender norming or when it benefits one group over another its alright? Gender norming violates biology but it is a-ok right.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Why are you trying to make this thread about "anti-Abortionists"? This thread is about securing rights for men and asking women to be held responsible for their actions just like men are. It is about acknowledging that while women might undergo 9 months of physical labour, there is MUCH more to consider besides this TEMPORARY uncomfortable experience.

It is about bringing attention to the unfair social and legal advantages women have over men in these areas. Wanting equal rights and fair treatment for BOTH sexes does not make me a Misogynist. If the actions of Women's groups did not have negative consequences on Men and their rights, Men would have no problems with them.

I am all for helping women escape oppression and achieve happiness. What I do no support is giving them extra rights or preferential treatment over men in situations where they seek to gain at man's expense, while denying men the same freedom in areas they seek to gain because women seek to lose in these situations. This is very much the problem with modern Women's movements. This is what men such as me are speaking out against. It is not about being a Misogynist or feeling bitter towards Women.

edit on 12/11/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Why are you trying to make this thread about "anti-Abortionists"? This thread is about securing rights for men and asking women to be held responsible for their actions just like men are. It is about acknowledging that while women might undergo 9 months of physical labour, there is MUCH more to consider besides this TEMPORARY uncomfortable experience.


Funny. I thought the hundreds of posts in this thread citing abortion as a factor made abortion an issue here. My original statements did not mention abortion. In fact it was brought up by people on the other side of the argument from me. Read this thread and count the occurrences of the world "abortion", often in all caps, and then figure out the score on this one regarding which side of the debate seems fixated upon abortion.

When a supposition does not make sense without the underlying issue, then one can only assume that the subtext IS the actual agenda.

And as for asking for women to be held as responsible equally - fine. Show me a single documented case of a woman receiving child support for an aborted fetus or a child she gave up for adoption and then we'll talk. And as for pregnancy and labor being referred to as a "TEMPORARY' uncomfortable experience", very easy to downgrade and marginalize when one knows they won't ever actually have to walk in those shoes.


Originally posted by Dark Ghost

It is about bringing attention to the unfair social and legal advantages women have over men in these areas. Wanting equal rights and fair treatment for BOTH sexes does not make me a Misogynist. If the actions of Women's groups did not have negative consequences on Men and their rights, Men would have no problems with them.


If science ever develops a way for your sexual partners have the option and ability implant the fetus into YOUR body, then it's "equal". And as many others have done, you speak of this issue solely in a singular gender manner, placing ALL of the blame, responsibility, and pressure upon the female.

You do realize that child support came into being because men were NOT doing the right thing by their families. Right? If there had not been a need for these laws, they would not exist. Oh, wait, nevermind, it was those feminists and their Gynocratic fascism...



Originally posted by Dark Ghost

I am all for helping women escape oppression and achieve happiness. What I do no support is giving them extra rights or preferential treatment over men in situations where they seek to gain at man's expense, while denying men the same freedom in areas they seek to gain because women seek to lose in these situations. This is very much the problem with modern Women's movements. This is what men such as me are speaking out against. It is not about being a Misogynist or feeling bitter towards Women.


Over and over I read these same empty arguments and not ONCE have a I seen anyone on the other side of the issue say a single thing about the welfare of the child. Not once that I can recall. Just a bunch of "My rights" "my money" rhetorical regurgitation.

Explain to me how the ability to say "Oh, before you get dressed, just so you know, if you're knocked up I don't have to provide for the kid at all, so either get an abortion or raise it yourself. MY money is MINE." has anything to do with "Helping women escape oppression and achieve happiness"? This truly equals fairness and equity to you? Really?

Oh, I remember... The idea is that if she didn't want to risk pregnancy she should have kept her legs closed. Right? Never mind that there happened to be a guy present, and active, with the same option for avoiding a pregnancy. In this bizarro world we are seeking to create only women bear those consequences, because we're keeping things equal....

Of course the fact that abortion results in no child to support keeps getting ignored. Ignored because there is no way to counter it. So we just harp on and on and on with this false notion of equality that cannot exist because it is impossible to achieve. I again use word pedantic because that is the only word in my vocabulary that can describe what is happening in this thread.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Heff, one very simple question...

When you make a unilateral decision, do you think the law should ever hold someone else equally responsible for the results of your decision, under threat of jail?

If so, why? Can you think of any time that the law does this for you?

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Then write your Congressional representation and lobby against abortion. You have that right. And, frankly, with your level of opinion on this subject, the responsibility to do so. Become the catalyst for the change that you seek. If the SCOTUS bans abortions then it will be the law of the land and you can say that you had a hand in bringing this to pass.

But coming at this issue from such a backwards angle lends little credence to that cause. Demanding an equality that violates biology cannot be made to happen no matter what the motives or how motivated a person or group of people are.

~Heff


Has nothing to do with trying to ban abortion etc. etc. Generally the law holds us individually respoinsible for our unilateral choices. If it's only the unilateral choice of a Women that can create a baby requiring 20 years of support, than it's only a Women that should be held responsible.

You cannot say that a Man is equally responsible for creating a child requiring 20 years of support, and at the same time, say that all a Man helped to create was a worthless lump of tissue that the Woman can unilaterally throw in the garbage.

It's one or the other, it can't be both.



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You know what? This makes total sense. Of course people will say this is a contingency plan for dead beat dads and discussing this you run the risk of being labeled a misognist. However, it just makes sense, when women said "keep your hand's off of my body" it became their choice to have a child or not. Only the woman has the final say. Therefore how can the man be held responsible?



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You know what? This makes total sense. Of course people will say this is a contingency plan for dead beat dads and discussing this you run the risk of being labeled a misogynist. However, it just makes sense, when women said "keep your hand's off of my body" it became their choice to have a child or not. Only the woman has the final say. Therefore how can the man be held responsible?
edit on 12-11-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Heff, one very simple question...

When you make a unilateral decision, do you think the law should ever hold someone else equally responsible for the results of your decision, under threat of jail?

If so, why? Can you think of any time that the law does this for you?

Thanks.


We keep coming back to this "the woman made a choice to get pregnant and that's the whole of the issue" argument while ignoring the very basic reality that unless somebody steals your sperm against your will, then it was NOT a unilateral decision. It was the cumulative effect of the decisions and actions of both parties which result in pregnancy.

As for "equally responsible" I can assure you, from personal experience, that writing a check is nowhere near as demanding as actually raising a child. Any parent who thinks that paying child support is actually "parenting" or "raising a child" is sadly mistaken. The two acts are as disparate as is the core of this entire debate.

And regarding the "threat of jail"...


For conviction, there needs to be proof that the parent meets the following criteria:

* Delinquent payments over a year or the amount owed greater than $5,000, when child and non-custodial parent live in two different states
* Non-custodial parent was able to pay
* Intentionally did not pay


and further


You don't have to run from the law if you have the inability to pay child support. You need to make this information known and work with the court system in to try to find a way to provide as much as possible. There are counselors available that can help you budget the money you have left over each month after paying your support to your children. Child support may not be something you want to deal with for the next several years but a prison sentence will last much longer than that. Fulfill your duties as a father and take care of your children; your freedom depends on it..


Source

And, yes, regarding your specific query about other situations where the actions or decisions of another can effect you, I offer the legal concept of being an accessory to a crime.

But of course this is all non applicable to the subject at hand as we are talking about a situation that required two people to create and, therefore, rightfully requires two people to resolve. I speak specifically about the birth of an infant as a direct result of procreative practices engaged in by both the mother than the father. Both are culpable for the support of that child.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
We keep coming back to this "the woman made a choice to get pregnant and that's the whole of the issue" argument while ignoring the very basic reality that unless somebody steals your sperm against your will, then it was NOT a unilateral decision. It was the cumulative effect of the decisions and actions of both parties which result in pregnancy.


There are two seperate choices... one to have sex (and possibly cause pregnancy), then the subsequent (and unilateral choice) to let a worthless lump of tissue become a baby that requires 20 years of support.

I expect you knew that already.


Originally posted by Hefficide
And, yes, regarding your specific query about other situations where the actions or decisions of another can effect you, I offer the legal concept of being an accessory to a crime.


Generally not even accessories to crimes are held equally responsible for the results of the crime... but this is irrelevent since no crime is committed in the scenerio that we're discussing.


Originally posted by Hefficide
I speak specifically about the birth of an infant as a direct result of procreative practices engaged in by both the mother than the father. Both are culpable for the support of that child.


Sex and pregnancy does not cause the birth of a child requiring 20 years of support, only the unilateral choice of a Woman can cause that.










posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
A solution for men might be to copyright and/or patent their DNA /genetic code so if its used/abused for reasons without their permission or consent, they have some legal standing. Can sue, get royalties, get compensation etc.
What's owing in CS could be evened out with what the other side has to pay.
It probably sounds way out there, but with the law, it's usually by using other laws that are already out there and legal, that issues like this that are steeped in quigmire and stalemates, can experience a few breakthroughs.

Besides, If DNA tests can be used to get a man to pay child support, then why not copyright it first before it gets used to create a life to begin with and let it be known to those you sleep with, what the deal is. I'm sure those who are out to take advantage with an accidental on purpose pregnancy will lose interest very quickly when they realise it will cost them and they might owe you money.
edit on 12-11-2010 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Sex and pregnancy does not cause the birth of a child requiring 20 years of support, only the unilateral choice of a Woman can cause that.










WOW! You do realize it takes TWO to make a baby right? Men are just as responsible for an unplanned pregnancy as a women. You both caused the pregnancy. If you are soooooo worried about a 20 year burden as you seem to look at it then wrap your pecker! I know it's not "cool" to suggest a condom but you know what it's better than an unwanted child or disease. Why not be the smart one, someone should make that decision and if neither do and a child results you are BOTH at fault and should be responsible for the care of the child.





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join