Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So, is it really a female choice?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Greetings,

There seems to be some sort of disconnect when it comes to women and pregnancy and who exactly is responsible by percentage. I would never be one to try to narrow such a thing down to simple numbers but it would seem the female community is forcing me to push the issue.

Here are the facts, they are not chauvinistic, they are not biased and they are blind when it comes to gender or the argument at hand. Any women in the United States can choose within the proper time to parent a child or abort it. No women needs the consent of the male who possibly fathered this "child". It is as of now completely and totally the females decision and at her total discretion. Those are the facts.

Given this very simple and ridiculous fact I submit that the assertions that the male / female relationship as it pertains to children in the country under current family court law is completely insane. The state has no way of knowing the situation of each specific case and given the fact that the female has rights well and beyond the male they have no jurisdiction to decide the ultimate outcome of the situation, yet they do anyway.

If the women is afforded the right of ultimately deciding the outcome of the pregnancy and is complete control of the outcome regardless of what the "father" may think, why is it then that the male is held responsible for that decision should he not at all agree with it? There is a fundamental flaw in logic here that people do not want to speculate on because somehow they think they are a bad person if they do. Nobody wants to talk about abortion or dead beat dads or abusive mothers but these things all happen, every day........ Wake up.

If women want the freedom to control there own body above all other ethical and moral laws then they should have to exercise responsibility to earn that right by just saying no to a government check and entitlement programs and should not be allowed too say..... Should of worn a condom. Don't you see how that is a cop out on a responsibility of a freedom that has not been earned?

The response to any thread about a guy getting 10 girls knocked up is castration, being put in prison or living the rest of that mans life in poverty. To my utter horror is the lack of outrage towards the mothers. What in Gods name entitles women in that variety to continue on, having unprotected sex with random guys to no end when they have fought so hard to tell everyone in the world it is THERE body and nobody will decide what is right for them? Fine then, it's YOUR body, nobody will make the choice for you but how about you make the choice for yourself?

This is becoming out of control now. Having children is not a full time day job to acquire state benefits and the time for going to court to get more money for the sperm donor you choose will be coming to an end very soon. My advice..... Very simply is, ladies, take a little better care of your bodies and your choices, you flaunt the fact that it is your body and your choice and if that is truly the case, be a little more careful in how you make those choices.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Hi Helious,
I'm not understanding where you are going with your OP. Are you against women getting pregnant in the first place or women having abortions? Also, you mentioned condoms - are you saying that women are supposed to make a man wear a condom? If so, then how do you prepose they approach this, gunpoint? I'm asking because I know a few women who have run aground for not refusing the man they loved for risk of losing them, and in each case the man did not pay for the proceedure or child support.
I do agree though that women should dump said creep because they didn't give up the ring first. Known keepers and aborters and none of the keepers are on welfare or collecting a check from said male donor as you call them. But if you are saying that men absolutely have no say - I say that is not true. After all, that's who condoms and vasectomies are for.
And no, I have no children. I'm high risk & can't concieve.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Why is it that the same women who protest and decry against animal cruelty and whaling are the ones who would die to defend their right to kill unborn human beings?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that women should not be able to have an abortion without the fathers signature as well? If so how do you go about this if she doesn't know who the father is? Save me the "then she's a whore and doesn't deserve rights crap" because I'm fairly sure the number of women doing random guys is pretty close to the number of guys doing random girls, both sexes do it, men probably a bit more than women but I still wouldn't put much money on it being too far off from about even in these days. Another thing could be what if the supposed father skips out on her after finding out that she's pregnant and us unwilling to sign anything? How would they go about proving the father early enough for abortion? Also we should remember that of women having abortions prevents the need for welfare. Or would it be better to have the child born but still refuse welfare and let it starve to death? I think abortion would be a better option than that and I'm not typically a supporter of abortion unless the mother will just plain be bad - in which case she should just go the adoption route imo, unless she's a junkie - we shouldn't force a child into this world just to be born retarded because of some morons stupid decisions. I will argue that abortion should not be illegal and I will provide good reasons why but I still don't think it should be used as a form of birth control - that's just sad in my opinion. But correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that you have thought this out and you knew very well beforehand that this would be a good way to prevent abortions in most cases because it's going to be pretty difficult to prove who the father is if he doesn't care - so they can't get an abortion til proving the father therefore no abortion.
edit on 27-5-2012 by doomedtoday because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Well, things cannot be completely equal because biology is not equal. But I do think that we should also give men the right to choose, something like a "male abortion". Not that they could abort the foetus, but they should have the right to give up their parental rights and responsibilities up until abortion limit just as women do. That way, if a man does not want the baby but only the woman does, he will not be forced to take care of it.
edit on 27/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Why is it that the same women who protest and decry against animal cruelty and whaling are the ones who would die to defend their right to kill unborn human beings?


I dont see any hypocrisy in this, since higher animals and whales are sentient (thats the reason animal rights activists want to protect them), and fetuses (at least until 20 weeks) are certainly not.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Its a very similar situation in the uk, our goverment rewards single benefit claiming mothers with all manner of goodies. A recent change has been that along side all the goverment benefits, they can now also keep every penny of their maintence, good work if you frequent decent clubs, mate with men on decent salaries. Three children whos fathers are on 50k per year, must entitle the women to 1o k per child.


men should definately have the right to choose whether or not they are prepared to parent and maintain a baby that isn't born within a long term relationship.

A very close friend on a very large salary, saw so many of his friends get totally screwed over by women, that even when married, he refused to have children, unless the wife payed half of all child related expenses. His thinking was that if they divorced, he was not going to be paying 30 k per year maintenance, thats more than many earn.


Too many women today have so many children, by so many fathers, it totally undermines our financial system. Our sense of morality was developed over many centuaries, it worked in the main and now is totally ignored and called old fashioned and is seen in a negative way.

While I feel that to go back to a situation where an unmarried women could not keep her baby, would be cruel, I do believe that something needs to change, to protect the millions of children who don't know who their father is, or don't see their dads, as the man isn't interested.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
The system is flawed and I think it takes more responsibility on both sides of the fence. A man knows the possible outcome of irresponsible behavior as does the woman. I think some of the child support obligations are way too high and need to be fixed so that the man can afford to have a life.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


though if the woman has custody of the child, the man is always going to be in a better position to pay for it. Maybe in these times of 'seual equality" we need to look at flipping the roles around sometimes. I'd be happy to sit around and bring up kids rather than work a crappy job to pay support for kids i don't see... just a thought from a man with no kids...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
A man has the easiest way of preventing this situation "COVER IT" .cheap & effective. I do also believe a man should have the right to opt out & that is it no come backs to the child. For a man to decide if a women should abort.....NO sorry that should never happen aswell as making a women carry a baby. Unfortunate for males.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Why is it that the same women who protest and decry against animal cruelty and whaling are the ones who would die to defend their right to kill unborn human beings?


because they are sane and rational, and they know the difference...you people need to get a new line...how does one kill something that is unborn? i guess if you eat nuts, you kill trees,... if you eat eggs, you kill chickens,...if you eat caviar, you kill fish,... if you eat wheat bread, you kill wheat plants

but if you go to war and kill people, you're patriotic



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by theGreatunhosed
 


I want to correct that notion you have that raising children is easy. A good parent does not "sit around." When you have kids, and you care about them, you do things with them. You lay aside your life for the time it is necessary to raise them. You teach them and guide them. You protect them, you feed them, you bathe them. You hold them and comfort them, you have sleepless nights because of them. The list goes on and I'm sure you get the idea.

I don't think you necessarily meant it the way it sounded, but a lot of people think being a housewife/househusband is easy. It's not. It has wonderful rewards though if you are strong and diligent.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ellie Sagan
 


i was being flippent. You're right of course...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


I think its fairly simple. The state supports irresponsibility and at some point will justify involuntary sterilization.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join