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

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ok I get what you are saying I think, the woman ultimately decides whether to keep it or not? That is true I will agree but it's both parties fault for the woman having to make that choice...and you being a man you will have no idea how that choice affects a woman.

I've had friends break down in tears because a girl threw their unborn "baby" in the trash. I've also had friends breakdown over becoming a Father when they knew they weren't ready. Saying that Men can't imagine etc. etc. I think is very disrespectful. I would never say "you're not a Man so you could never imagine what it's like to have the person you love kill your unborn baby" because I know you CAN probably imagine that (because you're not a retard).

Just because a choice is difficult, doesn't mean that you should be able to hold someone else equally responsible for the results.

Originally posted by Hefficide
*sigh*

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

I entered this thread at about 40 or 50 pages, so I can't comment on any content that appeared on these previously pages.

I have not seen much since I started reading this, to suggest that this is a ''thinly veiled anti abortion'' thread.

The rights and wrongs of abortion are completely irrelevant to this debate, as I've already outlined; the relevant factors of this debate are logic and equality in the legislation surrounding this issue.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

This is a logical fallacy that you are stating.

What have cases of maternal mortality got to do with anything ?

A woman can die through child-birth; we know that. Quite what this has got to do with the illogical laws that we are debating, I do not know.

The only false pretenses, agendas and irrational points that are being brought up, are by those that wish to see the continuation of demonstrably unfair laws regarding reproduction, potential reproduction, and responsibility for this reproduction.

Your above post typifies the lack of logic that is used by supporters of these laws.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

The one that makes a baby that requires financial support is 100% the woman's choice; ergo, it's 100% the woman's financial responsibility.

This is the basic logic that seems to be eluding so many people in this debate:

A child is created in a woman's mind. To expect a man to legally pay for a woman's whim of fancy is not only ridiculous, but logically unjustifiable.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

And here's your problem.

You are bringing emotion in to a debate that is based on logic.

Your above point is once again a demonstrable logical fallacy; I believe the ''false dilemma'' or ''black and whIte thinking'' fallacies.

In no way can it be logically concluded that someone arguing for a man's right to legally walk away from the responsibility of fatherhood, is someone that would actually condone such an action.

You're using the ''if you're not with us then you're against us'' argument, I'm afraid.


As I've previously stated, if I accidentally get a woman pregnant, then I'd do everything I possibly could to financially and emotionally support the child.

Just because I personally believe this to be the correct cause of action, does not in any way mean that I believe that all men should have to live by own personal moral philosophy.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

There is no way that advocating gender equality in reproductive rights could possibly ''ruin it for good parents''.

Sounds like emotional blackmail to me.

Originally posted by Hefficide
But to argue against feeding ones own child?

Ah. there we go !

The ''appeal to emotion''.

I think you've given an example of just about the full-set of common logical fallacies in this thread...

Well done !

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

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.

I think what this poster was saying, however, is that yes it takes two to make the child, but the mother does not need to involve the man whatsoever if she chooses to have an abortion. If it takes two to make the child, the father should have a say in if the pregnancy is to be terminated.

I really can't understand how a female can have a child if she can't afford to raise it herself.
If the potential main caregiver is broke, then what kind of life is this child going to have?
There are currently over 2.5 million children living with people who aren't their parents in America.
This doesn't include in foster care.

What happens if the father dies when the child is still young? Who is going to pay for the child then?
What if the father is incapacitated through an accident or ill/mental health and can no longer work?
Who is going to pay for the child then?
I mean we are all just assuming that every man is earning a motza and can provide a lot towards a child anyway.
What if he just a burger flipper on minimum wage? Is a few bucks a month going to cut it for you, cause that's all your going to be getting anyway cause that's all the guy will be able to afford.
So for gods sake, I wish women would just wake the hell up and smell the coffee.

If YOU can't afford a child, then either YOU close your legs, OR make sure you're taking the pill, using condoms and put in a diaphram for good measure. And hey, next morning take a morning after pill and this scenario won't even need to happen.
We can all enjoy sex and our sexuality without it ending up in childbirth for gods sake.
What is this? The 1900s?

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
WOW! You do realize it takes TWO to make a baby right?

No, it only takes one to make a child ( a legal person ).

This is the mother; the father has no control over the child's creation.

This is defined by law in just about every country in the Western world.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Men are just as responsible for an unplanned pregnancy as a women. You both caused the pregnancy.

Yes, they are both responsible for the unplanned pregnancy, but only the woman is responsible for the child.

Pregnancy does not equal a child; this is defined by law.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

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.

This argument is beyond shallow and overly dry. "It takes TWO to make a baby, so ONE of us should be making all of the choices based on their body parts because in this bilateral decision, we hold the MAN responsible for wearing a condom and not breaking it, and hold the WOMAN responsible for making a the decisions about it. Obviously this works in my favor or you wouldn't hear me defending it.".

Condoms are not foolproof.

Please stop the onslaught of shallow regurgitated feminist propaganda.

Use your brain and think critically; you'll see that these laws are simple balancing mechanisms and they have absolutely nothing to do with misogyny or lack of responsibility, but have everything to do with freedom and equal rights.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

You are missing the point. Yes, there are members who are against Abortion and are perhaps channelling their anti-abortion views through this topic. This does not however take away from the validity of the argument that women have disproportionately favourable rights in these areas.

If a woman wants to give birth to the child and the man does not, woman have the legal power and social right to have the baby regardless. If a woman does not want a child and the man does, then the woman still has the legal power and social right to abort the child regardless.

Get why the issue of ABORTION is often cited?

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

Fair enough. But perhaps you are assuming the supposition does not make sense before you have read the arguments put forth by those with an opinion that differs to your own?

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.

Apples and Oranges. You know that. But I am sure other members probably could find such information if they believed your comparison had a basis in reality.

I am not downgrading or marginalising the experience of pregnancy. I am placing it into CONTEXT of the overall lifetime of a potential life brought into existence. Something which is often ignored by Feminists and echo-Feminists in their quest to demonise men and treat women like over-sized children.

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.

Apples and Oranges for the first part, again.

No, I expect women to be held to the same standards - especially when it comes to taking RESPONSIBILITY - for the situations they find themselves in. If a woman wants to give birth to a child she cannot afford to raise on her own, then she should be held accountable for giving birth to that baby. But asking women to take responsibility in areas they are expected to make sacrifices has never been very popular among those who promote themselves as Women's Rights advocates.

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...

I don't have the energy nor desire to address how illogical this paragraph appears. Other members have posted quality information that refutes such ignorance many times but it keeps getting ignored. So what's the point really?

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.

Sure you have, plenty of times. Have you noticed myself and other members mentioning the 18 YEAR old life that is brought into the world? Have a read through the thread and you will find the LIFE is referred to lots of times, just not using the phrase "think about the children".

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?

What a pity you keep dodging the issue by trying to discredit myself and others just because we don't agree with the way the current system is set up.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this. Men such as myself want both MEN and WOMEN to be given the same rights and RESPONSIBILITIES. Responsibility as in being held accountable to the decisions one makes and how it will affect the lives of others. Right now women have the best of both worlds in the sense that they get all the RIGHTS that men get, but they CHOOSE the responsibilities they want to have. When these responsibilities do not suite them, they play the "women's oppression" card and want out of these responsibilities.

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....

If men are told that the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sex, then isn't it fair women are given the same advice? Given that men are biologically and psychologically programmed to desire sex more often and with more intensity than women, isn't this already unreasonable? Include the fact that the risks for women are greater (having to endure ~9 months of physical labour), this should be more reason for women to be extra careful about who they do spread their legs for.

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.

Your last paragraph is a good indicator of how out-of-touch you happen to be on this issue. You are ignoring the fundamental issue: the father's rights in the context of pregnancy and the aftermath. Abortion is a convenient option when it supports the desires of the Mother. But what happens when it doesn't match the desires of the mother? It becomes the escape for the man who doesn't want to support raising a child.

Funny how your earlier "concern for the child" evaporates when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't. You are not too fussed about defending a mother's right to bring a child into the world she cannot support, but you waste no time criticising a man for wanting the same. Why the hypocrisy?

It's really all about the woman's right to choose...we concede it as a given in this country. Okay, then, her right to choose implies an inherent ownership, and resulting natural responsibility for her body and the processes thereof. As owner, it should be obvious that responsibility fall upon her.
It (usually) takes more than the owner of a business, alone, to create goods and services, however when a financial liability ensues, it falls upon the owner, even if the cause of the liability were equally shared among one or more employees. Not a perfect analogy, I know, but the direct and natural relationship between "ownership" and sole responsibility for one's choices shouldn't have to be illustrated metaphorically. It it obvious. Men couldn't even be said to be equally responsible for a pregnancy (since it occurs in her body, which she is responsible for) but to extend that responsibility to the financial facilitation of her choice to have a child is truly counter to logic, fairness in law, and all common sense.
If you have the sole choice, you (should) have the sole responsibility. Find a single example anywhere else where this does not hold true.
That's a challenge.

Originally posted by joechip
If you have the sole choice, you (should) have the sole responsibility. Find a single example anywhere else where this does not hold true.
That's a challenge.

The only case I can think of is when parents or legal guardians are occasionally held partly responsible for the behavior, choices etc. etc. of the minors they are responsible for.

It isn't far fetched at all to say that the law treats Women like irresponsible children who can't be trusted to deal with the results of their unilateral choices on their own.

Rubbish.. Part of being a man is responsibility for ones actions at all times.. Not doing a runner just because your bit of fun produced a child.. If you cant or wont accept the responsibility then practice celibacy...

Originally posted by Expat888
Rubbish.. Part of being a man is responsibility for ones actions at all times.. Not doing a runner just because your bit of fun produced a child.. If you cant or wont accept the responsibility then practice celibacy...

Good grief.

Sex... does not... produce... a child... sex... produces... a lump of tissue... that a Woman... can unilaterally... throw in the garbage... only... the unilateral choice.... of a Woman... can create a child... requiring 20 years of support.

Part of being an adult... is not holding others responsible... for the results of... your own unilateral choices.

Was that slow enough?

Originally posted by Expat888
Rubbish.. Part of being a man is responsibility for ones actions at all times.. Not doing a runner just because your bit of fun produced a child.. If you cant or wont accept the responsibility then practice celibacy...

I'd correct the first part of your post to: ''Part of being a human is responsibility for ones actions at all times''.

I believe in full equality between the genders, and women and men have to share equal responsibilities, but seeing as the law doesn't hold women accountable for the potential consequences of having sex, then it shouldn't hold men accountable either. This is about fairness.

I'd certainly agree with you from a moral perspective, that a man should take equal responsibility for the pregnancy, and should have to face the consequences of their actions. Laws are based loosely on the Golden Rule, but laws should certainly not be involved in the role of a moral policeman ( as they are now ).

If a man wants to shirk his responsibilities and run off without giving any kind of support to his child, then, no matter how morally reprehensible his actions may be, that should not be illegal. It's not for the law to decide on this.

After all, the law doesn't punish women for making shockingly irresponsible choices about their sexual partners, even so the sheer number of women who are useless at picking an adequate sexual partner is the primary cause of single parent families and child support, in the first place.

If you're saying that those who are unwilling to accept responsibility should stay celibate, then you surely must apply that to women who are having sex despite apparently not being able to financially provide for any potential offspring.
If a woman can't financially provide for a child, then shouldn't it be her responsibility to stay celibate as well ?
Not that I agree with that, but that would appear to the flip-side of your argument.


Another important point to consider is the fact that the law does not force the father to provide emotional support for his child. Most people would agree that the ideal upbringing for a child is with two parents, yet the man is perfectly entitled to neglect his non-financial fatherly responsibilities, so why is he held accountable for the financial support ?

Personally speaking, if I accidentally got a woman pregnant, then I would give my child the best support that I could give, both emotionally and financially, but I'd consider the emotional support to be way more important than financial.


I think this is another reason why I object to this so much, is because of the materialistic attitude that the quality of a child's upbringing is dependent upon how much money the parent/parents can spend on him or her.

I suppose it's symptomatic of a materialistic, money-grubbing society.

I've even seen people attempting to 'justify' abortion on financial grounds. As if denying someone the chance to live is preferable to the child being raised in modest financial surroundings.

Selfish materialists make me sick.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
It isn't far fetched at all to say that the law treats Women like irresponsible children who can't be trusted to deal with the results of their unilateral choices on their own.

This is entirely down to the feminists.

The funny thing is, most people think of feminists as angry, embittered women who have 'issues' with men. Yet, it's also women who are the victims of the warped ideology of feminists.

On one hand, feminists claim to support equality and wax lyrical about women's 'power', while on the other hand, they treat women like babies, who have to be guided, coaxed and supported by others.

Feminists aren't interested in the welfare of women, they are just driven by power and control ( which includes control over their 'sisters' that don't share their warped beliefs ).

I wouldnt call wanting to get out of child support,"declining fatherhood". But if you want to get out of child support all you do is go to the mental hospital,tell them your problems,get diagnosed with a MENTAL disability. Then you let your local child support agency know you did this and by law they have to drop child support.

reply to post by whipsandchainsamerica


Please cite your sources. I don't believe your information is correct. Child support can certainly be taken from ssdi payments for disabled persons. I think the deduction would probably have a cap maybe 15-25% depending upon the state.
And really, become a ward of the state is your solution to an unwanted pregnancy for a man...pretend to be crazy? Fabulous...

reply to post by SevenBeans


You make an excellent point. Only in the legally recognized separate class of persons known as minors do we find this rule, in certain cases, suspended. And even in the case of minors, it is legally difficult, if not impossible to hold parents responsible for debt a child accrues, unless of course they have co-signed or otherwise legally taken responsibility. Generally this "shared" responsibility applies to criminal negligence, and the laws that don't require parental negligence to be proven have been challenged as unconstitutional.
www.siouxcityjournal.com...
But minors cannot legally sign contracts, and thus cannot legally accrue debt, unless of course it's child support debt. Which opens up an interesting can of worms, no? I mean how many classes of people do we need, with exceptions that negate the class itself, like Minor/Male/Bio-Father (who is legally treated as an adult and held responsible for another's choices) or maybe Adult/Female/Bio-Mother, who is legally treated both as regent and child, depending upon whether you view the absolute power afforded her "choice" or her ability to forcibly share responsibility for her choices upon another...even a child can't really do this. I guess she's really a whole new class of person altogether. We may as well acknowledge this and drop any pretense of equal protection or equality in general...
Let's just accept it, it doesn't make sense or care that it doesn't, cuz they don't use logic in this at all, and they don't mind ignoring broad legal precedent. They have an agenda and it involves the destruction of the family and the criminalization and further marginalization of the poor. The system is a bureaucracy that feeds on such destruction. Fair? Logical? Monsters rarely are either.
The Judge in this instance that dismissed the case is a perfect example of that. He wrongly dismissed the case arguing that Roe v. Wade was decided not on a family privacy principle, but rather bodily autonomy of the woman. A cursory reading of Roe. (or any of the many scholarly articles about Roe.) will show this to be false, and that subsequent decisions regarding bodily integrity (in prisons, etc.) were an extra-textual interpretation of Roe v. Wade, and have been clearly cited as such. The privacy principle is not expressly or implicitly limited to bodily autonomy in Roe, (in fact is never mentioned) but rather has been expanded extra-textually to include bodily autonomy. A flat out misrepresentation. Or a lie if you prefer. But he's a judge, he couldn't be flat out wrong or lying.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Ok I get what you are saying I think, the woman ultimately decides whether to keep it or not? That is true I will agree but it's both parties fault for the woman having to make that choice...and you being a man you will have no idea how that choice affects a woman.

I've had friends break down in tears because a girl threw their unborn "baby" in the trash. I've also had friends breakdown over becoming a Father when they knew they weren't ready. Saying that Men can't imagine etc. etc. I think is very disrespectful. I would never say "you're not a Man so you could never imagine what it's like to have the person you love kill your unborn baby" because I know you CAN probably imagine that (because you're not a retard).

Just because a choice is difficult, doesn't mean that you should be able to hold someone else equally responsible for the results.

edit on 12-11-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Men have 100 percent control over whether they have a baby or not. It begins and ends with the man. If he puts his penis inside a baby making factory ie a womb, he knows the end result could be a baby. Men must love playing these waiting games, oh is my spilled seed I 100 percent consetually dropped off at the baby making factory going to result in a baby??

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Men have 100 percent control over whether they have a baby or not. It begins and ends with the man. If he puts his penis inside a baby making factory ie a womb, he knows the end result could be a baby.

A man can have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with a baby, only the unilateral choice of a Woman can create a baby.

Saying "ugh uh" isn't a very good argument.

Women have 100 percent control over whether a baby is created and are only held 50 percent responsible.