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

reply to post by mnemeth1


Your posts never fail to cut right to the heart of the matter. But just because it'll never happen, as you say, doesn't mean people shouldn't fight the system with logic, legal remedies, protest, and debate such as this. Otherwise, I feel we lose some of our basic capacity to attempt improvement. And we lose the ability to think critically. I also realize it'll never happen. It apparently took ten years for anyone to even attempt the legal route. I'm going to try to do a little research and see if I can find other examples of cases like this.
I would also add that the initial law that created the system was a political compromise between Dems. and Reps. to create woman-friendly welfare reform. To shift the burden of "welfare mom's" (a relatively insignificant amount of Federal spending) from the state to poor unmarried men. Who if they were lucky enough to be married to the women involved would be receiving benefits as well, rather than being held liable for said benefits. Clearly an incentive for women to remain unmarried and continue the cycle.

reply to post by Jenna


i still think the man should have a say. once again just because she has to carry it doesn't mean it is her baby only. personally i hate abortion. if you can't handle the responsibility of a child then don't have unprotected sex. just because you won't be able to go out to the club every night and sleep around anymore for a few months is no excuse to literally scrape a living human being with a heartbeat out of your body. murder is not an answer to a few months of personal inconvenience. what if the person who was eventually going to cure aids or cancer was aborted instead of born? what if the doctor who was going to eventually cure or reverse downs syndrome or autism was aborted because the mother couldn't be bothered to actually have the baby she conceived? abortion isn't natural, and it isn't right no matter how many excuses people have and arguments for it there are it is still murder, plain and simple.

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.

Bull, maybe in the stone age... sheriff John Bunnell... It usually the men who beat the hell out of their women and kids who stick to your axiom of just because, chest beating traditional schemes... pfft

Simply unbelievable the lengths men will go to deny their own BLOOD. Obviously men advocating this law are scum who want nothing to do with their own blood baby if the condom breaks, knowing the result of sex could be baby.

To condemn a child to a life of fatherlessness, just because some scum wants a one night stand and then run off to the next, is the bottom line of this type of nonsense.

Men already have a say, their say comes in deciding if they want to put their penis (and all the responsibility that comes with it) in a vagina. Theiur choice comes in their decision, if they choose to place their penis in a vagina, they are choosing ALL KNOWN OUTCOMES (failed birth control is but one of the outcomes).

Cowardly scum support this bill.

Think about this, this is supported by men who could not care any less about a flesh and blood of theirs walking the streets.

What kind of sickos are those people??

Forgot to add and the lengths some men will go to avoid child support. Those scum support this too.

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
once again just because she has to carry it doesn't mean it is her baby only.

No, but she's the one forced to live with it if the guy walks away. You can walk away at any time if you get a girl pregnant. I can't. My choices are abortion or live with another being inside me for 9-10 months that I may or may not want. Women don't get the option to walk away until after the baby is born. If you can walk away as soon as you find out, why can't I?

personally i hate abortion. if you can't handle the responsibility of a child then don't have unprotected sex.

I agree wholeheartedly.

what if the person who was eventually going to cure aids or cancer was aborted instead of born? what if the doctor who was going to eventually cure or reverse downs syndrome or autism was aborted because the mother couldn't be bothered to actually have the baby she conceived?

What if they were born to a druggy who took such horrible care of herself while pregnant that the baby is born mentally and physically challenged? 'What if's' and 'could've been's' don't really count for much honestly. What if the person who was going to cure aids or cancer or half dozen other diseases/illnesses was born 200 years ago and lacked the scientific knowledge and ability to accomplish it? What if it was supposed to be you or me but we didn't choose to go into medicine or science? Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want and won't take care of while it's still inside her isn't ethical, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

reply to post by Hefficide


If your man enough to play your man enough to pay?

Why should the man be the one that pays? The woman played and chose to keep the child. She has the choice to keep or not keep the child so if the man doesn't want to be involved why doesn't the woman pay by herself? Why should the man be the only one that pays?

The man has no say so at all and that is what this is about.

If the woman doesn't feel like playing she doesn't have to.

The man on the other hand has no choice and he should have one.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Hold on lady.

If the condom breaks many many women abort or put the child up for adoption. They have the choice to play the game out or not. The man doesn't have that option. They are held to the whim of the mother.

This law also is for the father who wants to keep the child when the mother doesn't. There have been many instances where the mother aborts when the father wanted to keep the child, unfortunately right now they don't get to voice an opinion.

Next time think your arguement through before calling people scum and other names.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Simply unbelievable the lengths men will go to deny their own BLOOD.

Obviously men advocating this law are scum who want nothing to do with their own blood baby if the condom breaks, knowing the result of sex could be baby.

To condemn a child to a life of fatherlessness, just because some scum wants a one night stand and then run off to the next, is the bottom line of this type of nonsense.

Cowardly scum support this bill.

What kind of sickos are those people??

Forgot to add and the lengths some men will go to avoid child support. Those scum support this too.

edit on 16-9-2010 by hotbakedtater because: forgot another type of scum who supports this

If the moderators allow this obvious breach of the T&C to remain, why do we have moderators? This is civil discussion? Really?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Bull, maybe in the stone age... sheriff John Bunnell... It usually the men who beat the hell out of their women and kids who stick to your axiom of just because, chest beating traditional schemes... pfft

Maybe I am a bit old fashioned as none of this makes a lick of sense to me. Saying that fathers are accountable for their offspring is tantamount, in your eyes, to child and spousal abuse?

Really?

I think that things should be fair for both sides.

Women have pro choice. They have the legal right to kill the baby or keep it. Since the seventies some 70-80 million babies have been aborted in the united states.

Since women have the legal ability to have a choice, it seems very logical that the father should have a choice as well.

Obviously, since the mother gets to make an irreversible life or death decision for both parents and the child. The afterthought and expedient of allowing the father to opt out of his parental rights should be no problem.

Pro choice. It should be utilized fairly which means both parents should have a choice.



Right?

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Hefficide

 

If your man enough to play your man enough to pay?

That is exactly what I said.

Originally posted by Becoming

Why should the man be the one that pays? The woman played and chose to keep the child. She has the choice to keep or not keep the child so if the man doesn't want to be involved why doesn't the woman pay by herself? Why should the man be the only one that pays?

What a wonderfully sexist way of looking at it. I've got news for you, the woman does pay. And it's the mans responsibility to pay as well. Are you suggesting that any man who wants to be free of his responsibility need just say "I wanted her to have an abortion" and then be absolved of his financial responsibilities for life?

Originally posted by Becoming

The man has no say so at all and that is what this is about.

The man had all the say in the world - and in this case he chose to take a risk of creating a life.

Originally posted by Becoming

f the woman doesn't feel like playing she doesn't have to.

Exactly. The same risk that the man has taken. Both are culpable.

Originally posted by Becoming

The man on the other hand has no choice and he should have one.

As above, the man does have an entire gluttony of choices. Not supporting his children, however, should not be an option.

reply to post by joechip


Comparing your rights to your wallet to the rights to someone's integrity of body is somewhat pathological.


reply to post by hotbakedtater


For this post, I break out the Pom-Poms!

Completely skipping the off topic issue of pro life or pro choice -

I think a father should have a right to DENY an abortion - but never to ORDER an abortion.

The guy in the original post story is a major loser who doesn't take responsibility for his own actions.

Pity the judge can't ORDER that guy to have his tubes REMOVED (not just cut)! He doesn't deserve his tubes or whatever your call them.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Are you suggesting that any man who wants to be free of his responsibility need just say "I wanted her to have an abortion" and then be absolved of his financial responsibilities for life?

Actually, that is exactly what the woman does when she gets an abortion.

She want's to be free of the responsibility, kills the baby and is absolved of her financial responsibilities for life.

Why should it be any different for men?

reply to post by badgerprints



Because if a woman chooses to get an abortion then there is no child. There is no life.

If a father absolves himself of responsibility then there would be a child which would become the responsibility of the mother, and most likely the community or society as well.

Yeah, it's a little one sided. But so is the fact that men can't get pregnant. If men could get pregnant I promise you this debate wouldn't ever happen.

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Hold on lady.

If the condom breaks many many women abort or put the child up for adoption. They have the choice to play the game out or not. The man doesn't have that option. They are held to the whim of the mother.

This law also is for the father who wants to keep the child when the mother doesn't. There have been many instances where the mother aborts when the father wanted to keep the child, unfortunately right now they don't get to voice an opinion.

Next time think your arguement through before calling people scum and other names.

Abortion is the woman's choice, not the man's, too bad it is most definitely in the realm of KNOWN OUTCOMES TO SEX.

The man is only held to the whim of his penis.

What on earth gave you the ASSumption I had not thought this out?

The man ALWAYS has a voice, his voice gets to be heard at a different stage in the conception game than the females.

Your post proves my points it is all down to money.

I chos the correct adjective for these men.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Yeah, it's a little one sided. But so is the fact that men can't get pregnant. If men could get pregnant I promise you this debate wouldn't ever happen.

This statement I agree with wholeheartedly.

As for the line about no life....we differ on that completely. I still see abortion as taking a life.

Originally posted by joechip

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Simply unbelievable the lengths men will go to deny their own BLOOD.

Obviously men advocating this law are scum who want nothing to do with their own blood baby if the condom breaks, knowing the result of sex could be baby.

To condemn a child to a life of fatherlessness, just because some scum wants a one night stand and then run off to the next, is the bottom line of this type of nonsense.

Cowardly scum support this bill.

What kind of sickos are those people??

Forgot to add and the lengths some men will go to avoid child support. Those scum support this too.

edit on 16-9-2010 by hotbakedtater because: forgot another type of scum who supports this

If the moderators allow this obvious breach of the T&C to remain, why do we have moderators? This is civil discussion? Really?

edit on 16-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to shorten quote to highlight the namecalling

It is my opinion, how is it a breach of t and c?

What is being proposed is hideous, and disgusting to me, is it wrong to express it as such?

My post did not contain a personal attack, either.

Originally posted by badgerprints
[
This statement I agree with wholeheartedly.

As for the line about no life....we differ on that completely. I still see abortion as taking a life.

I also agree that abortion is taking a life. I don't believe in abortion, though I support a womans right to choose. What I meant is that if a woman aborts then it does not result in the birth of a child that will require financial support.