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

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Women have different birth control options than men. One of those is abortion. So yes, a woman CAN simply spread em wide regardless of whether she is ont he pill or her man wears a condom because she knows she has other birth control methods, morning after pill, large amounts of bc pills or abortion for after the fact. So how is exercising any of her birth control options not taking responsibility again?

Originally posted by I.T.S.U.
I read through the first page of commentary, but didn't get to the rest, so if this was already brought up, my bad.
I'm all for personal responsibility as I think this has been lost in history; ie, example. "You're a poor worker, you're fired."" They harassed me, where's my lawsuit $$." BS, you sucked you got canned, cannot find a job, easier way
out as California will help you with it.

Meaningful relationships that harbor a child, the "man," if he calls himself such should step up to the plate. A one night fling with a bar whore I have trouble with cause more than often, "Oh ya baby, I'm on the pill." Should be the same as saying I don't have herpes when you know you do. It's BS. Getting into our pockets when we do not have a say in the matter. It takes 2 to create life, why is the male excluded in certain situations?

Protection by the man is one step, but what if both decline? It's hearsay at that point and the female is ,almost as vindicated as the victory? It's "HER" baby. Really? Didn't know she was asexual to begin with.

Oh so men who have sex with meaningful women should support the baby the man knows is a possible result of sex.

But the bar whore's child....nope, no support?

The man has every say whether the female gets in his pockets (always comes down to money not caring about the human life created:@@, if he don't want her in his pockets keep her away from them droppin drawers then.

The time for men to exercise their choice is before the penis hits the vagina.

After that bar whore or Madonna if you create a kid it is your responsibility to pay for that kid and support it!!

Originally posted by King Loki
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.

We all know that women who get child payments rarely spend it on the child but spend it on themselves, a lot of women make the decision to have the kids usually on a gold digging basis, but if it was their solo choice to have the child there is no way a man should be responsible for it at all.

edit on 17/9/10 by King Loki because: (no reason given)

No way a man should be responsible for "it" at all?

By "it" you refer to his own flesh and blood, correct?

That he created with the sperm he so carelessly deposited into a vagina, correct?

And why would he get a pass?

He must have wanted the child, he had sex and a KNOWN OUTCOME of sex is a baby.

Originally posted by Scarcer
In my opinion, in order for a women to get child support from the father, they should have to be married and separated, OR if the man is of a foreign relation, such as one night stand or an boyfriend or ex, she must legaly notify him she is pregnant and that he is requested to play his part as the father.

This legal notice would have to be made within the first several weeks of the pregnancy, or it's void. It is at this point that the man is obligated to choose between default of accepting, or filing a notice of refusal. If refused before the curtain time limit, reflecting to the maturity of the fetus, the mother then has the choice to carry on with the pregnancy or choose abortion.

This would give both potential parents equal opportunity. If abortion is a problem, yet she doesn't want the baby, then that's a mental maturity obstacle she will have to get over, and should of realized the risks before getting involved in sex.

There have been cases where men have been taken advantage of for their seed. "It's ok I'm not on the pill" or "just pull out" then *clamp in with legs*.

You just described the irresponsible scum bucket's Dream World, rofl!!

No man is ever taken advantage of for his seed. It is deposited knowingly and most often with reckless and utter abandon into the vagina, and the man knows full well one of the KNOWN OUTCOMES to sexual relations (ie penis in vagina) is a child who society expects BOTH parents to take care of.

This attitude is repulsive and may qualify for inclusion on my misogyny thread.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
I completely agree with this for a few reasons.........

(1) It would stop Woman from getting pregnant just to get a permanent, emotional or financial, attachment to a Man.

(2) In modern society... Getting pregnant and giving birth are two different things. Getting pregnant can be an accident. Giving birth is now a planned event. Woman already understand this is a choice, and actively use that choice. Men should have the exact same choice.

Just as a Man can not legally force a Woman to have a child or an abortion, vice-versa.

(3) While Men do not have the same convenient contraceptive choices as Woman ( by this I mean the pill ) the situation is lopsided.

I have personally been told by an ex-girlfriend that for 12 months she tried to get pregnant, lying to me she was on the pill the whole time. I would say this deceptive or selfish behavior happens far more than most Woman will ever admit.

Note: It actually made me go get tested and I found out I have "slow swimmers" So I have no chips in this game and never will. Just a balanced view.

How can a female get pregnant for financial strings to man without his consent? When penis hits vagina, male consent was just given. Did you not get that memo?

Men have different birth control methods than females.

One is keeping their sperm machine from the baby baking oven.

Even in the dire case you describe above, (female lies about being on pill) are we supposed to care you have bad judgement when it comes to choosing a female? Is that the fault of any child that rises from this union, that its father has no sense in choosing a good female? So you think that is reason to be off the hook?

reply to post by joechip


When you manage to find a way around bear and beget I will listen. Until then my body my choice.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by King Loki
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.

But that makes too much sense.

We cannot start doing that - society is structured to avoid doing that. It would be calamitous.

Edit: I would add the caveat that this idea should only apply in circumstances where the couple was using prophylaxes which failed. The man can't try to have a kid then turn tail when it happens.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Was the man engaged in sex, regardless of prophylactics?

Then the circumstance stood that the outcome would be child, and why should he get off the "hook" again? (ie not have to pay child support or support his own flesh and blood?) Repulsive.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
These entrapment games these sick females play using "unborn children" needs to stop...This lawsuit needs to pass...just on the plain fact that it would make both parties responsible, so no more crazy females sleeping around and trying to entrap a male at least, since they will have a equal chance in being forced to pay and go through the system. Hence it will force them to take it more seriously, and not sleep around so much, there needs to be consequence for both parties involved...Yes you dam females, yes all of you, need to quit sleeping around then when you land a so called "computer programmer" all of a sudden oh I forgot my pill, oh he should of worn a condom..... Take some responsibility and plan # out before you sleep with anyone......Same goes for male's keep it in your pants unless 100% sure your willing to commit to bringing a child into this word.....#ing idiots, need to implament the shotgun to the face rule again, maybe then you all will get the picture, because like mnemeth1 said can't count on the state and lawyers, to much money concentrated, in this system for some =much corruption.

One how did you slip the eff bomb past the censors?

Two, how does entrapement work when the man is depostiing his sperm into her vagina of his own volition?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Scarcer
In my opinion, in order for a women to get child support from the father, they should have to be married and

No man is ever taken advantage of for his seed. It is deposited knowingly and most often with reckless and utter abandon into the vagina, and the man knows full well one of the KNOWN OUTCOMES to sexual relations (ie penis in vagina) is a child who society expects BOTH parents to take care of.

This attitude is repulsive and may qualify for inclusion on my misogyny thread.

So my question for this is so what about the case where a male child was statutorily raped and owes child support in CALIFORNIA: San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).? Seems like the female "took advantage of a boy's seed?

or here: www.dispatch.com...?, there are but I d not feel like searching for it.

I am defintly curious as to how you feel about these women who are of age, that committed a crime, and made the choice to keep a child, and these boys who can not vote, drink a beer, nor sign a contract have to pay child support for a decision an ADULT made. How is that right?

reply to post by mayertuck


Why are you saying there is a circumstance in which the female has a get out jail card (equating a child to jail )? And that by using this she has no consequences to the act of sex and its outcome?

The abortion is the consequence.

The get out of jail card is this a woman knows just as a man does that having sex can result in a child correct? If a woman has sex, and gets pregnant but doesnt want to accept responsibility of facing the consequence she can get an abotrion. This 'absolves" her of any and all responsibility to the child that would of been does it not?

as I said in my original post, I believe that people should be held responsible for their actions and choices. Since that is not the case in today's world (i.e. women who do not want to have the responsibilities of parenthood can get rid of them, then men should have some ability also, since things are supposed to be equal.

Please do not insert words into my mouth, I never said a child is jail, I used a metaphor of a popular quote to illustrate the not facing responsibility for ones actions.

reply to post by mayertuck


I guess you did not read my post either, I stated the consequence the female faces. You are claiming abortion is some fairy majik get out of jail card.

It is a consequence, it is a surgical procedure, and it it is not free, the cheap ones begin around five hundred now a days.

So a woman is being responsible by choosing abortion, if it comes to that, because she knows it is one of her birth control choices.

I agree its is a consequence, but it is a consequence that she chooses to do to not accept responsibility. Yea its not cheap, but compared with 18 years of child support is definetly the cheaper option is it not?

So if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that she is being responsible by getting an abortion because its birth control?

I was under the impression the aim of birth control was to prevent pregnancy in the first place. If the aim of birth control is to prevent pregnancy then how is getting an abortion truly facing the consequence of having sex?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by King Loki
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.

But that makes too much sense.

We cannot start doing that - society is structured to avoid doing that. It would be calamitous.

Edit: I would add the caveat that this idea should only apply in circumstances where the couple was using prophylaxes which failed. The man can't try to have a kid then turn tail when it happens.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Was the man engaged in sex, regardless of prophylactics?

Was the woman allowing a man to have sex with her whilst using tools to avoid pregnancy and under the pretense that she not only did not want a child and would agree to abort if she 'somehow' became pregnant?

If the man got all that in writing, do you still think he should still pay for the child?

i didnt know there were "mens rights groups".

i think this is ultimately stupid, but hilariously fair. right now the rockefellers are high fiving each other, consider the family obsolete...

I can somewhat understand the position as a male, it seems the balance regarding children in all areas is heavily in favor of the woman. But in the end it is very simple for men imo, don't have sex unless you are willing to deal with slight chance that doing so will result in the woman becoming pregnant even if all precautions are taken....i honestly don't understand what is so hard about that.

Originally posted by Solomons
I can somewhat understand the position as a male, it seems the balance regarding children in all areas is heavily in favor of the woman. But in the end it is very simple for men imo, don't have sex unless you are willing to deal with slight chance that doing so will result in the woman becoming pregnant even if all precautions are taken....i honestly don't understand what is so hard about that.

While I can agree to a point,with things having to be equal, is it fair that women should have to not have sex also? What is good for the goose is good for the gander or whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by King Loki
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.

But that makes too much sense.

We cannot start doing that - society is structured to avoid doing that. It would be calamitous.

Edit: I would add the caveat that this idea should only apply in circumstances where the couple was using prophylaxes which failed. The man can't try to have a kid then turn tail when it happens.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Was the man engaged in sex, regardless of prophylactics?

Was the woman allowing a man to have sex with her whilst using tools to avoid pregnancy and under the pretense that she not only did not want a child and would agree to abort if she 'somehow' became pregnant?

If the man got all that in writing, do you still think he should still pay for the child?

I personally feel that if a man or woman engages in any behavior that has a known consequence (even with protection in place) and that consequence happens they should face those consequences. As it relates to the tread, yes both should face those consequences, sadly this day and age, one sex has more options in not facing the consequence of their actions than another, and that shouldn't be.

Originally posted by mayertuck
I agree its is a consequence, but it is a consequence that she chooses to do to not accept responsibility. Yea its not cheap, but compared with 18 years of child support is definetly the cheaper option is it not?

So if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that she is being responsible by getting an abortion because its birth control?

I was under the impression the aim of birth control was to prevent pregnancy in the first place. If the aim of birth control is to prevent pregnancy then how is getting an abortion truly facing the consequence of having sex?

edit on 17-9-2010 by mayertuck because: (no reason given)

By aborting she IS accepting responsibility. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Does it rile you that her taking responsibility by abortion is "cheap" compared to the man taking responsibility by paying child support?

Originally posted by mayertuck

Originally posted by Solomons
I can somewhat understand the position as a male, it seems the balance regarding children in all areas is heavily in favor of the woman. But in the end it is very simple for men imo, don't have sex unless you are willing to deal with slight chance that doing so will result in the woman becoming pregnant even if all precautions are taken....i honestly don't understand what is so hard about that.

While I can agree to a point,with things having to be equal, is it fair that women should have to not have sex also? What is good for the goose is good for the gander or whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

Maybe she is having sex with real men who realize sex could equate future child support.