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

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.

I fully stand behind the idea that man should take care of a child he fathered. That's a moral judgement on my part.

I also think it's wrong for a woman to get an abortion simply because she didn't want a kid. That's another moral judgement on my part.

If both men and women act morally (by my standards) there would be no issues because BOTH parents accept the responsibility and devote their lives to properly raising this child.

But the law doesn't follow my morals, and abortion is legal in most cases. Which means:

A woman can sleep with whoever she wants, and if she becomes the parent of a child, she has total authority to either be responsible for that child, or not being responsible for this child.

A woman can make one choice (an abortion) to absolve herself of all responsibility tied to her sexual relations with whatever man. If she wants the baby, she WILL get the baby. If she doesn't want a baby, she will NOT have a baby.

A man, on the other hand, does not enjoy this luxury. If a man becomes a parent, and he wants to keep the baby, he does NOT have the authority to keep the baby. If a man does not want to keep the baby, again he has NO authority or ability to simply absolve himself of parental responsibility.

If you cant see how that's a double standard, you must be willfully blind.

Since the law allows abortion, the rest of the law should be applied evenly and fairly. And since a woman can make the choice to immediately absolve herself of any and all responsibilities relating to that child (by having an abortion) a man should equally be able to absolve himself of any and all responsibility to that child at the drop of a hat.

Even if this was how things are, men would still be at a disadvantage because they would still lack authority on keeping a child. If a man WANTS to raise his kid, it's still not his choice. And the only way to fix this problem is forcing women to carry children, which I find more offensive than taking a child away from a willing father.

The only reason anyone would be against men being able to financially opt out of a child is because they support the unequal rights that women enjoy over men.

If I get a girl pregnant, and I don't want a kid, too bad, it's not my choice

If my lady friend gets pregnant, and she doesn't want a kid, good for her, she can get an abortion.

If I get a girl pregnant, and I'm happy and DO want a kid, too bad, it's not my choice

If my lady friend gets pregnant, and she DOES want the kid, nice for her, it's her choice again.

The double standard is glaringly obvious. If a woman has the right to terminate her obligations to her child, a man should share the same rights. And a man doesn't even have to kill a baby to accomplish it.

reply to post by James1982


There is no double standard. There's just the straw man argument, couched in "fathers rights" but really just another anti-abortion crusade.

This is obvious by the fact that NOBODY arguing "fathers rights" has tabled the ( also horrible ) notion that men should have a right to force a compulsory abortion upon a woman they've impregnated if they wished. That would achieve the same end result of "equalizing" the opportunities.

Also the very real fact that pregnancy is a female condition is being blindly ignored. Men are not subject to the myriad of health risks that can come with pregnancy or result from carrying a baby to term.

Ultimately the entire debate totally ignores that the discussion is about a child and not some civil argument about who gets the plasma screen after the break-up. Sadly this is so often the case where the upholding of Christian "morals" are concerned. In seeking to interpret the letter of the "law", Christians so often end up totally violating and gutting the spirit of it.

i see this as the logical next step in the current system.

if women are not subject to the whims of men (they shouldn't be), then why are men subject to the whims of women?

i've seen plenty of real life examples where the dad wants the kid, but so does the mom. mom gets full custody simply because of her sex. dad gets limited visiting rights (or sometimes none at all), and is then summarily forced to pay money.

it would make more sense if that money went into a trust fund instead of into the hands of the mother, because i've seen plenty of greedy moms keep the money for themselves. the child gets no more than it had, but now the mom can go out partying more and get knocked up again.

reply to post by James1982


Thank you for nicely summing all of my points.

I simply wanted to convey that Roe V Wade should be overturned unless the right to opt out of parenthood is shared with men.

And I am a woman.

Wow after reading some of the responses all I can say is ,
"There be some crazy angry b#(%h's in this thread."

I would 100% support this movement as I think it would really do some damage to all the gold digging hoes that seem to have been setting up shop in this country.

Really I mean there are a LOT of gold diggers nowadays, something must be done about it!
-FBB


PS
I LoL'd so hard reading the response from someone who thinks they are 'in the light' when they said they would only agree to let a man have a say in abortion rights if the woman NEVER had to financially or emotionally support her child.

LOL what a two faced argument as they were just mocking men for being irresponsible for not wanting to financially or emotionally support a child they didn't want.

Double standards make you look twice as foolish.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

what a two faced argument as they were just mocking men for being irresponsible

I share in your amusement.

Their irresponsibility = empowerment or victimhood
A man's irresponsibility = censure or jailable offense

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by InTheLight

 

That new pill is not promising.

The participants have tiny rods implanted under the skin of their arm that deliver a form of progestogen (commonly found in the female birth control pill) to block sperm production.

Ok, a tiny implant is not that bad but how about its side effects...

In order to maintain their sex drive and their "male characteristics," the men receive testosterone replacement therapy injections every four to six weeks

Read: In order for men to even get an erection after taking this pill it is imperative that we inject them with "manhood" every month. Two weeks after his last injection he may periodically feel like sobbing for no reason.

Yeah, sounds very promising.

edit on 9-8-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

The side effects and inconveniences are better than what women have to endure from their contraceptives. So, is this the typical response we may expect from most men?

Anyway, here's a hint as to how this case may come out. (No surprise)

“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child.”

forums.castanet.net...

reply to post by InTheLight

“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child.”

The child deserves to be born, greeted by two happy, loving, and loyal parents to which supporting that child is not an obligation but a pleasure, not a burden but a blissful endeavor. It is the child's right that both parents have equal legal custody and share equal social responsibility.

I can assure you, despite what the courts say, these idealistic sentiments are not what they are interested in. Court rulings are based on pragmatism and precedent instead of ideals.

reply to post by djr33222

very true. if those that made laws and set precedents were so idealistic our country would be a fabulous place of rainbows and unicorns.