A woman's "right" to have a child

reply to post by Jkd Up


Here's what I believe. That as a man i have absolutely no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Secondly it doesn't matter, what her age is, how much money she has. She has the right to have a child if she wants to. Third, the only people who should lose the right to have children are those who have proven in the past that they are cruel, and neglectfull about children. I'm talking the woman who has her kids taken away because she beats them to near death, or doesn't feed them, or puts them in sick or near fatal situations. Those people should be sterilzed by the government.

reply to post by Jkd Up


Rob has the right to get a vasectomy.

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by Jkd Up

 

Rob has the right to get a vasectomy.

Yep he does, if i was him i would become a eunuch.

1) You must have a learning disability.

2) Children are people, not things.

3) You must have a learning disability.

Originally posted by charles1952
Well, this thread has taken a pretty sharp turn. I'd like to hang on to see where this goes.

My understanding is that women's power and influence have increased to a position of superiority in the fields of the family and education. They're also gaining power in corporations, politics, churches, and the various media.

The fear among men may be that, like the drunk who fell off the horse on one side, we may be falling off on the opposite side. So, how do we find the correct middle? Or from my point of view, why is this a male/female issue instead of a human rights one? Why fund scholarships for needy females instead of needy people, etc?

Sadly we are quickly moving beyond the point where males will be willing to forgive females. And it will just mean are civilization will end in the next 40-100 years, if not sooner. It doesn't mean "poof nothing exists", it just means look to the former Soviet states and that is what the future of the West will be. I think Lithuania is a good example. Where if a guy has enough money(due to the severe male unemployment and male suicide rate there) he will be able to get two or more chicks at the same time with mutual consent. Womens rights will be dragged back a thousand years along with the few remaining rights men have.

We might even see feudalism re-emerge. I really can't see any future outcome that turns out good or even decent.

Originally posted by Aeons
Good God spoiled men are SO unattractive. Yucky.

awww, the poor feminist troll has been outed. And who cares what you find attractive, for all we know you could be a 280lb guy who likes to wear spandex and pink wigs(no offense to 280lb guy's who like to wear spandex and pink wigs though, as long as you do it in your own home, to each their own).

I know I shouldn't feed the fem-bot trolls, but I can't help it, one has to take some measure of pride in victory.

All funnies aside though, your highly anti male gendered rhetoric will get you no where. The more you try to use shaming language the less effective it is. And after a certain point it becomes as comical as a classic Godwins law example. Like if a chick or white knight/mangina can't win in an argument they auto-resort to shaming language. It is an act of admitting defeat via poor sportsmanship like conduct.

reply to post by Royal76
[m]


Thank you for your input! All I ever ask for is what they believe. you brought up a couple of good points and I agree with you on them.

reply to post by Aeons


Goodness! How in the world I haven't met you in the real world is unimaginable!

First off, I thrive with women who hold power and belief in themselves. I have no guidelines for looks (though I like to keep them weighing less than my truck), but have found that most women who are self-empowered, like to dress and look good. Even take great physical care of themselves.

That being said... there is a point when someone self confidant pushes on the other part in their life. Either intentionally or unknowingly trying to exert force to get the person to fall more into what that person wants/desires. I have to go on a limb (a pretty safe one) and say that is VERY wrong.

I cannot fall with the rest of thse and think you are a staunch feminist because you bring some great points, but then as soon as you do, you seem to shoot yourself in the foot with some of the strangest points.

Either way, I applaude you and love your contributions here!

However, your comment about a man's looks is upsetting but not supprising. I have alway loved the female form. No matter age or size, Don't get me wrong, I looked for the cheerleader type too... Hoping beyond all hope that I could get someone that was superstar quality. And even achieved this... Had to end it because she was hell bent on running my life. Much happier now. Looks fade... Beauty decomposses...

reply to post by korathin


Oh sweety. I have many wonderful men in my life, and I am their biggest cheerleader.

I don't hate men.

I just dislike spoiled brats. And you are one.

I find spoiled women annoying. But something about immature spoiled adult men who are brats is just extra special yucky. I gotta assume it is a protective mechanism, to find you so gross.

You aren't "alll men." You're just using all the rest of the men as a distraction. You are HIDING behind real men, and then yelling from behind them that the "enemy" is approaching.

You don't talk for all men. You aren't their guardian, saviour, and voice. You're the coward cowering behind them.

reply to post by Jkd Up


Oh, I'm not commenting on looks. I'm commenting on character. Nothing is uglier than ugly character.

I have dated men who aren't lookers, merely because there was something very interesting about them. And I've avoided dated men with money, power and looks due to their lack of values or character.

I choose men who are my equal. Men I can't and don't run over, because they have strength of character or intelligence.

So you needn't worry about my husband. He's just fine. He deserves trust, and my respect, and he has it.

He has the strength of his own convictions, without being annihilated by mine. I find these poor saps who are oppressed by their own lack of character and their lack of personal strength often mistake that feeling they are getting as anger at people who do have what they lack. Mouthy bowls of jelly.

reply to post by Jkd Up


I cannot say weather or not they should have a child. In your post you didn;t really say WHY she wanted one, and WHY he didn't. I don't know if it is for good or selfish reasons. If they tell you specifically why they feel the way they do about the situation the answer to the problem will become much clearer. Its all common sense.

My view is that no person has the right to bring another human being into this world. Bringing a person into this world is a huge hugely important act which effects society. I was born into and raised up in poverty and strife, with 5 other siblings. Each one of us has had terribly difficult lives, but we are now in our 50s, and everyone is -finally- settling in and getting their stuff together, as-it-were. If I was given the choice in the spirit world by angels, the day before I was concieved back in 1958, I would say H**l NO! I love my family now, everyone shuns the negative. A long time coming, though. I never concieved and raised up kids (by choice) and -most- of my siblings, save 2, never bore offspring. The ones who did, each only had 2. From those, the ones in their 30s had none and one. (Very interesting, though, that this genetic line is coming to a screeching halt.)

reply to post by Jkd Up


She has a right to have a child sure. But he has the right to not have one.

She sounds like she should get a new significant other if it's that important.

reply to post by Aeons


I laughed hard at this statement.

"You aren't "alll men." You're just using all the rest of the men as a distraction. You are HIDING behind real men, and then yelling from behind them that the "enemy" is approaching. "


How can someone take a statement like this seriously,or any other statement you make seriously,when you say this?

Just been reading. This is not a good situation at all. First plain and simple YES she has a right to do as she wishes with her body. She has the right to become a prego. And the dude could be in a world of doo doo if hes living in the home. She very much has the ability of getting a belly full with out his knowing. Use your iMAGINATION!! If she gets pregnant, he will most likely leave her thinking its not his. Not only does he not want a child he may end up with 1 regardless. lose his marriage and pay support for the child that he doesn't want. And if you think he could argue his way out of paying support in court. Thats going to take some Imagination. Get out NOW I think would most likely be the best.

reply to post by Jkd Up


Hear is my take on this as a female. (And I also went through this decision when I married in my thirties.)

#1. Do I want a child more than I want my husband?
If the guy has not changed his mind and is firm in his decision than he is NOT going to be a good father. She should be looking at divorce.

#2. Have I looked into the problems caused by having a first child late in life. Down's syndrome and others?
For me and my hubby this was the deciding factor. I am a chemist and had handled possible Chemical Mutagens.

#3. What about adoption of an older child?

#4. What about working with kids on the weekends?
This is the route my hubby and I took and now we have a business doing entertainment for children.

I understand her feelings, but she really put off this decision until it is real way too late to be thinking of having a first child. She really really needs to volunteer so she can see what she is getting into for at least 18 years... Do you REALLY want a teenager when you are sixty?

If someone hasn't had a kid by the age of forty, they missed the boat. Who in thier right mind would want the higher risk of creating an abnormal child because they are old...or being in thier mid 60's when that kid leaves school?

reply to post by LordBaskettIV
[
All That Aside. Maybe shes nuts. Maybe shes having a crisis. The fact of matter is women go over on men all the time. Her friend, that knows what all of us are saying, maybe telling her or maybe shes the friend. The point is ROB need to find a way out of this here situation SooN. Love is grand slavery sucks, period!!

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


You must be really young to suddenly dub "40" as old. Many, many women have children after 40 especially nowadays when some CHOOSE to focus on their career and to reach a point when they are comfortable [financially, emotionally, professionally] to bring a child into the world.

I would certainly rather have a bunch of experienced, mature 40-somethings having children than 18 - 21 year olds that tend to be immature and lack the experience to truly understand the demands of having a child not to mention the enormous financial burden.

On the other hand, more women are having babies later in life in the United States than ever before. In the year 2000, the rate of birth among women 35 to 39 years old was up 30 percent from 1990. In women ages 40 to 45, the increase was 47 percent, and for those ages 45 to 49, the rate was an astounding 190 percent higher.

Source: www.babycenter.com...

Hmmm....so 190% more women aged 45-49 are having babies, yet chromosome abnormalities hasn't increased by that same percentage. It has gone up marginally, but not nearly by the margin of the older women that now have happy, healthy babies to love.

I am also fairly certain that in most cases, the children of these women certainly don't wish they had never been born.

People seem to forget too, how many relations do not last and how many people ...mostly fathers are paying child support for numerous different relationships offspring.