It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
Of course you should. No matter how well off the mother is its your duty to give something towards the growth of YOUR own child. It is a case of tax payers shelling out for other " irresponsible people" its exactly that. I mean on the whole its not a massive amount of single parents. There are more married couples than singles... which is a good thing.
But you have given your child up to adoption to these other man. Thats also your choice.
Originally posted by RothchildRancor
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Its perfectly fair, and its perfectly reasonable.
There is a large debate to be had as far as mens rights, but regardless, if you are man enough to stick it in, but not man enough to support your CHILD, you are a deadbeat. Flat out.
But it is completely ok for a mother to get an abortion because she doesn't want the responsibility to have to support a child?
That is completely retarded.
You see the courts favor the mother way too much in this matter.
It isn't even a scale that is imbalanced, it is a goddamn seesaw!
For the third time, I agree that there is a debate to be had on men's rights. That doesnt change the fact, that whether you want to or not, you created a child and it is your responsibility to take care of it.
Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by captaintyinknots
But no say in the matter in result of a pregnancy is a men rights violation. These matter go hand in hand.
If i was in a circumstance that i got someone pregnant, i would take care of that child, as long as i was part of the decision to have/not have the child.
Young male student in school have 0 rights if a "mistake" does happen, their life/dream/career ends. But if a female student stumbles on this obstacle, all she do is take a pill and its just another day for her.
I have no gotten anyone pregnant, but was really close with a friend who was in this situation.
Unfortunately, no, that wouldnt be the end of the problem.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Forced vasectomies for all boys before age of puberty. In order to have the vasectomy reversed, you must sign a legal agreement that you WILL be responsible for any offspring you produce from that point on. End of problem.
Seriously??? It would be good to take away the freedom of control over ones body?
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by kaylaluv
ha very true. that would be good.
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
Yes, I understand that but this child is HALF OF YOU PHYSICALLY.
Do you not understand that part?
Men should wear condoms 100% if they are sure they dont want a pregnancy.
Why do women have to do all the contraceptive work? And it is hard remembering to take pills and so on. Particulary for hormonal women. Do men see women as sexual objects and not hormonal?
edit on 22-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)
So basically, you would punish the child that YOU MADE, to prove a point?
You have no idea what the circumstances regarding my child's conception were. You assume no protection was used. So what if it is half of me physically? I don't have half of the right to decide whether the pregnancy is carried to term. And I shouldn't have half of that right. It is a woman's right, and as such, it should be a woman's responsibility, unless she is in a legally binding contract with the father, as would happen in a legal marriage. I don't see woman as sexual or hormonal. I see them as equals. They should see me that way as well. signature:
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Forced vasectomies for all boys before age of puberty. In order to have the vasectomy reversed, you must sign a legal agreement that you WILL be responsible for any offspring you produce from that point on. End of problem.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Unfortunately, no, that wouldnt be the end of the problem.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Forced vasectomies for all boys before age of puberty. In order to have the vasectomy reversed, you must sign a legal agreement that you WILL be responsible for any offspring you produce from that point on. End of problem.
And really, you think its a good idea to FORCE someone to do something with their body? Im usually right with you on your posts, but this is just hypocritical to the max.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Forced vasectomies for all boys before age of puberty. In order to have the vasectomy reversed, you must sign a legal agreement that you WILL be responsible for any offspring you produce from that point on. End of problem.
Why stop there?
Forced tubal ligations for all women after their first menstration, right? I mean, if we are going to slaughter human rights, let's do it equally across the board.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So basically, you would punish the child that YOU MADE, to prove a point?
Wow, people really are selfish these days....
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
If a man has sex with no condoms he should face the consequences - men are not children. They know this....
There are always chances of all sorts of " happenings " without condoms.