or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Body My Choice- For men too.. - Page 2

post #41 of 382
In France , fathers (if not married) are not obliged to recocnize a new born as their child. If they do not recocnize them, they are not obliged to support them.
post #42 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In France , fathers (if not married) are not obliged to recocnize a new born as their child. If they do not recocnize them, they are not obliged to support them.

How does that work out socially?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #43 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Women should not be allowed to have Abortions if Men have no say so in being comdemned to financially and/or emotionally support a child they have no desire to have.

This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #44 of 382
[QUOTE]Originally posted by trumptman
[B]If the mother has abandoned the child she didn't have to name the father. Hospitals only require mothers to name the fathers to get benefits. If the father's name isn't on the birth certificate, he would have to find the abandoned child and attempt to establish paternity.

First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
He would have to do all this before the court entered a decision terminating all parental rights.

Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #45 of 382
It's very simple. Women almost always have the power / final say in "what happens next" when an unexpected pregnancy arises from consensual sex. The only exceptions are women with drug dependancies or other serious problems, in which case a relative or healthcare provider or other authority MAY be able to affect the decision-making process.

For women without such problems, if she chooses to have an abortion, it's over. The man cannot stop her. If she chooses to keep the child, the man must ante up if she requires it; he cannot opt-out. If she chooses adoption, he again cannot stop her in most instances. If she chooses to abandon the child, again the man cannot stop her unless he knows ahead of time the baby is going to be abandoned (HIGHLY unlikely).

Can't you just see it? "I'm sorry Bob, I'm going to abandon this child at the local hospital because I don't think you can take care of it and I can't afford to financially. Sorry."

Yah right. Abandonments are almost always very secretive, spontaneous occurances that the woman never tells anyone about ahead of time. The shame alone usually prevents that.

It's a double-standard, [because the man rarely has a say in anything]. In some cases double-standards are actually warranted though -- that's the thing people have a tough time admitting to. With abortion, it's not warranted if the father is willing [and able] to care for the child. With abandonment, it's not warranted if the father is willing and able, but is definitely warranted if the father is willing but unable... etc. Context is everything with issues like this. There is no magic bullet. Either the courts find a way to make decisions on a case-by-case basis without all the feminazi pretext that invariably comes with unexpected pregnancies, or we will continue to fumble around like idiots. And of course the federal government has to enact legal groundwork that makes this possible...

...IOW, until the laws indicate that the man and woman are both 50% responsible (and therefore have 50% of the decision-making power for any pregnancy resulting from consensual intercourse), [this area] will remain filled with double-standards in favor of the mother. [Definitely better than double-standards in favor of the father, but still not good for a democratic society.]

Edited for additional thoughts / clarifications.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #46 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[BHow does that work out socially? [/B]

The woman take care of the child alone, and recieve some financial help from the state (not the US , the french state ). France is very big on welfare, sometimes it can give good things (help people who really need it) or have a negative impact (promote lazyness and paralyse the economy).

One the child is adult (but i may be wrong with this issue, i may ask to one of my friend who is a lawyer, but i won't see him before september at best), he can ask to be recocnize by his biological father. Anyway this is a complex procedure, and i prefer to not going further, rather to say more stupidities
post #47 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Women would do that, and it was these needless deaths that prompted the amnesty for handing in new-born children.

It wasn't, as some in this thread would have you believe, some femi-nazi plot to give extra rights to women, and so if you really want men to have these 'rights' too then all you have to do is start a campaign to encourage mentally unbalanced men to kill their new-born children.

Likewise, the pragmatic among us accept that sex will continue to happen and unwanted children will continue to be born, and further that many of these unwanted children will be aborted wehther it is legal or not. This will result in many deaths and other unpleasantness.

To change this we need better sex education, better availability of effective contraception and better financial, emotional and moral support for women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances.

In conclusion, if you want to ban abortion then just come out and say so. This bollocks about male/female equality is just tiring.

Are you through mischaracterizing everything yet?

Find for me the post that says men want the right to kill new borns.

FInd for me the post that says abortion should be eliminated.

No one has even characterized the ability to abandon children with a number of days after birth as part of a feminist agenda or that the women were mentally unbalanced.

Straw men, straw men, straw men... keep setting them up and knocking them down because you know you don't want to get the real topic of men and reproductive rights. For you it is "tiring." Women have them and men don't.

As for whether abortions and things of that nature will continue, that is fine. What should be addressed is that men have no say with regard to what they have to do with their bodies for the next 18 years because of what a women decideds regarding a sexual encounter. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother we allow her to abort not only her parental rights, but the child. You are welcome to post why you believe men should, with no recourse be committed to 18 years of parenting and earning for that child with their body with no choice.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by I, Fred
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

the rest of whatever blather these fools are talking about should be judged in that light.

your sperm, your kid. deal.

It isn't that she doesn't only care for it for 9 months. (Actually 40 weeks) Rather that if she couldn't have an abortion she would be obligated to do something with her body that she didn't want for 9-10 months until she could give the child up for adoption.

The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.

Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?

And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #50 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by I, Fred
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

that is the most stupidest thing i have ever seen.

women do NOT care [at all] for the kid after it's born, when all the practical work from changing diapers to educating it to giving it money is all done by the dad alone. oh wait. this didn't happen to me when i was kid. maybe because i'm not american?
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #51 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Ya ever wonder how many babies get tossed in dumpsters and never found? I do.

It happens sometimes ... I remember seeing like in average 5 cases a year in italy - all of them go to first page in newspaper if nothing more interesting happens.

The most weird case of last year was a woman (somewhere south of rome) that had given birth to TWINS and then dumped them to trash. Her husband had not noticed AT ALL that she had been pregnant. And then they say that only the americans are fat ... \
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #52 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.

Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.

Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?

Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard. Most abandonment laws make a lot of assumptions and I assure you there have been questions regarding father's rights with regard to those assumptions. Basically the state has said that they don't mind a few people's rights being trod on as long as they end up with fewer babies dying in trash dumpsters and things of that nature.

In most states the act that establishes paternity is the mother naming the man on the birth certificate. It is possible if the wrong man has been named, to go back and establish paternal rights. However it takes literally over a year and even then it just starts you at step zero of paternity. You then have to fight the court for visitation, you immediately owe all back child support, etc. This personally happened to my brother, so I have seen the process in action.

For men paternity must be established, for the women it is a little easier since the child comes out of their body. Sort of makes it a bit harder to dispute.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Okay, with all this discussion, we still haven't tackled the main point:

If a pregnant woman is dead-set on aborting her unborn baby, what legal rights does the father have if he wants to keep it? None, and that's not right.

I think the man should be granted the possibility to have the fetus transplanted to HIS body, like in the film where arnold schwarzenegger was pregnant... ... and maybe the pregnant guys would look as unattractive and desperate than the pregnant women so i think i'd leave a guy with THAT kind of stomach ...
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #54 of 382
Quote:
This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Ummm it's VERY relevant to the situation. Once pregnacy has occured the Man has no say. If he wants the child it's not his say if he doesn't want the child it's not his say. All he becomes is a Paycheck.

Quote:
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments

So does the Woman Bunge. It's a "joint" effort. Legally preventing Adoptions is not the issue. The issue is I have a child coming. I do not want ANY part in that childs life emotionally or financially. This is the issue. Men cannot opt out. If you want your child that's a whole seperate issue.


I really don't see why this is difficult for some. If you look at things rather unemotionally you will see that this imbalance exists and most rebuttals are steeped in "Old World ideals" and the "Responsibility of Man". No other Animal in the Animal Kingdom deals with reproduction in such a silly way.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?

That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard.

I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.

This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #56 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
If you as a man want no kids, is it so difficult to use a condom? Or do a vasectomy? Or not have sex with any women of potential reproduction age?

the same could be said for women.
If you dont want to get pregnant, then dont go out and **ck around!
People today need to think before they scr*w!

post #57 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?

And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.

It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.

The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?

As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them. If a mother wishes to give up a child for adoption, can the father prevent her and force her to retain her maternal rights? I understand that he can assert his rights to keep the child. However can he prevent her from giving up hers?

That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #58 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men?

Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?

That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.

How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #59 of 382
Quote:
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than m

Yes. That's exactly what I'm asking for. That "punishment" pales in comparison to a Man who wants his child only to have that child sucked out in pieces and discarded. Who "hurts" more?

Don't make it sound so bad. Women can replace Men damn near anytime they choose to. The Child will be taken care of regardless. Most of the Men paying Support are paying into a Household that has two Financial Sources.

Quote:
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.


I don't give a rip about preventing Abortions. That's irrelevant. What I'm concerned with, and others should be as well, is a blatant imbalance between the Genders and reproduction right. Some of you Bleeding Heart Liberals seem to enjoy creating a Mass Pity Party for one Gender and totally ignore the other.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?

That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.

How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.

Stupider, what are you a broken record. Who said anything about preventing abortions?

Why is it so hard for you to focus on the title of the thread and the topic of discussion? Why must everything be some sort of underhanded, flipping, spinning attempt at hurting someone?!?

As for the man signing the piece of paper. It should be his right. If a woman doesn't want a child, she doesn't have one. He's not abandoning her. She still has her choice to make just as he does.

Likewise no one has advocated having the choice forever. The article mentioned a timeframe of one month from notification of impending fatherhood. If he decided later he didn't want to be a father, that would be his own problem. Men should just have more choices than, well the condom had a leak welcome to 18 years of hell.

In a truly enlightened society, we will move on to equal rights and not just a small group of women attempting to criminalize as many aspects of male sexuality as possible nor any small group criminalizing sex period.

A woman shouldn't have to risk health/jail for an abortion.
A man or woman shouldn't have to risk jail for having a homosexual act.
A man shouldn't have to risk jail for not wanting to be a father.

Anything hard to understand there... and just in case it wasn't clear the first couple times. This isn't about restricting abortion.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.

I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.

This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.

Actually the article mentioned there were instances where men had been ruled against when a used condom, used during.. an oral act, had been kept by the woman and used to artificially inseminate herself. The man was till liable.

As for keeping track, as long as it is about equality sure. Would you require women to name the father before an abortion procedure, adoption procedure or abandonment could occur?

Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.

As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #62 of 382
"To punish her for having more 'rights' than men."

That part was particularly humorous! I suppose I'm being "punished" for not being allowed to just "have" a new sports car while someone else picks up the tab. I want it- therefore, I shall have it, right? Oh, I can't afford it? Well that sucks. Wisely, I should not charge my credit card for it (or another human being, for that matter), if I realistically just cannot afford such a venture.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #63 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
And that benefits a child in which way? Being a Sperm Donor doesn't make you a Father. It's simple ..forget the cute slogans and look at the bedrock of this issue. Women should not be allowed to have Abortions if Men have no say so in being comdemned to financially and/or emotionally support a child they have no desire to have.

I don't give a rip about the other rather extranneous issues. Frankly I'm pretty tired of seeing shitty parents of both Genders.

I do believe it is a Womans body and our Gov has some tough choices to make. Either disallow Abortions in %95 of all cases or allow them and also allow potential Fathers to Op Out. This issue really isn't that tough. Every inequality that our Gov allows to exist potentially weakens faith in our Gov and way of life. This doesn't have to happen.

That's just stupid. A man can't hijack a woman's body becase he feels entitled to it. Why don't you let me store something large and growing in you and then pass it trough your birth canal, fella? As long as women carry babies, they will have the decision on abortion. Don't like it? Grow a uterus.

Frankly this whole thread makes me sick. One of the proofs (IMHO) of manhood is being able to suck it up and take responsibility for your actions.....I consider it just above cowardice to look for the first opportunity to cut and run, which is what the advocates here are proposing.
post #64 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by I, Fred
That's just stupid. A man can't hijack a woman's body becase he feels entitled to it. Why don't you let me store something large and growing in you and then pass it trough your birth canal, fella? As long as women carry babies, they will have the decision on abortion. Don't like it? Grow a uterus.

Frankly this whole thread makes me sick. One of the proofs (IMHO) of manhood is being able to suck it up and take responsibility for your actions.....I consider it just above cowardice to look for the first opportunity to cut and run, which is what the advocates here are proposing.

i agree with you that men shouldn't have final say over abortion; its not our bodies being ****ed with to kill the unborn child. i would hope a couple would talk it over together, and come to a joined decision, but ultimately its the woman's body. [i feel weird saying that, because i'm opposed to abortion. i guess i should predicate it with, 'while its considered legal, a woman should have the final say over her body'] but men here aren't advocating cowardice or what you seem to be saying. trumptman noticed that women have the right to stop financially supporting the baby after birth. he also pointed out that men do not have this right, and that is his gripe is men should have the same rights as women in this respect (methinks). basically, to put it in other terms, he seeks to free "dead beat dads" from their financial obligation. i completely agree with this idea.
post #65 of 382
I think this must be a hard concept for some people here. Sure, a man should not have rights over a woman's body. However, if he does not want it, but she has it anyways, it should be completely her own liability. She don't want that liability on her own, don't have it. That last statement would be a good basis for a motto for the "equal rights" side, I think. A man who invokes this right as early as possible is not a "dead-beat dad". He is a realist over what he is capable of handling and possibly what she is capable of handling. Now if he agrees to raising a baby with the women, and then runs off, that would be your "deadbeat dad", and there are plenty of laws available already to hunt that man down as appropriate.

Now, maybe the guy should be decent enough to help pay for an abortion, if he and she are in agreement. ...but I think this is where the "Guvment" should rightly step in as a contingency, if necessary- subsidized abortion (maybe up to a limit of 5, after which sterilization will be mandatory). It's not pretty, it's not universally moral, but it is a pragmatic solution in lieu of bringing another unwanted child into the world for lack of personal funds (which is an unfortunate reality). You'd think a modern nation, with modern medicine, and considerable national wealth, could afford such a measure for its own good...
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #66 of 382
Quote:
That's just stupid. A man can't hijack a woman's body becase he feels entitled to it. Why don't you let me store something large and growing in you and then pass it trough your birth canal, fella? As long as women carry babies, they will have the decision on abortion. Don't like it? Grow a uterus.

The Woman is just as culpable of "hijacking" her body. Yes Pregnacy can be difficult and uncomfortable but the decision to put up with that is solely on the Woman. Men cannot be blamed for Human Nature

Quote:
Frankly this whole thread makes me sick. One of the proofs (IMHO) of manhood is being able to suck it up and take responsibility for your actions.....I consider it just above cowardice to look for the first opportunity to cut and run, which is what the advocates here are proposing.

That's JUST the point. If a Man WANTS to take responsibilty for his actions it doesn't matter. The Woman can decide on a whim to abort the pregnacy. I admire your chivalry and Old World ideals but you're forgetting the backstroke on the knife cuts just as deep.

If I don't want to be a Father..then that's it. I don't feel like Men should be forced to become what they do not wish. That is not Freedom.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #67 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by I, Fred
That's just stupid. A man can't hijack a woman's body becase he feels entitled to it. Why don't you let me store something large and growing in you and then pass it trough your birth canal, fella? As long as women carry babies, they will have the decision on abortion. Don't like it? Grow a uterus.

Word.

This is just a thinly veiled attempt to advocate banning abortion (the site advocates just that). This time, apparently, men are being told what to do with their bodies if a woman decides against having an abortion.

I don't know what the term is, but what i"feminists".net argues can really never occur. Is it reasonable at all that men should have the right to individually decide whether to pay child support? In other words, child support no longer remains mandatory but becomes voluntary.

I don't think so, and I am sure that the site doesn't either.

So the question becomes: abortion should be illegal because neither a woman nor a man should have any choice. Even when it's the woman's in the first place, they advocate making everything "equal."

"True Equality" means screwing women and denying them the right to abort.

EDIT: Fixed typo. Thanks to Trumptman for finding it and expounding on its sheer impossibility.
post #68 of 382
Quote:
"True Equality" means screwing women and denying them the right to abort.

How is that? In which way is a Woman trapped? She can have the child...marry the man she wants and attach a portion of your check to her income. Sounds pretty damn good to me for Women.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #69 of 382
"Frankly this whole thread makes me sick. One of the proofs (IMHO) of manhood is being able to suck it up and take responsibility for your actions..."

This is pretty rich. Similarly, a woman should suck it up and show some maturity, as well (essentially, all parties need to exercise forethought and responsibility, not just the man). If there is no realistic way to pay for raising a baby other than entrapping someone to the full extent of the law, she should be responsible enough to choose not have the baby. If she has it anyway, she should be responsible enough to take on all liabilities to make it work- that was her choice, and those are the consequences/liabilities.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #70 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
Word.

This is just a thinly veiled attempt to advocate banning abortion (the site advocates just that). This time, apparently, men are being told what to do with their bodies if a woman has an abortion.

I don't know what the term is, but what i"feminists".net argues can really never occur. Is it reasonable at all that men should have the right to individually decide whether to pay child support? In other words, child support no longer remains mandatory but becomes voluntary.

I don't think so, and I am sure that the site doesn't either.

So the question becomes: abortion should be illegal because neither a woman nor a man should have any choice. Even when it's the woman's in the first place, they advocate making everything "equal."

"True Equality" means screwing women and denying them the right to abort.

How would a man be told what to do with his body if a woman has an abortion? You assertion doesn't even seem possible.

Likewise you misstate the intent of men and having the right to terminate parental rights. The article did not say you have the right to terminate them or decide against support arbitrarily. It would have a time frame. That would be just as silly as me saying women could abort their babies at two years old. Both parties have a time frame for their decisions.

You alone are making the assumption that one party having rights while the other doesn't means the first should give up those rights. When have we ever followed that pattern as a country? Is there any historical precident for your claims? We have always extended rights to the group that had fewer and needed to become equal. The only thing that might even come close is prohibition. How that could be attemped sexually I don't even know.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If a mother wishes to give up a child for adoption, can the father prevent her and force her to retain her maternal rights? I understand that he can assert his rights to keep the child. However can he prevent her from giving up hers?

If you do not want the mother to give your child to adoption, the most logical thing i see you could do to prevent it, would be YOU adopting the child.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #72 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
If you do not want the mother to give your child to adoption, the most logical thing i see you could do to prevent it, would be YOU adopting the child.

Why would you have to adopt it if you are already the father?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
If you do not want the mother to give your child to adoption, the most logical thing i see you could do to prevent it, would be YOU adopting the child.

You're missing the point. If a father can be forced to pay child support even though he doesn't want the child, the mother should be forced to pay child support to the father if she doesn't want the child.

But, like I keep reiterating, when during the pregnancy does the biological father have legal right to prevent the mother from aborting because HE wants to keep the child even though she doesn't?

Answer me that.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #74 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut

But, like I keep reiterating, when during the pregnancy does the biological father have legal right to prevent the mother from aborting because HE wants to keep the child even though she doesn't?

Answer me that.

Is this really a problem? How many women would go through with an abortion when the biological father was ready and willing to raise the child on his own.

I'm not saying it has never happened, just doubting it is statistically significant. In fact it is probably dwarfed by the number of women forced to have an abortion, against there own better judgement, by the biological father.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #75 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
But, like I keep reiterating, when during the pregnancy does the biological father have legal right to prevent the mother from aborting because HE wants to keep the child even though she doesn't?

Answer me that.

I think anyone else has no right to tell to a person what is inside his / her body. So if there is a parass.. umh, fetus that the person does not want, no external person should be allowed to force the person having the parassite to keep it for the 9 months.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #76 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would you have to adopt it if you are already the father?

Nick

Well, take it to your care then. I assume if the woman wants to get rid of the baby after it's born, and the man doesn't, the man and woman likely aren't living together. Or won't be after the guy still has the kid.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #77 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is this really a problem? How many women would go through with an abortion when the biological father was ready and willing to raise the child on his own.

If you want no kids, you want no kids.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #78 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Men can't do what? Take the child from the mother and leave it at a firestation?

I can see the gripe re:child support, but as usual you're taking a semi-valid point and surrounding it with a pile of shit making it difficult to get to.

*cue reactionary spew*

Sorry, Grove, but the reactionary spew here is your own. Stop trolling.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #79 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is this really a problem? How many women would go through with an abortion when the biological father was ready and willing to raise the child on his own.

I'm not saying it has never happened, just doubting it is statistically significant. In fact it is probably dwarfed by the number of women forced to have an abortion, against there own better judgement, by the biological father.

I would say you are probably right on these two matters. However you also have to think that the mother doesn't have to tell the father she is pregnant and let him indicate he would want the child. She could just go abort and leave him ignorant of the matter.

You are right though that there are likely many women who are pressured into abortions by men who don't wish to become fathers. Thus giving fathers the right to terminate their parental rights might truly make abortion a woman's choice instead of just a woman's procedure she goes through due to pressure from the man.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
Well, take it to your care then. I assume if the woman wants to get rid of the baby after it's born, and the man doesn't, the man and woman likely aren't living together. Or won't be after the guy still has the kid.

However is the woman allowed to let go of her parental rights and thus not be forced to provide financially for the child?

Men aren't allowed to do this. If women want the child and the men don't, even if they are willing to sign away their parental rights, they are still held financially responsible by the state. What do you advocate for both?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..