"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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
If a woman wants a child and you don't, don't f*ck with that woman. That is the most simple solution.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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
If a woman wants a child and you don't, don't f*ck with that woman. That is the most simple solution.