Your attributing nonsense to me does not make it true. I am one of the most ardent supporters of choice on this board. You appear to be pro choice as well but the difference is that you seem not to be able to make arguments in support of your position. I do not have that problem. Since you did respond to the argument in my post, there is not much else to say. You claim "he is responsible for his children" I explained why this is a fallacious argument. You did not even attempt to refute this argument. You repeating your premise "he is responsible for his children" over and over again does not make it true. They are not "his children" any more than that of a sperm donor who are not responsible for supporting their genetic progeny.
Your whole argument that men should have no responsibility for their children is hyperbole....and impractical, impossible, ridiculous, because if it wasn't you and men would have tried to get a law passed a long time ago...That's reason there is no Big Movement to release men from their Horrible Burden and give them their "equality". SANE people realize how silly the argument is... But you go ahead and "prove" your point....and see where it gets ya.....men will still be forced to act like decent humans and support their children, you know those little people you don't care about...
I was going to comment, but I think the fire in this thread is too hot to touch. *Turns on the sprinkler and backs out of the room*
Ok, so I wasn't going to get into the middle of this brawl, but I have to know something. No I did not read all of the posts because it's a lot of screaming I would think. If a man should be made to be responsible for offer spring he helps create (which I think a real man should voluntarily) does man get a say in the decision of aborting? Something that has always bothered me about that one way street.
I was showing an example of problems down the road if this country was ever stupid enough to give men the freedom to not support their children. Some people can't see farther than the end of their angst... My point, which of course you couldn't get, was that if you want to be really FAIR then people without children shouldn't have to pay taxes for other people's children since men wouldn't have to pay for their own. I'd like to know how you plan to have men have debilitating , painful, expensive periods and pregnancies......don't you feel it's unfair for only women to have those "pleasures"???
I'm against forced adoptions. No parent should have their child forcibly taken away from them just because the other parent would rather not be involved. Anti-choicers want to remove a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. Their argument is nothing to do with giving parents the right to walk away from their responsibilities.
Men have, and have always had, the right to express their opinions, but they have no right to force another to accept their opinions. Women make the choices regarding their own bodies, but are often influenced by others who care about them.
Who is questioning whether or not a woman can make a choice about their body? Heck, lop off an arm if they want. What is questioned is the other life, the baby.
Are you, or are you not, wanting to force a woman to use HER body to support the life of a zef? It is that choice that a woman is entitled to make because it is HER body. If you want to sustain the life of a zef using your body or some mechanical means, have at it.
Well, not the person that I was expecting to answer, but I got the answer that I expected to get. Based upon what I'm seeing in this conversation a man HAS to be responsible for the child that he help create, even if he wants to chose another option, but it's the woman's RIGHT to chose. However, if a man WANTS to take on the burden of raising a child that he helped create, but the woman wants to choose another option it's her RIGHT to chose. So.......the woman has all of the rights and the man has none, yet we (the man) are being held responsible. I just find this funny. You may now carry on with the shouting.
That's never going to happen. Idealism is unfortunately nothing more than a pipe dream. As a society we will always be paying for other people's children, whether it be their welfare, their education, or even their cost of living just so they have a chance in this world. I take no issue with this fact, although it seems you do. I'd like to know where you think I made such a claim? Or is this just the fact that you are once again flat out LYING about my position? Dishonest debating. Despicable.
How? Elaborate please? I am positive that a women can lose complete contact with a man she slept with if she really wanted to.
That is essentially what is happening. A woman can easily decide that she does not want to be a mother. She can literally opt out of parenthood either by having an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption and simply pretending she doesn't know who the father is. A man however is at the mercy of the woman. If she chooses to have the baby when he has made it clear he does not want to be a father he is unfortunately forced to provide for it. This is a huge discrepancy in our legal system and in equality as a whole.
Who said anything about forced adoptions? Although I guess you could say it is forced on the child against their will. They argue against her right to bodily autonomy and self determination. Those two things are highly intertwined. I would be extremely offended at the idea of forcing a woman to become a mother against her will just as I am offended at the idea of a man being forced to become a father against his will. It is absurd to thing one is ok and the other is not.
YOU are the one who thinks men are treated so unfairly...I was just supporting your longing for their equality.... Why don't you want TOTAL equality? ......seems odd you don't.......seems you want men to have a little more "equality...
I am not arguing for idealism, I am arguing for equality of men having the option to choose when they become parents. Why must you continue to misrepresent my position? Actually, I think if women no longer had an easy option to extort child support from her sperm donor then more women would responsibly choose abortion until they are in a committed relationship with a man. This would actually result in far less children being born into poverty thus perpetuating the system of fatherless children and welfare babies. When you take away what is actually an incentive to have a baby (free money every single month from baby daddy) you are actually in the process of fixing an already broken and abused system. They are treated unfairly when it comes to parental rights. They have no option to sign away their parental rights as in an adoption setting without the mother's consent while she does. Women are also not required to seek out the father and acquire his permission before putting her baby up for adoption. She can simply lie and pretend she doesn't know who he is. I see the discrepancy, I am pointing it out and arguing how best to fix it and why it is best to fix it. (i.e. it would result in far less children without stable homes and parents who aren't committed to one another before they choose to have babies). If women were required to find and acquire the permission of the biological father before putting her baby up for adoption we would probably see more abortions because women would realize they would HAVE to HAVE his permission and knowing he might say NO she'd have to take responsibility and remain a mother to her child. If she doesn't want to be a mother then she may more likely seek an abortion. One less baby dumped into the adoption system. One less baby society has to pay for. What you want to keep in place is a system that actually perpetuates and grows with more and more children on welfare every year. See above.
Asking people she knows, using the internet Not for long, if he really wanted to find her it would be quite easy. It's not as easy to disappear as all that. People have ties to certain place. - - - Updated - - - No it isn't. Read the link I provided. How on earth did you reach that conclusion? Thank you so much.
You seemed to think it was a good idea for a man to force a woman to put their child for adoption if he so chose. You thought mothers could legally do that regardless of the wishes of the father, but they can't. It's not absurd. It's the way human reproduction works. Nature has not given men the ability to practise birth control after having sex. His body is not involved in pregnancy, so bodily autonomy doesn't come into it for a man at all.
Unless he has gotten to the point of stalking her I don't see how he could ever have known she was pregnant or had a baby or put it up for adoption. I don't see anything that is to stop her from lying to him and saying she never conceived from their encounter or lying and saying she had an abortion.
Wrong. I think a man should be free to sign away his parental rights much similar to an adoption setting, however the mother would keep the child (if she wants to) and any man she dates or marries in the future may choose to adopt the child and become it's father if he likes. They can and they do it all the time. If women were legally required to prove that they have no knowledge of who the father is (polygraph testing could be applied here) and then acquire permission from the father and he says NO, she may actually be more likely to choose an abortion knowing she would have to take responsibility and remain a mother after she chooses to give birth. I have a feeling this would slowly start to solve the over abundance of orphaned children we see in the adoption/foster system. I don't think I ever mentioned the bodily autonomy of a man, but allow me to elaborate my argument further from this point anyways. When the window of abortion is still open men should definitely have the option to sign away their parental rights. Knowing her child will be fatherless she will still have the option to have an abortion. If she hides her pregnancy from him and gives birth without his knowledge and then attempts to extort money from him via child support I think he should be free to sign away his parental rights at that point. He was not made aware of the child and never given the option to inform her on whether or not he wanted to be a father.
No she can't. The father has rights. Read the link I provided. She can terminate an unwanted pregnancy because her body is involved. Not because the law says so. The law has nothing to do with it. She doesn't opt out being a parent She opts out of pregnancy. Men can't opt out of pregnancy, because they don't have a pregnancy. Pregnancy does not happen to men. There is no way of giving men the right or ability to take any action after having sex that will prevent his child being born. There is no law that would be able to get round it. Women are not able to sign a piece of paper and walk away from an embryo. They have to undergo medical treatment. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand?
He could find out if he made an effort to find out. She couldn't keep the pretence she wasn't pregnant for long. Someone would find out and tell him. People do not live isolated lives these days.
