Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Jhhnn]

As I believe I pointed out the difference is the man was not engaged in child abuse.

Non-payment of child support is a form of neglect, one kind of child abuse.

It is not the job of the state to provide free sterilization to people.

So, in your authoritarian utopia, people will have to pay for their own sterilization, kinda like having to pay for their own interrogation in the movie Brazil?

It would seem to be more sensible to prevent unwanted and neglected children from existing in the first place.

indeed it would, which is why the contraceptive coverage in the ACA is a great idea. You do believe in that, right?

And I am confused about why there are unwanted children??? Why are women failing to get abortions to rid themselves of unwanted children in the first place?

Things change. It's like anything else- people can set out with the best intentions only to not live up to them.

So you think many women repeatedly abuse their children. And while this is an excellent argument against giving women choices. I fail to see how it is an argument against men having choices.

Very clumsy strawman. I edited so you can't deliberately misconstrue. You've given yourself away as a troll with that one.

Once again you are proving that all your arguments based around caring about children are BS.

You would rather see a child abused than tell a woman what to do with her body

I don't perpetrate or condone abuse against children or women, either. You demand it wrt women.

 

[TheDev]

This sounds like a great idea for all the dead beat dads out there

 

[nehalem256]

Laws were not created so women could abandon the child they allowed the woman to for the child's safety.

Safety from being murdered by their mother.

 

[nehalem256]

Non-payment of child support is a form of neglect, one kind of child abuse.

Bustin' a nut in some woman does not entitle her to your money to support HER choice. As per the original post the "father" would not be the father in any legal since. Abuse not found.

So, in your authoritarian utopia, people will have to pay for their own sterilization, kinda like having to pay for their own interrogation in the movie Brazil?

I do not see why society should have to pay because crack whores are too dumb to use condoms or get abortions. Or have the decency to put their children up for adoption.

indeed it would, which is why the contraceptive coverage in the ACA is a great idea. You do believe in that, right?

Maybe we should start handing out free magic cards and Ad&d rule books. People are responsible for paying for their own entertainment.

Things change. It's like anything else- people can set out with the best intentions only to not live up to them.

You do not accidently abuse 7 children

Very clumsy strawman. I edited so you can't deliberately misconstrue. You've given yourself away as a troll with that one.

I said women who repeatedly abused their children should be sterilized.

You then said this would result in MANY women being sterilized.

Clearly you believe many women repeatedly abuse their children.

I don't perpetrate or condone abuse against children or women, either. You demand it wrt women.

You think women who have repeatedly abused their children have a right to have more.

And I clearly stated that men who repeatedly abuse their children should be sterilized as well.

 

[cybrsage]

Non-payment of child support is a form of neglect, one kind of child abuse.

No, it is not.

The difference between nonpayment of child support and neglect is simply that neglect is ignoring your child's essential needs and nonpayment of child support is failure to give the custodial parent money to provide for these needs. If you are not the custodial parent then chances are the custodial parent is caring for your child's essential needs, regardless of whether you pay or not. Unless your child's needs are being neglected during visitation, then the noncustodial parent is probably not guilty of neglect.

http://www.helium.com/items/1980885...tween-nonpayment-of-child-support-and-neglect

 

[cybrsage]

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.[82] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.
McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.
​

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.
This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."[83]
The legal concept was tried in Dubay v. Wells and was dismissed. This was not surprising, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-support

 

[nehalem256]

The difference between nonpayment of child support and neglect is simply that neglect is ignoring your child's essential needs and nonpayment of child support is failure to give the custodial parent money to provide for these needs. If you are not the custodial parent then chances are the custodial parent is caring for your child's essential needs, regardless of whether you pay or not. Unless your child's needs are being neglected during visitation, then the noncustodial parent is probably not guilty of neglect.

Wait a minute I thought child support went to the child not to the custodial parent (woman)

 

[Atreus21]

Men already made their choice when they decided to have sex with a woman. No form of contraception is perfect, and we all know that. We also understand that once impregnated, women have sole discretion wrt bringing the fetus to term.

You're suggesting that men get a do-over if anything goes against them, facilitated by limiting women's choices.

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Uh...

How again does that apply to men but not to women...?

 

[cybrsage]

Unborn= fetus
Born = child

fetus = unborn child

 

[cybrsage]

"should should" Really? You think that makes sense?

you are so lame you actually believe a typo is a grammatical error! WOW. You then go on to add things which are not in the item you quoted and pretend they are!

Wow, you really do quickly go into super lame mode when you out yourself.

 

[nobodyknows]

So women accept 0% of repsosibility of the act of getting pregnant, yet have 100% say in the outcome of the pregnancy? What about the cases when the woman gets pregnant and the man wants the child but she aborts? She already made that choice when she decided to have sex with a man . . . sounds like a double standard. Shouldn't she be held to the same bar? It should have been HER responsibility to get cut or take the appropriate measures to avoid pregnancy.

LOL, Do you know how many women have children with no show fathers? If you have sex and create a child, then man up and support that child, both with both monetary and emotional support. Or stick to whores.

 

[cybrsage]

Uh...

How again does that apply to men but not to women...?

He says he DOES apply it to women...then argues the exact opposite point:

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Do you apply this view to women also?

Yes.

He says women who do not want children should not engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy (tubes tied, etc for women obviously - this is my addition due to it being impossible for women to have a vasectomy), or embrace celibacy.

 

[cybrsage]

LOL, Do you know how many women have children with no show fathers? If you have sex and create a child, then man up and support that child, both with both monetary and emotional support. Or stick to whores.

Do you believe insitutionalized sexual discrimination should be continued in the US?

 

[nobodyknows]

You don't want kids? Then get fixed, otherwise quit bitching like girly men.

 

[cybrsage]

You don't want kids? Then get fixed, otherwise quit bitching like girly men.

Do you apply this view to women also?

 

[nobodyknows]

Do you believe insitutionalized sexual discrimination should be continued in the US?

Oh please. you can't force someone to have an abortion any more then you can force someone to get fixed.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't want kids? Then get fixed, otherwise quit bitching like girly men.

So expect men to take on the traditional role of provider.

Do you also expect a woman who is pregnant to stand in the kitchen (barefoot of course) making her baby daddy a sandwich?

 

[nobodyknows]

Do you apply this view to women also?

Women can always have an abortion if THEY so choose.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh please. you can't force someone to have an abortion any more then you can force someone to get fixed.

So a woman CHOOSES to have a child knowing that her baby daddy wants nothing to do with it... and then she whines that she has no one to support her?

Do you think women are retarded?

 

[nehalem256]

Women can always have an abortion if THEY so choose.

And it is the man's fault if THEY choose wrongly how?

 

[nobodyknows]

So expect men to take on the traditional role of provider.

Do you also expect a woman who is pregnant to stand in the kitchen (barefoot of course) making her baby daddy a sandwich?

I expect men to man up and take on their resposibility. Most of them don't, they just send out their paltry check and wash their hands. IMHO, these are not real men, just male whores.

 

[nobodyknows]

And it is the man's fault if THEY choose wrongly how?

WHAT? If you don't want kids, don't have sex or get fixed. It's the only choices you have without violating another person's rights.

 

[nobodyknows]

So a woman CHOOSES to have a child knowing that her baby daddy wants nothing to do with it... and then she whines that she has no one to support her?

Do you think women are retarded?

LOL, it takes two to have a child and even then their is no guarantee, so how do you think the woman chooses to have a child? She's already pregnant. Her only choice at that point is to kill the child.

I don't think I could do that if I were a women and it's just bogus nonsense to think the man has the right to impose that choice on the woman.

 

[nehalem256]

WHAT? If you don't want kids, don't have sex or get fixed. It's the only choices you have without violating another person's rights.

Unless you are a woman right?

LOL, it takes two to have a child and even then their is no guarantee, so how do you think the woman chooses to have a child? She's already pregnant. Her only choice at that point is to kill the child.

I don't think I could do that if I were a women and it's just bogus nonsense to think the man has the right to impose that choice on the woman.

Or she could raise the child by herself. Or do you think women need a man?

No one is imposing any choice on a woman. Did you even read the original post?

 

[cybrsage]

Women can always have an abortion if THEY so choose.

You support sexual discrimination. Thanks for at least being honest.