Men's Rights?

[fuzzylogix]

Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.

Then, by extrapolation, anyone unwilling to support her flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a woman.

 

[tracy]

Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.

Then, by extrapolation, anyone unwilling to support her flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a woman.

Yes. I completely agree. When a child is born, the battle of the sexes doesn't matter anymore. The child matters.

(Again, the only exception IMO is when both parents place the child for adoption which I consider to be a very loving and honoroble thing to do).

 

[Zzarchov]

Of course not.. I mean rationally yes but children are an emotional issue to women.


The right of rulership of the conception and birth has been the tradional role of women for time immemorial (the flip-side of being "baby-machines"). It is WOMENS right and men have no place in it ("can you give birth?", seems not)

They will react the same way men did when the male traditional role as breadwinner and head of household came under fire in the same way. It is MENS right and women have no place in it ("Can you work your whole life without needing to take time off for a kid?" Seems not),



But new laws were passed (such as maternity leave), Males matured and people adapted.

Similarily at some point new laws will be passed, women will mature and people will adapt to men having equal say in the process of birth and conception.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Similarily at some point new laws will be passed, women will mature and people will adapt to men having equal say in the process of birth and conception.

How exactly can women mature out of being the only ones physically responsible for childbearing after conception? Unless someone invests a fake womb or men are somehow given uteri, I just don't understand.

I would love for either of those two things to happen btw.

 

[Zzarchov]

well, the same questions were asked about how women could be equal in the workplace when they couldn't make their husbands become pregnant with the child.

Men asked "how is this fair that they are given special rights to maternity leave, working less but having an equal chance at promotion?" and people said "Deal with it, lesser of two evils"

And people will say in the future to women "Deal with it, lesser of two evils".

 

[tracy]

Not all women take time off to have babies, it's not the same thing. Some of us don't want to have babies at all. If I do take time off, I don't have the same opportunities as the coworkers that don't in terms of promotions.

 

[Zzarchov]

By law you do, now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean much in practice, but in time, by law men will have the same rights as women in regards to procreation.

And likewise, not all men want to have babies, some of us don't want to have babies at all.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew I wholeheartedly agree that both father and mother have rights. In my opinion if both parents sit down and they decide together that they don't want the child, so be it. If the mother decides she wants the child and he doesn’t, again, so be it. The mother can sign papers stating the father has no responsibilities to the child. Yes contraceptives fail but both parties have thier rights upheld especially in a court of law if it comes to that. I'm not talking about to irresponsible people who didn't use contraceptives. I'm talking about two responcible people that came into a situation by way of a malfunction of a contraceptive.

The problem is, the courts do not protect the men if the mother does not sign the paper. So, the choice goes back to one party and not both. A mother would never sign a form like that, as she is guarenteed $$$ if she forces him to be a father. Everyone must have the choice to be a parent or not, and it should not be forced upon anyone.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew I wholeheartedly agree that both father and mother have rights. In my opinion if both parents sit down and they decide together that they don't want the child, so be it. If the mother decides she wants the child and he doesn’t, again, so be it. The mother can sign papers stating the father has no responsibilities to the child. Yes contraceptives fail but both parties have thier rights upheld especially in a court of law if it comes to that. I'm not talking about to irresponsible people who didn't use contraceptives. I'm talking about two responcible people that came into a situation by way of a malfunction of a contraceptive.

The problem is, the courts do not protect the men if the mother does not sign the paper. So, the choice goes back to one party and not both. A mother would never sign a form like that, as she is guarenteed $$$ if she forces him to be a father. Everyone must have the choice to be a parent or not, and it should not be forced upon anyone.

 

[Andrew]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Hardy-har-har...Of course they know the sex ed part of it, but you do put your faith in the birth control, and when that fails, both parties should have a choice. I have never said he should force her either way, but he should still have a choice. If she chooses to keep the baby (fetus), he should have the choice to be a father or not. That is a basic human right.

Having a father is a basic human right. It's the child's right to receive support from both its biological parents other than in the case of adoption. Why should a man who knowingly risked creating a child have his rights supercede those of the only person who truly had no choice in the matter?

Well, if you think THAT way, then why should the mother's rights supercede the childs? What is good for the goose is good for the gander (and vise versa). I feel the ones the courts view as people (as you noted the fetus is not a person), should have their rights protected..

Well, looking back is 20/20. Good for her. It is not as easy to track down people as you think, especially with today's transient population. There has to be a more regulated way, as opposed to a guy getting lucky enough to find his ex. It is good that he can get a DNA test.

What more regulated way would you suggest?

Father's should be identified at the first medical assessment, and at that point the parents should decide on the future of the fetus.

There are cases in the USA, where a DNA test has shown a guy is not the kids father, but he still has to pay child support. How crazy is that?

Also in China, citizens can now ask for DNA testing, and it is providing huge concern. The problem is, fathers are getting themselves and their 3, 4 , 5 year old and older kids tested, and 20% of all tests show the guy is not actually the father of the child. So 1 in 5 kids is not the child of the guy, which, as you could very well understand, is having a huge impact on the society.

It may be a little crazy. I do feel sorry for a child when a man raised him as his own for years only to challenge paternity when things sour with the mother.

Well, only one person to blame in that situation...The mother.

 

[Andrew]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

wait tracey..

What part of Sex Ed was that he missed? The parts where condoms are fail about 1 times in 100?

Yes, that the only way to be 100% sure to avoid pregnancy is to avoid vaginal intercoarse unless you've been surgically sterilized. It isn't more complicated than that.

The only way to ensure no pregnancy is really to not have sex, and unless this is rape, that is the womans choice equally.

Yes it is. I've never said it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that the woman is biologically in control of childbearing after conception or that any child born has the right to support from both parents. The time for men to exercise their CHOICE in childbearing is when they choose to have sex. Women get make that choice AND they get to decide on abortion or not. That may seem unfair to men, but you have to admit it also carries a lot of downsides. I've worked high risk L&D and NICU long enough to see some REALLY bad outcomes and it's never the father that has to deal with the physical aspects of childbirth.

This is the attitude that needs to change. Sex is not a choice. It is part of survival. It takes two people to get pregnant, and the only fair process is to give both people a choice in the matter. Society's attitudes and opinions change all the time, and this is a right men need to start demanding. And women should support this right if they want to live in a fair and just society. It can't be a one way street.

 

[Andrew]

Tracy I don't disagree with you that the woman has all the biological choices. What I am saying is that if two people created a life using responsible contraceptives then morally and legally the man has a choice also. If she chooses the child and he doesn't then papers can be drawn to relieve him of his responsibilities. She has the right to raise the child on her own.

The problem I have with that is what about the child (remember, the child is the only person in this equation who had no choices)? The child has a right to support from both biological parents unless they both agree to place that child for adoption. A man doesn't have the right to abandon a child he created any more than a woman has the right to prevent the father from having a relationship with their child because once a child is born his or her rights become paramount.

Sorry Tracy, I have to agree with Feronia. The choice needs to be equal for both parents, not just one. If the mother knows the father does not want a child, then she must make her decision based on that information. If she decides to have the child, then that is her choice.

 

[Andrew]

Tracy I don't disagree with you that the woman has all the biological choices. What I am saying is that if two people created a life using responsible contraceptives then morally and legally the man has a choice also. If she chooses the child and he doesn't then papers can be drawn to relieve him of his responsibilities. She has the right to raise the child on her own.

The problem I have with that is what about the child (remember, the child is the only person in this equation who had no choices)? The child has a right to support from both biological parents unless they both agree to place that child for adoption. A man doesn't have the right to abandon a child he created any more than a woman has the right to prevent the father from having a relationship with their child because once a child is born his or her rights become paramount.

Sorry Tracy, I have to agree with Feronia. The choice needs to be equal for both parents, not just one. If the mother knows the father does not want a child, then she must make her decision based on that information. If she decides to have the child, then that is her choice.

 

[tracy]

Vaginal sex is not a matter of survival. That's just not true. You will not die if your unsurgically sterilized penis doesn't enter another vagina for the rest of your life.

It does take two people to conceive a child, but it only takes one to carry it and give birth to it.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

[Well, if you think THAT way, then why should the mother's rights supercede the childs? What is good for the goose is good for the gander (and vise versa). I feel the ones the courts view as people (as you noted the fetus is not a person), should have their rights protected..

The mother's rights don't supercede the child's once it is born.

Father's should be identified at the first medical assessment, and at that point the parents should decide on the future of the fetus.

The problem is how can you identify the father? You can't force a woman to tell you the father's name and you can't prove paternity so early in the pregnancy. Even when you can, it's a procedure that increases the risks of miscarriage.

[Well, only one person to blame in that situation...The mother.

I agree it's her fault. I just think it's sad for the child and a shame that a father could cut himself off from a child he's raised as his own so easily.

 

[tracy]

Sorry Tracy, I have to agree with Feronia. The choice needs to be equal for both parents, not just one. If the mother knows the father does not want a child, then she must make her decision based on that information. If she decides to have the child, then that is her choice.

Fortunately the law agrees with me right now. I see no reason why a child should be denied financial support because his father didn't want to be a father.

 

[tracy]

[
The problem is, the courts do not protect the men if the mother does not sign the paper. So, the choice goes back to one party and not both. A mother would never sign a form like that, as she is guarenteed $$$ if she forces him to be a father.

You might be surprised at how many women are more that willing to give up the financial windfall to get their children's "fathers" out of the picture. My sister in law has been trying to get her ex to give up his paternal rights so he wouldn't have to pay any support.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.

So why is it a not a sad day that people who do not want children are being forced to support a child they did not want? That should also be sad, as you are ruining somone life as well.

Also, once the father makes his desires known, the choice of the baby being brought into the world is in the hands of one person...Who could also put the baby up for adoption if she feels she can't give the baby what she feels it needs.

I don't believe that justice is blind, and sex is definitely a determining factor in court decisions.

 

[tracy]

Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.

So why is it a not a sad day that people who do not want children are being forced to support a child they did not want? That should also be sad, as you are ruining somone life as well.

Also, once the father makes his desires known, the choice of the baby being brought into the world is in the hands of one person...Who could also put the baby up for adoption if she feels she can't give the baby what she feels it needs.

I don't believe that justice is blind, and sex is definitely a determining factor in court decisions.

Why is it sad? It's sad to me that people knowingly engage in behaviors that can result in the creation of a person, then say they have no responsibilities to that person. Screw my flesh and blood child, I just wanted the orgasm not anything that came after it? That's selfish, immature, thoughtless, irresponsible and just plain cold. Someone like that should get sterilized.

 

[Andrew]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Vaginal sex is not a matter of survival. That's just not true. You will not die if your unsurgically sterilized penis doesn't enter another vagina for the rest of your life.

It does take two people to conceive a child, but it only takes one to carry it and give birth to it.

That is your opinion. For mental health it is necessary.

So both people should have a choice.