|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 18, @01:58PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Although I don't have any problems with it, has anyone noticed the potential inconsistency of our advocating both that men should be able to have paper abortions and the notion that fathers are important for child development?
It seems like the latter argument creates a precedent that allowing paper abortions should be against public policy for that reason.
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. On the one hand many men are saying "We want to abandon biological children that we wanted aborted" and the others are saying "fathers are essential" implying that "fathers have a duty to care for their children".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sure notice it. Cognitive dissonance is the term for such things I think.
Otherwise, you have people who believe in one thing and others that don't. Welcome to inconsistency within your ranks. The same kind of inconsistencies that feminism has had to deal with among it's many diverse members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 18, @03:34PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that men who are forced into fatherhood against their will end up fostering the positive traits of fathers that children need, so no, I see no contradiction in this.
If a man is not ready to be a father, forcing him into paternity isn't going to make him into much of a "dad." I don't know of any men who were forced into paternity who stay with the women who tricked them, thus the possible benefits of "forced fathers" is nil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
______ "I don't know of any men who were forced into paternity who stay with the women who tricked them, thus the possible benefits of "forced fathers" is nil."
Of course we get from this statment that all fathers who are "not ready to be fathers" have been "tricked". You don't seem to allow for any other possibiity except trickery. This makes all unintended pregnancies the "fault" of deceiptful unscrupulous women. I thought this kind of blanket stereoptyping and "victim" mentality was what the Men's movement was fighting against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course we get from this statment that all fathers who are "not ready to be fathers" have been "tricked". You don't seem to allow for any other possibiity except trickery. This makes all unintended pregnancies the "fault" of deceiptful unscrupulous women. I thought this kind of blanket stereoptyping and "victim" mentality was what the Men's movement was fighting against.
You know, this walking on eggshells wordage game of yours is getting tiresome. Once AGAIN I must inform you that different people in the men's movement have different ideas and opinions about the directions it should take.
No, the men's movement in general is not a "victim's movement," but you're making a rather large leap from the statement you quoted in saying that Anonymous was turning all men into victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He did not allow for any other possibility besides trickery which was placing men in the automatic "victim" category (not to mention placing women in the automatic deceiptful category).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He did not allow for any other possibility besides trickery which was placing men in the automatic "victim" category (not to mention placing women in the automatic deceiptful category).
In order to accurately and adequately discuss and debate a topic, it is sometimes necessary to narrow that topic down and exclude broader aspects for the purposes of the discussion. Your consistent attempts to broaden narrow discussions are starting to appear very troll-like, as if you are attempting to put words into the mouths of those here who disagree with you. If this is not your intention, then I hope you will reconsider your own wordage before criticizing others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that. On the one hand many men are saying "We want to abandon biological children that we wanted aborted" and the others are saying "fathers are essential" implying that "fathers have a duty to care for their children".
Saying that fathers are essential to child development does not necessarily imply that fathers have a duty to rear children those fathers did not want or were frauded into supporting. The line there isn't even thin, in my opinion.
It is proven that children develop differently when reared by both a father and a mother, yes. And fathers should have every right to rear their children. So should they have every right NOT to rear children forced upon them by the mother/court system.
There's no contradiction there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations to children are not "forced" on you, you acquire those obligations when you co-create children.
The trajectory of your line of logic is that no one is responsible for the children they co-create. Children are disposable. Children are just "out there", cut adrift from adult responsibility based on the principle that they shouldn't exist in the first place.
Disposable humanity is a huge contradiction from anything that even slightly resembles advocating for the best interest of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations to children are not "forced" on you, you acquire those obligations when you co-create children.
Obligations to children may be easily forced upon men, but not upon women. They may be forced by the combination of female trickery and the court system, by guilt, or by the court system alone.
The trajectory of your line of logic is that no one is responsible for the children they co-create. Children are disposable. Children are just "out there", cut adrift from adult responsibility based on the principle that they shouldn't exist in the first place.
And?
Disposable humanity is a huge contradiction from anything that even slightly resembles advocating for the best interest of the child.
That may be your opinion, but it is certainly not fact. I've known several people who wish they had never been born. Perhaps it would've been in their best interests if they hadn't.
In any case, advocating for the best interest of the child via a father's love and advocating that men have the choice whether to provide that love in financial form are not contradictory. They are contradictory for you on an emotional level, but not a realistic one.
You cannot force a father's love, nor can you remove it by force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @03:28PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Response to Message #5
I don't see why men should have to be responsible for unwanted children when they offered to pay the costs of an abortion and encouraged the woman to get one.
Men can't force women to have abortions, nor can they prevent them from doing so, and since the woman is responsible for the functioning of her own body, in such a case as where the man has offered to pay the costs of an abortion, the responsibility and duty to the infant should be on the woman 100% since it really was her choice.
Since the man encouraged the woman not to give birth, I don't see how he should be held responsible the functioning of another person's body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what you're saying is men have zero responsibility to prevent conception since women "can just get an abortion" (nevermind that many women have moral/ethical problems with abortion, that doesn't enter into it, they should just shut up and get one or else take the responsibiity of kids themselves). According to your logic, men really have ZERO responsibility in the reproductive realm whatsoever based on the fact that their body is not the venue for conception, even though they are biologically involved in instigating it.
So what you're really saying is you want women to do your dirty work for you and elimininate a conception you are co-responsible for instigating. Nevermind that it is an invasive surgical procedure, nevermind that many have moral/ethical reservations, nevermind that a potential person has to be extinguished .... none of the above is as important as your wishes .... and better yet for you, you don't have to do anything at all except maybe pay for the surgery ... if you feel like it.
It must be nice to be able to get away with such a arrogant supremist expectations of ZERO risks and ZERO consequences for your actions. Make everyone else pay.
Next step on this trajectory is mandated abortion to save men and/or society a lot of unnecessary trouble. Human rights of women and the unborn are inconsequential compared to concocted social goals (See China.)
Sickening.
When do people like you ever talk about having the integrity to prevent abortion from even being necessary for anyone, yourselves included?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, but also with Anon Poster #3.
I do see paper abortions as a detriment to fathers' rights, perpetuating the idea that fathers aren't necessary.
At the same time, I agree with what Anon #3 said. Forcing an unwilling parent to stick around worse than allowing them to leave. There is no law you will ever pass that will force an unwilling parent to love, or even like, a kid they see as a brat and a life-destroying burden. If the guy wants to walk out, let him. If he's that nonchalant about abandoning the kid, the kid is better off without him around.
However, we need to get rid of child labor and compulsory school attendance laws. If parents have no responsibility to support their children, minors should have the unfettered right to obtain work and support themselves. If they need to quit school to support themselves, they should be allowed to do that too. Finally minors should have greater rights to emancipate themselves from their parents.
There is no perfect solution. I think mine--C4M coupled with greater rights for minors--is better than what we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 18, @07:22PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne believes that by having sex, one consents to having a child and all of the responsibilities that come with it. End of story. Therefore she doesn't believe that men can ever be tricked or forced into paternity against their will, since the man made the choice to have sex.
La-dee-da. I've heard it all before. Let's make double standards so that men have all the responsibility, and women have all the choices. It works great for women like Lorianne, who can then smugly waltz into men's activism forums and blame men for being inconsistent, for wanting what women already have. IT'S CALLED EQUAL RIGHTS.
Anyone who wastes their time arguing with her is only adding food for the trolls like her to munch on.
Let's move on. I haven't seen any activism on this site in several days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I haven't seen any activism on this site in several days."
I'd like to personally apologize for this. To say I'm overwhelmed with the current demands of my classes and Stop Hating Men doesn't come close to explaining what's going on. I'm flat out, and things won't return to a sane state for at least another week. Please bear with me.
And of course, if you'd like to suggest some projects and are willing to take part in overseeing them, I'd be glad to help out using MANN in some way. I just can't commit to running anything new right now.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 18, @11:22PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Gather round, boys, and hear the Voice of Unconsciousness define "cognitive dissonance"
Fuck me in the heart and God help us all
It's so difficult to predict your arguments, sister: anything increasing female power is good
What a novel cosmology -- I've never encountered it in American women before ...
Hey, grab 4liberty and go snow on somebody else's wedding, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea why you've lumped me in on this issue with Lorianne, of all people. She and I have had several heated debates about this.
For the record, although I do not like the idea of parents (either parent) walking out on their kids, I think it is a worse idea to force an unwilling parent to stick around. If the guy wants to walk out, let him. The kid is better off without a "parent" like that around. You cannot pass laws that will force an unwilling parent to love, or even like, a kid they see as a brat and a life-destroying burden.
My only stipulation is that child labor and compulsory school attendance laws should be abolished. If kids can't look to their parents to support them, they should be permitted to get jobs and support themselves. If they need to quit school to work enough hours to feed themselves, they should be allowed to do that too. Furthermore minors should have greater power to emancipate themselves from their parent(s).
All of these ideas go completely against what Lorianne advocates. If you are going to flame me for my beliefs, flame me for the correct beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____"Lorianne believes that by having sex, one consents to having a child and all of the responsibilities that come with it."
YOU are making up what I believe. That is trolling. But since you sort of asked... yes, having sex means you consent to the POSSIBILITY of future responsibilities. No one has the right to demand or expect ZERO consequences or responsibilities in any aspect of life, let alone sex. Sex is not without risks. Do you believe men have a right to demand sex with ZERO risks?
______" Therefore she doesn't believe that men can ever be tricked or forced into paternity against their will, since the man made the choice to have sex."
Where did I say never? I've said repeatedly on this forum and others that trickery is one possibility. What you tried to do was paint trickery as the ONLY way men get into situations of unwanted/unintended parenthood. I would like to know what evidence you have of how often female trickery is involved? Do you have anything to back up that claim? What percentage of cases are men "tricked" into fathering a child they don't want?
And just because I found your implication that women routinely "trick" men into fatherhood offensive, and speak up about it, doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a person with an opinion that differs from yours. You'd do well to learn the difference.
As always, you (and anyone else) have the option of discussing issues only with those who agree with you. That is your perogative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK then, back to the activism. Allow me a moment to offer a solution..."A Woman's Right to Choose" - I propose that a woman's right to choose is dangerously misinterpreted as a right to choose to carry a child to term or abort. Her right to choose is to be pregnant at all, in the first place. Once she is pregnant, the father owns the right to choose 100%. It is how we balance the contract which states that we, as fathers, are obligated and responsible for the welfare of the mother and child, and in return the womb bearer agrees to submit to the process. Otherwise my emotional and financial investment is made irrelevant and I, as a father, am relegated to a position of servant of the womb and the emasculation of the American male proceeds. Further, if I choose to terminate her pregnancy then the right to choose returns to the womb bearer to proceed with gestation and the marital contract at all. Which is the controlling factor that keeps me from impregnating in the first place. As an interesting observation, I have found that most men are decidedly frightened by this proposition and warn me of the firestorm of protest that will result. Nuts, or the lack of 'em...
As I have proposed this contractual arrangement on another list, and listened attentively to the rebuttals, I would like to amend it with the stipulation that sufficient punitive recourse is arranged should the mother still choose to abort after the father refuses. Also should the mother choose to bear the child after the father chooses to abort his liability in the marriage contract is also stated. Now that's an honest marriage contract. Which is exactly what we need to settle this eternal argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you, Mr. Atilla, actually in a relationship with a woman who has agreed to submit to that sort of contract? Because I find it, well, rather creepy. I just wondered if your contact was theoretical or if you've actually put it to practice and, if so, I'd be interested to know how it worked out. With three wiccid stepkids between us we won't be having any more, but I will run your notion by my SO to see what he thinks of it. I have a theory he'll question it's legality or ability to stand up in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I haven't tried it on another SO. I am petrified by the potential horrors of a SO. I would love my family and especially my children so much that it might drive me to unspeakable acts if they were threatened in any way. Especially by an SO. Sorry, I was also an adoptee and am loaded with relationship problems. It was an attempt to organize a solution to the fact that my Ex aborted my child against my wishes. It is exceedingly fresh and untested. It just exists in my mind that's all. Just a thought. I never expected what I propose to actually make it into a legal system without some MAJOR revisions or whatever. It was intended to do something to try and balance the marriage contract for the sake of the fathers. That's all. I am certain that the vast majority of women would howl at the thought. It would definitely spoil their longstanding leverage against men, fathers and all. I am trying to forge a solution to father's rights, and not engage in endless complaining. What exactly is creepy about it to you? I really want to know. I realized the huge emotional investment that I was putting in jeopardy with a woman's right to choose (and change her mind) and I don't like that at all. Frankly, I have witnessed far to much horror handed out by women towards decent men and their own children. Maybe I should have been a Mormon but I am also discouraged my their masculine failures towards their wives and children as well. It's not a pretty world that I see out there. Sorry for who I may seem to be to you. My intentions are to be sincere and considerate of all parties involved. But it is still lonely and painful in here. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is true that most women would rebel at the idea of their husband having the power to force them to abort their unborn children, or forcing them to bear a child they do not wish to have and can not care for. Not because of the leverage they would lose against men, but the control they would lose over their own bodies and their own futures. Women utilize a variety of contraceptive devices to choose not to become pregnant, but no contraceptive is 100%. To force her contractually to bear that child, or to rip it from her womb without her true consent, relegates a woman to a vessel for bearing children, and little more. Is that how you truly see us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26493
Thank you for the article. It caused me to reexamine in detail the facts of my childhood. I was raised by foster parents. The pertinent point is that my foster father did perform reasonably well during my early childhood and as such I have well developed principles on a personal basis. However, because of my issues of poor bonding and social interaction as a result of my adoption, I was unable to return affection and love to those parents. If you couple that with my foster father's PTSD from WWII then I begin to understand why he simply quit the fathering process during my adolescence and only afforded the state minimum until I was legally and physically able to leave the home. The result is that I am unable to pass along the principles I learned to those other adolescents. I see their needs pasted all over their faces but am unable to generate an appropriate engagement with them to pass along those principles. The entire process of fathering is an extended calculus that needs to be completed to create viable and whole adults that may return the gifts of childhood to the world. The desolate social landscape is vast and terrifying. Drop by drop we fill the bucket to quench the thirst of the world. I wonder if we will be able to deliver sufficient drink to save them before the civilization that we know is lost forever. We are beginning to recognize in history the rise and fall of many civilizations. Are we to be another in that long list? I think so. And when?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
