Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ViperDragon, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. Shaun_C

    Shaun_C The REAL One True fan Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Posts:
    7,121
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Likes:
    +2
    ^^^

    Very true

    And to take what you said a step further Ops_was_a_truck

    IMPO of there should be less talk of BIRTHcontrol and more talk of SELFcontrol

    Because selfcontrol is the greatest form of birthcontrol.Use that & you're guaranteed NOT to be in this sort of situation
     
  2. Nephthys

    Nephthys Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Posts:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Surgical Sterilization is 99.9% effective against pregancies according to statistics. I had it almost 4 years ago and haven't gotten pregnant yet.

    And I agree with Shaun_C about self control.But most people,including myself,can't get themselves to do it.
     
  3. ChldsPlay

    ChldsPlay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Posts:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +0
    This should be more about removing some rights from women than about giving some to men. If you make the choice to have sex, then you should take responsibility for that. That goes for men and women. Neither should be able to just shrug that responsibility off. And in the case of adoption, it should be a joint decision. If it's split, then the one who wants to keep the baby can, and the other will just have to deal with it, and help out.
     
  4. Predaking

    Predaking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Posts:
    9,991
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Likes:
    +0
    I'll only support the law if neither party wants to have a baby, the woman have the baby anyway and wants money out of it. But it'll be tricky to know for sure without some kind of contract stating the intents of both parties. Other than that the man should definitely paid up. He had sex without using condoms. It's his mistake and therefore he should pay.
     
  5. Shipwreck

    Shipwreck Will smack your bitch

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Posts:
    2,387
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +2
    When I have daughter she is getting norplant instead of a car.
     
  6. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    Does that rule apply to a woman as well, or does she have the right to have sex first, and think about consequences later?
     
  7. Shaun_C

    Shaun_C The REAL One True fan Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Posts:
    7,121
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Likes:
    +2
    *Looks up Norplant*

    Wow you must plan to have money to burn ;)  :lol 

    In my case I'm much less about the carnality and more for the emotional aspect of being with a woman.In other words I REALLY need to be attracted to you as a person before I hit the sheets.

    Plus in my case my personal life stress has probably killed my sex drive.I really need to try and relax more :redface2: 
     
  8. Shaun_C

    Shaun_C The REAL One True fan Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Posts:
    7,121
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Likes:
    +2
    Since he's not online right now

    I choose to believe that what he said applies to the man AS WELL AS the woman :) 

    Although there are men who believe it's the woman's fault for being so easy & spreading 'em.
     
  9. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    I thought a lot about this thread on the weekend.

    Sterilisation until you pass a baby test is a scary thought. Driving a car is not natural; reproducing is the whole point of living.

    Men do get shafted a lot of the time in relation to Adoption, child support, etc, etc. I have a lot of respect for the men who take care of there children after a spilt with the mother, but this is not the norm in our society. For every one you hear of doing the right thing, ten have taken off and pay nothing and do nothing. This law would give the small portion of men 'trapped' into having to pay for the child a break, but it would also open the door for any deadbeat who sleeps around with any women, without protection, to run away from the consequences and given the legal system in our society there will be a line up of lawyers waiting to try the cases.

    As a side note about the men who are ‘trapped’, if it is positive that the child belongs to him, why wouldn’t you want to take care of your child? Yes, the women may have trapped you, but it is your kid. To me it is unfortunate that money is synonymous with child rearing, after all isn't it what the article is all about?
     
  10. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    Cooking our food is also not natural. I never met you, but I am assuming when you are hungry, you don't just go out, bash a cougar in the head with a rock, and start chomping away.

    Birth control is not natural, but amongst our society, it is considered totally acceptable.

    Reproducing is the point of living, but we as a society have disrupted natural selection. Survival of the fittest no longer applys. When you reproduce to exploit the system, or because you are too stupid to use protection (which again is also not natural), then to me, that goes against "the point of living"

    We can say education is the key, and that is totally true, but ultimately it is uneffective. It doesn't stop the people who pop out more kids because of the welfare check, nor does it stop the idiots who get pregnant through neglegance.
     
  11. BigPrime3000

    BigPrime3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    3,407
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    I especially agree with the bolded part, but I can't get to the point where I think that the government should tell me when I can or can't reproduce. I think I mixture between eductation and possibly providing more tax benefits for having less kids would help. Say after having 2 children you no longer can accept the tax benefits of having extra children. That way the government can play a somewhat active role without getting into a person's face and saying you can't have kids until you pass this government training program.
     
  12. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    I would say that cooking food is natural by way of our ancestors preventing sickness through trial and error. When my great, great, great, great, great (you get the idea) grandfather was hungry, he went and bashed a cougars head with a rock and knew that his stupid neighbor ate the raw cougar and died a short time after. My grandfather was smarter and figured out a way to preserve it by drying, cooking it or whatever.

    Regardless of what our personal beliefs are, extending you existence is the main point of living, weather it is through exercising, dieting going to the doctor and having a child. What is the point of living otherwise?

    And I agree, people who exploit the system are wrong to do so, but unless you want to live in China people should have the right to give birth when they want. I total agree on education will stop it, but at the rate that things are going in the states they need to get there priorities straight. Spend less on welfare, more on developing people’s lives.
     
  13. Spartan-117

    Spartan-117 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Posts:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you remove all the benefits to having a child and the wrong time then shit like this is less likely to happen.
    I dunno what the system is like in the States but it here it seems like any young woman can get herself knocked up and gets the easy life from there on.
    I work alongside a girl the same age as me who has a young child. I work full time and take overtime when it comes up, yet I can't reasonably afford to leave home. This girl works three days a week and can somehow afford to move into her own flat.
    On a similar note, both of my parents work full time with my mum leaving the house at 7.30am and not finishing work until 9pm. They can't afford to move house, yet the young couple upstairs can somehow move house willy nilly and can afford to party every weekend. Keep in mind they have a young child and don't work.
    Simply put, if you remove the benefits to being a lazy sod many problems would right themselves because people would think twice about getting themselves into these situations if they had to support themselves.
     
  14. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    This also punishes the responsible single parent who works their butt off, and still needs help.

    For every person that is exploiting the system, there is sure to be 2-3 people who are using it appropriately.

    Does it seem wrong for the government to tell you when you can have a child? I suppose it does. But my guess is, if you are truely ready to have one, you would be intellegent and responsible enough to pass. Not to mention that you would educate youself more about parenting, which is a huge benefit.

    For example, it is amazing how many mothers to new born babies have no idea about the benefits of breast feeding. Many of those who choose not to do so because they think it is "sick" or "wrong." These women, who in the cases I am speaking of, are often uneducated, and have low paying jobs. They fail to realize how much money they could save by breast feeding, instead of spending money on formula, which is proven to be less beneficial to the child. Add on top of that the medical expenses they pay because their child is sick more frequently due to not breast feeding.

    They choose not to educate themselves, and nothing forces them to.
     
  15. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    Wow, that sounds completely inaccurate and discriminatory to boot. How can you say that poor women are less likely to breast feed? I think that more vain women are more concerned about changing the body that they have by breast feeding, but I don't think it has anything to do with money.
     
  16. BigPrime3000

    BigPrime3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    3,407
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Off topic but cooking food is natural, but it has more to do witht the ease of which cooked food is digested in our bodies. Cooked meat allowed our ancestors' bodies to obtain more protein from the meat they were eating and help push the evolution of big brains.

    So from a purely human standpoint cooking meat is as natural as you can get.
     
  17. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    So you're answer to combating society's corruption of the natural act of reproducing is to forcibly sterilize everyone until they can pass a test, which will allow the government to tell them when they can and cannot have children?

    Sounds like the perfect way to get back to nature.
     
  18. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    Sorry, you're wrong. The law of natural selection deems fitness simply as those best able to have offspring who can pass on their genes (ie carry on the species for more than one generation). It's a fairly fool proof system, as HOW you pass them on doesn't much matter. You have some people who are more "r" strategists - few children, more quality- and others who are "K" strategists* - many children, less quality, but so far as natural selection is concearned, neither one has an inherent advantage. It is the environmental conditions (which includes social pressures) that will favor one strategy over the other (or neither). So long as our "K" strategists continue to produce, the life style is evolutionarily vaild. In fact, so far as cultures go, the r-strategists are being selected against, and in danger of dying out in some places (Europe most notably).

    You may not like the society that results from this, but that's completely besides the point. Evolution does not give those value judgements - it merely rewards what works.

    *of course, this is relative within our species. Compared to almost all other species, all humans are r-strategists. True K strategists would be things like insects.
     
  19. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    In reality, everything humans do is natural. The concept of "unnatural" is assinine. Humans as a species are very much bound by natural laws. We have natural adaptaions as does every other species on this planet. Intelligence, communication, social structure and tool use give us out benefits. If anything were to be unnatural, it would be not using them (such as not using fire, weapons, cars, the internet or transformers). That'd be like asking spiders not to make webs, and penguins not to swim.
     
  20. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    "Sounds" innacturate and is innacurate are two different things.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3332707&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/ukstats.asp#inequal

    I'm sure there's more out there. These took less than five minutes to find.