What about men's rights? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 03-07-2006, 12:39 AM

Just a question, we always hear the liberals go on and on about women's rights..and it's 'their' body. But what about men's rights? Shouldn't a man have the right to decide to abort a baby even if it goes against what the woman wants? The last time I checked, it is his sperm that impregnated the woman. Why doesn't the male have the same rights considering the child is his just as much as the 'mothers'. Why can't the male break out a clothes hanger to do the trick without the woman's consent? Isn't this a rather blatant double standard?

It's no wonder women don't get equal pay.....

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 07:39 AM

I'd suggest the answer is: when men are the ones who have their body "seized" by something growing inside of it for about 36 weeks...

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 09:58 AM

Murphy's being somewhat sarcastic, but the converse of his sarcasm is a very legitimate question.

Why is it that the mother has the right to decide whether or not to kill her child, but the father has no input? What if the father wants to, you know, be a father?

Another question which is even more obvious: Does the child get a choice? Or do they just get to die a horrible death?

Just asking.

Drbio · 03-07-2006, 10:03 AM

I could be wrong, but I think in most cases it seems the child does not get to speak up about not being viciously ripped apart piece by piece by a vacuum placed in the womb. I'm guessing that if they did they might not appreciate it very much.

sixeightmkw · 03-07-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'd suggest the answer is: when men are the ones who have their body "seized" by something growing inside of it for about 36 weeks...

I bet that woman wasn't complaining when some guys grenis was "seizing" her gragina.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drbio

I could be wrong, but I think in most cases it seems the child does not get to speak up about not being viciously ripped apart piece by piece by a vacuum placed in the womb. I'm guessing that if they did they might not appreciate it very much.

Exactly.

Rhylan · 03-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'd suggest the answer is: when men are the ones who have their body "seized" by something growing inside of it for about 36 weeks...

It's just faulty, faulty logic. So that fetus conceived itself? Unlawful seizure, eh?

At any rate... referring to the baby in a manner like this only serves to emphasize it's status as a separate being that warrants protection against that poor, incovenienced owner of the "seized" womb.

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 10:53 AM

I agree kg, the rights of the father are many times subjugated to the rights of the mother.

as for the "faulty logic", as the male can just walk away, while the woman has her body go through varied changes over the 36 weeks (some changes that don't go away with the delivery), I am not sure the logic is all that faulty.

all I can say is I'm very glad that I didn't have to carry those kids like my wife did. after watching her go through 2 pregnancies/deliveries, I sure respect her ability to go through a lot of discomfort and pain...

edit: cuz 36 months is a lot longer gestation than we humans need...

dalmations202 · 03-07-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

go through varied changes over the 36 months

When did 36-40 weeks become 3 years? Although I must admit that the changes don't stop after 36 months, or 36 years..............LOL

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 10:59 AM

The thought that the man can just walk away from his child may be physically true, but it's certainly not true emotionally or spiritually.

I'm glad I didn't have to carry my two kids, too, and I respect my wife's ability to go through discomfort, nausea, pain -- the whole nine yards. But that doesn't mean I think my wife should have had the right to abort one our boys. She wouldn't have done that, and thank God she didn't, but you can't tell me that my boys -- or any boy or girl -- shouldn't be given the right to LIVE so that their mother can avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy.

Murphy3 · 03-07-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The thought that the man can just walk away from his child may be physically true, but it's certainly not true emotionally or spiritually.

Or financially...

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Or financially...

Good point.

chumdawg · 03-07-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Murphy's being somewhat sarcastic, but the converse of his sarcasm is a very legitimate question.

Why is it that the mother has the right to decide whether or not to kill her child, but the father has no input? What if the father wants to, you know, be a father?

Another question which is even more obvious: Does the child get a choice? Or do they just get to die a horrible death?

Just asking.

How far could this line of thinking be extended? What about the grandparents who want to, you know, be grandparents?

sixeightmkw · 03-07-2006, 12:16 PM

Becasue legally, grandparents have no say over a child while a child is living. A father does have legal rights to a child while he is living. So, before birth, a father has no rights, no "obligations", no anything or say to do with the child, but once it is born, it is all his responsibility to take care of the child. I don't find that fair.

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

Becasue legally, grandparents have no say over a child while a child is living. A father does have legal rights to a child while he is living. So, before birth, a father has no rights, no "obligations", no anything or say to do with the child, but once it is born, it is all his responsibility to take care of the child. I don't find that fair.

what? "but once it is born, it is all his responsibility to take care of the child"??? totally absurd. in fact, too many times it is the mother who has "all...responsibility" with the father abandoning the mother and child, it is BY FAR the more common as opposed to the father being the one with "all...responsibility".

grandparents DO have rights in many states. see this AARP link:
http://www.aarp.org/families/grandpa...isitation.html

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How far could this line of thinking be extended? What about the grandparents who want to, you know, be grandparents?

I'm not sure what your point is.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what? "but once it is born, it is all his responsibility to take care of the child"??? totally absurd. in fact, too many times it is the mother who has "all...responsibility" with the father abandoning the mother and child, it is BY FAR the more common as opposed to the father being the one with "all...responsibility".

So is it your position that because some men are irresponsible that all men should be deprived of the right to participate in the decision regarding whether their child lives or dies?

sixeightmkw · 03-07-2006, 01:06 PM

A father must pay child support, if not he is hunted down and either sued or arrested for not paying for the child and the ruining of his credit. Yes the mother takes care of the child, but all responsibility financially falls on the father.
and if the grandparents do have right, then this goes to disprove chumdawgs argument.

This is an arguement that will never be resolved. Every one has different view points on the matter. It just comes down to logic for me. The father should have the same say in all aspects of a childs life as the mother. But then it comes down to do you beleive the child is alive in the womb or not or is he human yet. Inside a womd he is not human and outside the womd he is human is not a logical defense. But because people want to find an easy way out, they use the arguement that it is the mothers body and she has the right to do what she wants, and besides, the bady isn't really a baby yet. If this is the arguement, then drugs should be legal cause it is my body, so I should be able to do what I want, bulemia (sp?) should be ok cause it is the womans body. But we see things as bad cause they are bad. common sense. so why isn't harming your body to destroy a child wrong? And then they use the arguement of it should be used to save the mothers life. What kind of mother would accept her life over the life of her child. I know that if my child was playing in the street and a car was coming, I wouldn't say, oh its okay if he dies cause I can have another baby. No, I would put my childs life in front of mine and save my kid. So what is the difference? This really upsets me so I will stop here.

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So is it your position that because some men are irresponsible that all men should be deprived of the right to participate in the decision regarding whether their child lives or dies?

uh, no.

imo both parents should be involved in all the decisions.

unfortunately, this is not always the case. often it seems that is by their own choice rather than the choice of the other parent.

Five-ofan · 03-07-2006, 01:09 PM

The father should have a say but whether or not both parents agree, it really shouldnt matter. Abortion SHOULD be illegal. I would love to say that im a great christian and thats why im against abortion but it isnt. Dont get me wrong, I am a christian and I am against abortion but the two have little to do with one another in this particular instance. Im against abortion scientifically. Scientifically, life begins at conception. I dont care what you want to say to dispute that but the moment the zygote is formed it is alive. At that point killing it should be illegal whether you are its mother or not. In fact there should be a special place in hell for mothers that kill their own children. I know that isnt the way it is but it horrifies me that so many women think it is ok to kill their own kids. If the baby is born and then you decide you dont want it, you cant kill it then or it is murder. Whether its deemed that or not by our government it is still murder if you kill it before the baby is born. That is wrong. Yes it is inconvenient and i have alot of respect for women that have children and the pain they have to go through but the kids right to live is more important than the womans right to convencience.

Drbio · 03-07-2006, 01:21 PM

I love how they always gloss over the part when someone brings up that the child is literally ripped apart piece by piece with the womb vacuum. I guess that really doesn't fit their agenda so they choose to ignore it.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drbio

I love how they always gloss over the part when someone brings up that the child is literally ripped apart piece by piece with the womb vacuum. I guess that really doesn't fit their agenda so they choose to ignore it.

You have to ignore it if you're an abortion advocate. It's an untenable position to try and say what they have done to millions of innocent children is anything short of barbaric and inhumane. So they just don't talk about it. Instead, let's talk about how horrible it would be if the mother had to bear and raise that child.

Five-ofan · 03-07-2006, 01:34 PM

the thing is they dont have to raise it. their are many many people who would love to adopt but cant because of the lack of children to adopt. I understand that its inconvenient to be pregnant. No i cant understand it fully because i cant be pregnant but the fact of the matter is it doesnt matter how inconvenient it is, the childs right to live outweighs the mothers right to convenience.

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 01:43 PM

I don't know anybody who is for the right to an abortion who likes the fact that the abortion ends a possible life.

it is similar to other situations where one "holds their nose" as it were, protecting a person's right to do something that we disagree with.

as far as adoption, take a look at the numbers. yes, as long as the child is not a minority there is a good chance the child will be adopted. if however the child is black, it's almost certain to not be adopted.

Five-ofan · 03-07-2006, 01:52 PM

You dont have the right to kill someone. Whether you want to or not. I completely disagree with the way some people excersice(sp?) their rights but in general they are allowed to use their freedoms however they please. However, the general consensus is that your rights end where my body begins. Once the baby has been formed he is alive and you dont have the right to kill it. Right now our government says you do but the most basic right is the right to live which that baby has the instant it is conceived.

chumdawg · 03-07-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm not sure what your point is.

Can't see why. It's not at all obscure. In fact, it's very similar to the line of reasoning you put forth when discussing the gay marriage issue: if we let gays marry, we are going to have let relatives marry, too.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Can't see why. It's not at all obscure. In fact, it's very similar to the line of reasoning you put forth when discussing the gay marriage issue: if we let gays marry, we are going to have let relatives marry, too.

Do you have any children?

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I don't know anybody who is for the right to an abortion who likes the fact that the abortion ends a possible life.

it is similar to other situations where one "holds their nose" as it were, protecting a person's right to do something that we disagree with.

You "hold your nose" when someone wants to publish a photograph entitled "Piss Christ" which shows Jesus on the cross, submerged in a container of the "artist's" urine. It's unbelievably offensive to Christians and a lot of non-Christians as well, but you "hold your nose" because that moron has the freedom of speech.

You "hold your nose" when a person like Cindy Sheehan makes a mockery of her son's death and a fool of herself out in front of the President's residence because she has the freedom of speech and the freedom to peaceably demonstrate.

You DON'T "hold your nose" and say, hey, we know you're killing your daughter over there, but that's okay because we know it would be terribly inconvenient and a real pain in the butt for you to have to raise her.

The first two examples, while disgusting and annoying, don't infringe on anyone else's rights. The third example CLEARLY DOES.

Mavdog · 03-07-2006, 02:23 PM

imo your position is very extreme five-o.

taking your position to the logical extreme, a woman who is pregnant and chooses to smoke tobacco should be prosecuted. they endanger the child in their womb. should they be incarcerated?

or how about the women who drink when they are pregnant? should we put them in custody to "protect" the child? jail time for the mother?

of course, it would also be illegal for a pregnant woman to do things that might cause harm to the child in their womb. heck, no running, or any other exertion. it might harm the child.

chumdawg · 03-07-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Do you have any children?

Can't see how that's at all relevant to our discussion...

mary · 03-07-2006, 02:40 PM

I thought that was just the deal brokered by God.

Men get money, power and status.

Women get a womb.

Damn, now you guys want the womb too?

Greedy sons of bitches....

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Can't see how that's at all relevant to our discussion...

Not trying to pick on you personally, but I believe if you had any children you'd see why your attempt at logical extrapolation is fallacious. There is a huge difference (legally, financially, emotionally, etc.) between being a child's parent and being a child's grandparent.

As for your reference to the gay marriage discussion, I never said we'd have to allow relatives to marry if we allowed gays to marry. I said there was no logical distinction if you were looking at marriage as a benefits package. But this isn't the gay marriage thread, and it seems to me we already discussed that ad nauseum.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

I thought that was just the deal brokered by God.

Men get money, power and status.

Women get a womb.

Damn, now you guys want the womb too?

Greedy sons of bitches....

"Sorry kiddo. I know you want to live and all, but this is my womb, and I'm taking it back!"

chumdawg · 03-07-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Not trying to pick on you personally, but I believe if you had any children you'd see why your attempt at logical extrapolation is fallacious. There is a huge difference (legally, financially, emotionally, etc.) between being a child's parent and being a child's grandparent.

As for your reference to the gay marriage discussion, I never said we'd have to allow relatives to marry if we allowed gays to marry. I said there was no logical distinction if you were looking at marriage as a benefits package. But this isn't the gay marriage thread, and it seems to me we already discussed that ad nauseum.

Of course the attempt at logical extrapolation is fallacious. It's every bit as fallacious as it was the first time, when you made it in the other thread.

It's not so much the logic as it is the ideology, now is it?

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course the attempt at logical extrapolation is fallacious. It's every bit as fallacious as it was the first time, when you made it in the other thread.

It's not so much the logic as it is the ideology, now is it?

I just explained to you why they were completely different. If you insist, I suppose we can rehash the gay marriage argument. But the whole of your argument, as I recall, is that anybody who is against gay marriage "hates those faggots." Or somesuch. Pretty convincing argument.

This has nothing to do with ideology, Chumdawg, unless you believe that killing a child is acceptable and moral conduct. I thought we all agreed that killing was wrong. If not, let me know, and we can have an ideological debate.

chumdawg · 03-07-2006, 03:18 PM

I never was, and still am not, commenting on the rightness or wrongness of either gay marriage or abortion. I was, and still am, interested in the question of human rights. (I recognize that in many cases humans have the right to do things that I personally believe is wrong.)

In this thread I responded to this question of yours, which you described as "very legitimate":

Quote:

Why is it that the mother has the right to decide whether or not to kill her child, but the father has no input? What if the father wants to, you know, be a father?

The question reminded of the gay-marriage question, in terms of rights. Here you seemingly advocate extending a sacred right of sorts (the right to personal control over decisions impacting one's own body) to another party, in a socially new way. Yet in the gay-marriage debate, you opposed extending a sacred right to another party (or class of people, as it were), using a reductio ad absurdum argument as your tool. Enjoy, the same coming back to you, in this other "rights" debate.

kg_veteran · 03-07-2006, 03:45 PM

Socially new way? It's a socially new idea that a father should have input into decisions affecting the LIFE of his child? Really? The truth is, it's a socially new (still only about 30 years old) idea that a father shouldn't have input into whether his baby is allowed to live or not. And again, the problem with your argument (and perhaps mine with regard to the father) is that it's framed totally without reference to the child. Even if I agreed with you that the mother's rights were superior to the father's rights (which I don't), I can't possibly agree with you that the mother's rights are superior to the child's rights. And I haven't heard you make that argument either.

As for my "reductio ad absurdum" argument, you keep suggesting it was fallacious, but you have yet to demonstrate why.

Murphy3 · 03-07-2006, 03:54 PM

Leaving Christianity out of it,.......now explain to me why men have no say..
Christianity doesn't change the fact that the male should have legal say in the decision.

MavKikiNYC · 03-07-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Leaving Christianity out of it,.......now explain to me why men have no say..
Christianity doesn't change the fact that the male should have legal say in the decision.

Do you suppose that the fact that a woman's health is disproportionately affected by carrying a fetus to term and bearing a child (or similarly by terminating a pregnancy) has any bearing on the woman's greater right?

Murphy3 · 03-07-2006, 04:26 PM

They should have taken that into consideration before having sex. Usually women know that they are women before having sex. The probably understand that if anyone is to get pregnant, it won't be the guy. And I'm sure the man understands that if anyone is to pay child support, it's more likely to be him as well.

Here's the point, if two consenting individuals have sex and the woman gets pregnant because of this, why does the male have less rights? Both the man and the woman are aware of what their long term responsibilities would be if the woman does get pregnant.