|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Moderated by: Saida.M, safetyblitz, Raven, Miss Brighter Days, LadyDay, Kunjufu, Kibibi, Happiness, Dillinger, Breadfruit, Backatya |
|
|
| Author | |
|---|
The Watcher
Villager
| Joined: | Tuesday May 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | London, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 11353 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 13:29 |
|
I called you two out, because even though I had pointed out the angle of the thread before, you continued to do so, one right after the other... Both of you going on about men and blame for babies and trapping and so on... both irrelevant. Yes I told you, yes I read it and yes you were off topic and not on point
It's all pointless though, since nobody will answer the question idontnoyino asked... it' seems far more fun for everyone to go and do the usual and yawn inspiring "battle of the sexes" claptrap... about the different angle.
____________________
Fabulous secret powers were revealed to me the day I...
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
wifeable
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday June 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | London, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 296 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 13:49 |
|
@ DRUNK MONKEY
OKAY, I DID GO OFF THE POINT AND WASNT EVEN GONNA REPLY TO THIS TOPIC BUT GOT ABIT BOTHERED WHEN I READ FREDBLACKS POSTS AND THEN GOT REAL PISSED WHEN I READ THIS AND FELT I HAD TO REPLY:
BobBeamon1968 wrote:
A woman's desire and need to have babies is only matched by a man's need to have sex. Women are willing to have babies with criminals, addicts, alcoholics, abusive men, homosexuals, incompetent and irresponsible men, etc.. Women are willing and find it acceptable to raise their babies in poverty and unstable enviroments.
I have always believed if man had babies then there would be more stable healthy families around. Men put women into 3 catorgries. 1) Women they just wanna have sex with 2) Women they wanna have a fling with 3) Women they wanna marry. The problem comes when the first women gets pregnant. Which often happens.
Mens feelings don't matter when it comes to kids. Even if men walk away they still have to live with the fact that he has a kid out there. You can't put that to the back of your mind and forget about it. Round are way women have kids to guys who they don't even know their surname or they don't know where they live. I swear if this world was fair, 90% of you women would get a beat down for being the tricksters you are. I have seen too many young brothers 21,22 tricked by women then 3 months later she tells him she is pregnant. But these are good guys and stand by the women even though he does not like her. A real ghetto man wood boot bludclart outta of her tummy (And thats the truth).
Women have no sympathy for anyone other than other women. They hate and abuse men every way they can. And finally, Ladies no matter how complex you think you are, you're not, so shut it. .
THATS WHY I POSTED MY REPLY...
ITS NOT THE 'BATTLE OF THE SEXES' COS I CLEARLY REST EQUAL BLAME ON BOTH IF A CHILD IS BORN TO UNWANTING PARENTS.
AND SAY MEN NEED TO MAN UP AND STOP THINKING UNPROTECTED SEX IS OK AS LONG AS A WOMEN IS ON THE PILL>>>> ISNT THAT THE ONLY WAY A WOMAN (ONE WHO IS NOT COMPLETELY MAD) CAN TRICK A MAN?
I AIMED MY THREAD AT THE BIG MOUTH WOMEN BASHERS ON THIS TOPIC NOT AT U !!!!
I'VE NOTICED U HAVE A TIFF WITH WOMEN CHALLENGING MEN, MAYBE IM 'WRONG' BUT THATS WHAT IVE OBSERVED.
THE AGE-OLD WOMEN V MEN WILL BE GOING LONG AFTER WE ARE DEAD,
SAME AS BLACK PPL AND WHITE PPL, ITS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS AS LONG AS WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL TO MEN WE WILL BE 'ARGUING'
THATS LIFE!
____________________
and you won't be catching me on Channel U!
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
YankeeJamaRican
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 14:12 |
|
A man's parental rights begin at birth. A woman is not a petri dish or incubator and retains the right to determine what happens to and within her body.
As long as the fetus remains in utero, that domain is strictly her right alone.
BUUUUUUT... I can put a little more iron in the fire, what if the pregnant mother was abusing substances that could clearly harm the baby? What are the rights of the father then? Profound question we have here. You only have to look at the post-divorce battles over IVF fetuses to see all the facets this debate has.
Way too intricate for a pat answer.
____________________
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Backatya
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Monday December 15th, 2003 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3174 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 17:21 |
|
Even though this thread has gone off topic as DrunkMonkey rightly points out, it has brought out some very important male/female issues which should not be ignored.
However, let me specifically address the question, "Does the man have the right to force the woman to carry a child if she does not want to?"
Well evidently, (from a legal perspective) No he doesn’t.
The law does not give me legal recourse to make a woman carry (and deliver) my child against her wishes. The law does not see fit to assume such rights over a woman’s body. However, paradoxically, the law gives her the legal recourse to make me provide (financial at least) for a child which she has against my wishes.
We can argue the senselessness of this double standard until we are blue in the face, but the bottom line is, that is how things stand. Knowing that is how things stands makes me, personally, think carefully about the situations I allow myself to get into.
Anyway, let me play devils advocate for a moment and turn this thing on its head.
I am making my points without going into the pro/against ‘right to abortion’ question….I am not getting into a pro-life debate here.
Therefore the question for me is this:
Is it fair, in the conception of a child (involving two consenting adults), for the woman to have the absolute right to determine if that conception then results in both she and the man becoming parents?
Is it also fair to ‘expect’ him, the man, to take on his parental responsibilities following the birth of a child he did not want brought into life, but yet had no ‘right’ to choose whether said child should be brought into life?
Now, if you are going to say, "Ah, but he did have a say. He had the say whether to sleep (putting it politely) with the woman or not", I would turn it back to you and say "Well is that not so for the woman also?
So why the disparity in rights?
Shouldn’t she have no choice but to accept (without legal recourse) the man’s decision not to take on parental responsibility for a child he did not want, in the same way he has no choice but to accept (i.e. without legal recourse) that she can give birth to a child he does not want or prevent the birth of one he does want?
You (well some of you) admonish the man from ignoring his ‘responsibility’ for the child outside of the womb, but you do not admonish the woman (it’s her body you say) for ignoring her ‘responsibility’ for the child inside the womb. Why? Because you see it as a living being outside of the womb, but a non-entity inside the womb?
However, the man announces that he does not want it before it was outside of the womb, but yet it is deemed that ‘it must be’ irrespective of his wishes. When the woman decides she does not want it before it is outside of the womb, she has the ‘right’ to have her wishes met.
Remember now, they both had a say in the act that led to this situation and if you are going to use the maxim of ‘free choice’ to hook the man to the consequences that flow from the act (i.e. her becoming pregnant and choosing to have the child) you must surely hook the woman by it also (i.e. her having the baby and he not supporting it post birth). Isn’t this fair?
Sure, it is bad news for the child whichever way you look at it…this innocent party has no say in anything. Doesn’t life suck?
So though this seemingly unfair state of affairs may look out for the woman’s interest in those situations where ‘unscrupulous-no-good-man-dem’ just ‘shoot their bolt and gone’ it does nothing to cater to the interest of the ‘good-man-dem’ who want to have this child and take care of it when she chooses to make a decision against his wishes. By the way the argument that this situation is very rare and it is usually the case that it is the man who doesn’t want the child, is irrelevant. One should not base a principle on the number of ‘likely’ occurrences that would justify it, but on the merits of the principle from an ethical, moral, fair and balanced perspective. If something is unfair, it is unfair, irrespective of the low number of those who may suffer from its unfairness.
So, I would contend that you cannot talk about the ‘woman’s right to choose what happens to her body (though I can agree with the logic of that principle) in isolation from the ‘man’s right to have some choice as to what to do following her making her choice. A bit of a conundrum I know, but how can we allow for a state of affairs where the situation began with both sides having equal say (to have sex or not have sex) and ends with the choices lying in the hands of one side predominantly?
Now taking off my ‘Devils Advocate’ hat and putting on my ‘Backatya’s self-opinionated hat’……and also moving off topic again….
I strongly believe in the principle of personal responsibility. Furthermore, I believe that where the ‘consequences’ of a particular outcome are known from the outset to fall disproportionately in one area (e.g. on the man’s side or the woman’s side) there is an encumbrance on the interested party (i.e. the one likely to feel the brunt most) to take extra care to avoid said consequences, irrespective of the fact that the ‘other side’ has a responsibility also.
So the way I look at it, if I know a particular outcome could be real bad news for me, I take extra care to avoid it, and rely more on ME, than someone else to see that I avoid that outcome. So if I am not willing to face the future with a particular woman being the mother of my child I would not take the ‘risk’ of getting her pregnant. Just because she says she is on the pill is not enough. I have to weigh that up against what I know about her and how much I trust her. Then if I do take said risk and, despite my safeguards, pregnancy does occur, I know I have to face the fact that this woman may use that pregnancy/child as a tool against me. My bad luck and/or poor, unfortunate judgement I guess. Likewise, if I just follow the call of my loins, then tough on me. I have to be strong enough to face the ‘consequences’ since I was not strong enough to by-pass the ‘goodies’. This principle applies equally to women.
The thing is that the ‘burden’ of pregnancy falls heavier on the woman because, despite paternity laws, the man can more easily walk away than her. This knowledge is one that leads many men to take on the ‘risk of pregnancy’ in situations where they clearly have no desire to conceive a child from.
Now if the ‘burden’ of pregnancy was more heavily weighted against the man, you can bet that the risk would not be taken so lightly. Yeah, a lot of you women are probably shaking your head in agreement at this…right?
So, I ask you. Why, with the knowledge that the burden is more heavily weighted against them, don’t (some) women have the same regard for protecting themselves, that men would most likely have if the situation was reversed?
Could it be that women look at the risk differently? Could it be that there are many women who (naively/stupidly) believe that the pregnancy would make the man come to heel? Another debate most probably.
Now for those of you who claim that the above puts all the responsibility on the woman and none on the man who is free to ‘walk away from his responsibility’ I contend that you have missed the point.
The point is that it is a fact of life (as things currently stand) that in matters of conception and child birth women bear the heavier burden. Nature and ‘Society’s conventions’ dictate that to be so. That ‘fact of life’ cannot or should not be ignored by women when it comes to the choices and decisions they make. Cries of ‘unfair burden’ or for ‘seeking parity with men’ may on principle have merit but one still has to deal with the way things stand, even whilst actively fighting to have them changed.
As they stand woman cannot get away from the fact that they automatically have to take greater care to ‘avoid’ consequences that fall more heavily on them, whether or not men are just as responsible for those consequences. Also when claiming a ‘right’ aimed at protecting YOUR ‘interest’ in the event of those consequences, be then prepared to accept ‘extra responsibility’ as the price for that right.
Respect
____________________
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names..........will always get YOU a thump in ya dyaamn 'ead.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
LadyM2
Villager
| Joined: | Saturday March 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 17:27 |
|
I cant quite believe wot i am reading  . Fredblack states the violent restribution that he/his brother/family want to commit upon this gal cos of her scheming to have a baby. Granted wot she did was wrong, but wot about the brother who is supposed to be committed to another woman but cant keep his tings in his trousers. Did this gal tie him up and rape him? Wot happened to "im sorry i dont want u - leave me alone"
I agree that wot the gal did to scheme to get wot she wanted wasnt right, but these people call themselves men - if that is the action of a man lawd help us. The only reason they wanted this child gone was so that the brothers business didnt come out and his girls family come looking to lynch him.
If man dont want to get caught like this then he needs to learn to keep his tings to himself - the gal cannot get pregnant with ur baby if u dont have sex with her yanno
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Sooofresh
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 19:03 |
|
RAHTID!
is this about responsibilty after the baby is born, or rights of man to have a choice in abortion.
RAHTID!
Sir Fredblacks name been called out not once but twice........................oh he must be in buisness, or with flu or sumtin cause i know Mr Black won't remain quiet when his name beens called..........................lord help us with the oncoming onslaught of black women.
____________________
BNV...resident Feminist
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Noir_UK
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday April 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 19:46 |
|
DrunkMonkey wrote: Actually it is everybody else on this thread... all of you, who have read the question wrong.
You saw "man's rights", "parenta"l, "pro life" and started jumping to the wrong topic. Subsequently ALL posts so far are off topic.
The thread starter was NOT asking about men who wanted to convince women to abort a child, was NOT talking about who is to blame for an unwanted pregnancy and all of the boring tired stale old arguments people here have week in week out... Let me repeat what she actually said...
This topic is about men's right pertaining to an unborn child. If you do not want to have a child by this man or at that time in you life. Does that man have the right to force you to carry his child to term? Men have parental rights, but when do they begin? At birth or conception?
You see? Not about men STOPPING a woman from having a child he doesnt want, but over his "rights" over a life of a child he DOES want. When do parental rights begin for a father she asks? How you all went off topic... well it was predictable but I should hope it is clearer now
The mere title of the thread seems misleading, her fault I suppose but now you see what she ACTUALLY asked.
@DM below in bold is my first response, if you bother to read it, I didn't mention blame, but I did discussed consequences. Yes the thread moved on and I said additional things, but I did respond to the original question without stipulating which party is pushing in which direction. If you are going to disagree with my views that's fair enough, but if you don't bother read what I've said, what exactly is there to disagree with? ____________________________________________________________
In my view, the man has no right what so ever to make demands on what a woman does with or to her body. Discussion is one thing, but the right to impose his will NO. The choice MUST be with the woman, after all the consequences are all hers.
Let us not forget that bearing a child as well as terminating a child has possible health consequences to the woman. A man can walk away, but a woman MUST live with the outcome good or bad for her child, her health and her body because these things are her very life
____________________________________________________________________
It's not that I don't believe men should have rights, just that I believe that the person whose body has to carry the consequences should have the primary rights.
Noir UK
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
The Watcher
Villager
| Joined: | Tuesday May 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | London, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 11353 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 19:53 |
|
Wifeable
I didnt see that post you were responding to in the first place, lets just say even though it will be going on after we are dead (which is a long time) and though I differ on the reasons, I still think it's boring.
Noir
My bad. Sorry. Never saw THAT one...
____________________
Fabulous secret powers were revealed to me the day I...
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Noir_UK
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday April 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 20:39 |
|
Backatya wrote: We can argue the senselessness of this double standard - I don't see that these are double standards because the fact is as far as pregnancy goes the man and the woman are in comlpetely different positions, so surely approaching these two very different situations as if they are the same is the obsurd assumption?
Anyway, let me play devils advocate - point taken and responding in kind,
So why the disparity in rights? - the disparity in rights is due to the disparity in the two situations - nature creates the disparity not men or women....
So, I would contend that you cannot talk about the ‘woman’s right to choose what happens to her body (though I can agree with the logic of that principle) in isolation from the ‘man’s right to have some choice as to what to do following her making her choice. - the absolute reality of the situation is - if two people come together to have sex they are BOTH making decisions on what is happening with their own bodies, however responsible or irresponsible that choice my be. But, if a pregnancy results, the man has no further decisions to make regarding his body, while the woman MUST now continue to make further decisions about her body because whatever she does with her body will have an impact for better or worse on herself and/or the child.
I can't imagine any of the adults on this board, saying it's ok for someone else to tell them what they must eat, when and how they must sleep, what damage they must subject themselve to, what risks they must take with their bodies their health and their lives and what level of pain and discomfort they must endure. Yet when a woman gets pregnant suddenly she should lose these rights that the vast majority of adults believe to be theirs without question? How can that be justified.
It may seem unfair that woman must take the the physical burden of childbirth
its may seem unfair that a man should have limited control on such an important aspect of his existence, but its disparity impose on human, not a choice we made.
Now taking off my ‘Devils Advocate’ hat and putting on my ‘Backatya’s self-opinionated hat’……and also moving off topic again….
I strongly believe in the principle of personal responsibility. Furthermore, I believe that where the ‘consequences’ of a particular outcome are known from the outset to fall disproportionately in one area (e.g. on the man’s side or the woman’s side) there is an encumbrance on the interested party (i.e. the one likely to feel the brunt most) to take extra care to avoid said consequences, irrespective of the fact that the ‘other side’ has a responsibility also.
So the way I look at it, if I know a particular outcome could be real bad news for me, I take extra care to avoid it, and rely more on ME, than someone else to see that I avoid that outcome. So if I am not willing to face the future with a particular woman being the mother of my child I would not take the ‘risk’ of getting her pregnant. Just because she says she is on the pill is not enough. I have to weigh that up against what I know about her and how much I trust her. Then if I do take said risk and, despite my safeguards, pregnancy does occur, I know I have to face the fact that this woman may use that pregnancy/child as a tool against me. My bad luck and/or poor, unfortunate judgement I guess. Likewise, if I just follow the call of my loins, then tough on me. I have to be strong enough to face the ‘consequences’ since I was not strong enough to by-pass the ‘goodies’. This principle applies equally to women.
The thing is that the ‘burden’ of pregnancy falls heavier on the woman because, despite paternity laws, the man can more easily walk away than her. This knowledge is one that leads many men to take on the ‘risk of pregnancy’ in situations where they clearly have no desire to conceive a child from.
Now if the ‘burden’ of pregnancy was more heavily weighted against the man, you can bet that the risk would not be taken so lightly. Yeah, a lot of you women are probably shaking your head in agreement at this…right?
So, I ask you. Why, with the knowledge that the burden is more heavily weighted against them, don’t (some) women have the same regard for protecting themselves, that men would most likely have if the situation was reversed?
Could it be that women look at the risk differently? Could it be that there are many women who (naively/stupidly) believe that the pregnancy would make the man come to heel? Another debate most probably.
Now for those of you who claim that the above puts all the responsibility on the woman and none on the man who is free to ‘walk away from his responsibility’ I contend that you have missed the point.
The point is that it is a fact of life (as things currently stand) that in matters of conception and child birth women bear the heavier burden. Nature and ‘Society’s conventions’ dictate that to be so. That ‘fact of life’ cannot or should not be ignored by women when it comes to the choices and decisions they make. Cries of ‘unfair burden’ or for ‘seeking parity with men’ may on principle have merit but one still has to deal with the way things stand, even whilst actively fighting to have them changed.
As they stand woman cannot get away from the fact that they automatically have to take greater care to ‘avoid’ consequences that fall more heavily on them, whether or not men are just as responsible for those consequences. [Also when claiming a ‘right’ aimed at protecting YOUR ‘interest’ in the event of those consequences, be then prepared to accept ‘extra responsibility’ as the price for that right. ] I'd agree with most of what you say in you 'self opiniated hat' - but this part in brackets, the relating to what I've said earlier in this post, it is more about maintaining the rights one has as an adult, this should in no way absolve a man of his responsibility. That sound to me like 'to those who have, more should be given, from those who have not, more will be taken away.
A woman (or anyone else for that matter) only needs run around declaring and holding tight to her rights when the people around are working against their interest.
The fact that some slack women exist shouldn't condem all women. Because if that standard were applied to men they would all be castrated.
Noir UK
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Noir_UK
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday April 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 20:52 |
|
DrunkMonkey wrote:
Noir
My bad. Sorry. Never saw THAT one...
Appreciated 
Noir UK
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Gmahogany
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday January 1st, 2004 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1315 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 22:00 |
|
@ Noir and Wifeable, .
As was already stated, I believe that a man's responsibilities for a child, should begin at birth, just as his rights begin at that point. It may not seem fair, in a situation where he was against the child being born, but it doesn't seem fair to me that women should have to bear the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth,exclusively...such is life.
Having said that, if I were to find myself in a situation like this, and made a decision to have the child against the man's wishes, I WOULD NOT pursue him for child support. Like I stated in an earlier post, I refuse to spend my time and energy chasing some "sorry N****r down for child support", I said that and I meant that. Any man that I would have to beg,cajole, threaten, to do what he should be willing to step up and do of his own free will,(regardless of his feelings about my choice), is severely lacking in some essential qualities and is someone who I would not want in my child's life,(and when my child grows up to be some hellafied rich athlete like Shaq, the sperm donor better keep his sorry ass under whatever rock he was hiding under,lol)
I've known women who didn't want to have a child, planned an abortion, couldn't get one for one reason or another, but once the child is born they step up and do what's right. They suck it up and deal with it, not b**ch and whine about how they never wanted the child anyway, so why should they have to make sacrifices. Afterall, it is because of their decisions/behavior that the child is here. For me, that is what separates the women from the girls.
____________________
"Niggas are Scared of Revolution"-The Last Poets
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Mercenary
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 22:49 |
|
Noir UK says:
"I'd agree with most of what you say in you 'self opiniated hat' - but this part in brackets, the relating to what I've said earlier in this post, it is more about maintaining the rights one has as an adult, this should in no way absolve a man of his responsibility. That sound to me like 'to those who have, more should be given, from those who have not, more will be taken away.
A woman (or anyone else for that matter) only needs run around declaring and holding tight to her rights when the people around are working against their interest.
The fact that some slack women exist shouldn't condem all women. Because if that standard were applied to men they would all be castrated."
The flaw in this argument is that it ignores the fact that the rights/stroke responsibility balance is weighted far too heavily in one partys (the woman) favor.
Indeed, both man and woman willingly enaged in sexual activity but from the moment the woman becomes aware of the pregnancy she has all the rights, regarding what happens to the pregnancy.
This is upheld by law and is accepted by most people; at present. Thus a woman may terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of the man who impregnated her and he has no rights whatsoever in that instance. No penalty is imposed on her if she terminates a child against his wishes.
So the only relevant questions for men to ask is what are a mans rights where a pregancy has been carried to term.
A mans wish not to have fatherhood and all the associated obligations (penalties) therein imposed on him should be given as much repsect as the womans right not have an abortion or motherhood imposed on her.
He should be able to waive all parental obligations to a child he does not want brought into the world. In effect this would mean that he is not he is not acknowledged as the father of the child.
If the argument goes that nature creates the unfairness which puts women at a disadvantage, in that, it is she who is "burdened" with the decision of how a pregnancy will be disposed, then there is an equal burden on the man who will be made to support a child he did not want, or have his child terminated against his will.
The nature dictated "unfairness" for the woman is buttressed by the fact that her right to choose is acknowedged culturallly and legally. However no such concession is made for the man who faces either the loss of his child or the financial obligations for a child he did not want.
This goes against natural justice. The balance of rights and responsiblities is unequal, with only one partys wishes given respect to. Justice and fairplay demands that a mans right not to have fatherhood imposed on him is given equal respect to the womans right not have motherhood or abortion imposed on her.
Last edited on Tuesday June 21st, 2005 22:52 by
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Gmahogany
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday January 1st, 2004 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1315 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 21st, 2005 23:29 |
|
Continued....
and what should separate the men from the boys.
____________________
"Niggas are Scared of Revolution"-The Last Poets
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Noir_UK
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday April 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday June 22nd, 2005 22:28 |
|
Gmahogany wrote: @ Noir and Wifeable,.
As was already stated, I believe that a man's responsibilities for a child, should begin at birth, just as his rights begin at that point. It may not seem fair, in a situation where he was against the child being born, but it doesn't seem fair to me that women should have to bear the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth,exclusively...such is life.
Having said that, if I were to find myself in a situation like this, and made a decision to have the child against the man's wishes, I WOULD NOT pursue him for child support. Like I stated in an earlier post, I refuse to spend my time and energy chasing some "sorry N****r down for child support", I said that and I meant that. Any man that I would have to beg,cajole, threaten, to do what he should be willing to step up and do of his own free will,(regardless of his feelings about my choice), is severely lacking in some essential qualities and is someone who I would not want in my child's life,(and when my child grows up to be some hellafied rich athlete like Shaq, the sperm donor better keep his sorry ass under whatever rock he was hiding under,lol) 
I've known women who didn't want to have a child, planned an abortion, couldn't get one for one reason or another, but once the child is born they step up and do what's right. They suck it up and deal with it, not b**ch and whine about how they never wanted the child anyway, so why should they have to make sacrifices. Afterall, it is because of their decisions/behavior that the child is here. For me, that is what separates the women from the girls. (Noir's bolding)
Right back at you!
I'm right with you on that, while I firmly believe the man in such a situation has a responsibility to the child, I can't see me running him down for no money or time. I'd rather spend that energy improving my life and the life of any child I had. After all the man is responsible for his actions and the person he chooses to be not me. I am only accountable for my actionsand my choices.
I know children are a lot of hard work, but they can give so much back to to those that care for them by just being themselves. Any man fool enough not to appreciate that..... well his loss.
Noir UK
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Noir_UK
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday April 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday June 22nd, 2005 23:21 |
|
Mercenary wrote: Noir UK says:
"I'd agree with most of what you say in you 'self opiniated hat' - but this part in brackets, the relating to what I've said earlier in this post, it is more about maintaining the rights one has as an adult, this should in no way absolve a man of his responsibility. That sound to me like 'to those who have, more should be given, from those who have not, more will be taken away.
A woman (or anyone else for that matter) only needs run around declaring and holding tight to her rights when the people around are working against their interest.
The fact that some slack women exist shouldn't condem all women. Because if that standard were applied to men they would all be castrated."
The flaw in this argument is that it ignores the fact that the rights/stroke responsibility balance is weighted far too heavily in one partys (the woman) favor.
I think I said this in a previous post, but I'll try to reword it for clarity - The 'problem' is not equally balanced between these two people so naturally the solution, logically, cannot be equally between then either - for what it's worth, I've seen the results of single motherhood and abortion too many times to believe that this balance is in the woman's favour. I actually believe the man is in the more advantagous position, for himself at least.
I've see women suffer withand/or regret the choices they have made in this situation, be it termination or to carry to full term. To hold a childs life in your hands and believe you have made the wrong decision is a very heavy burden to carry and it is carried for life and possibly the childs lifetime. I believe I have taken the easy way out by choosing not to have children, but at least I made a decision rather than find someone to blame for my mistakes.
Indeed, both man and woman willingly enaged in sexual activity but from the moment the woman becomes aware of the pregnancy she has all the rights, regarding what happens to the pregnancy. Therefore HER body.
This is upheld by law and is accepted by most people; at present. Thus a woman may terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of the man who impregnated her and he has no rights whatsoever in that instance. No penalty is imposed on her if she terminates a child against his wishes.
So the only relevant questions for men to ask is what are a mans rights where a pregancy has been carried to term.
A mans wish not to have fatherhood and all the associated obligations (penalties) therein imposed on him should be given as much repsect as the womans right not have an abortion or motherhood imposed on her. Respect yes, obligation no. If respect is earned it will generally be given.
He should be able to waive all parental obligations to a child he does not want brought into the world. In effect this would mean that he is not he is not acknowledged as the father of the child. The time for him to make his choice is when he is choosing who to bed with.
If the argument goes that nature creates the unfairness which puts women at a disadvantage, in that, it is she who is "burdened" with the decision of how a pregnancy will be disposed, then there is an equal burden on the man who will be made to support a child he did not want, or have his child terminated against his will. Both parties can choose not to create this 'burden'. If YOU cannot choose then the choice is made for you - a simple childhood lesson.
The nature dictated "unfairness" for the woman is buttressed by the fact that her right to choose is acknowedged culturallly and legally. However no such concession is made for the man who faces either the loss of his child or the financial obligations for a child he did not want. That a woman MUST make choices in the event of a pregnancy is a fact, acknowledged or not. For a man to make choices is a choice in itself.
This goes against natural justice. The balance of rights and responsiblities is unequal, with only one partys wishes given respect to. Justice and fairplay demands that a mans right not to have fatherhood imposed on him is given equal respect to the womans right not have motherhood or abortion imposed on her. See previous statements
Noir UK
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Mercenary
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Thursday June 23rd, 2005 20:10 |
|
Those who advocate on behalf of single mothers praise them for doing what they claim is a difficult job, namely raising a child/ren single handedly. However, being a single parent in a western country is the easiest thing in the world to become and do. If being a single parent was as challenging as is claimed then surely single parenthood would only be an option for the most able women.
The reality is that single parenthood is usually the only option for the least able women, who in most cases rely on State resources rather than own their to feed, cloth and house the children they produce. Unable to be productive in any other way, they opt for a life of serial pregnancy and an income from the State.
This disproves the idea that being a single parent is a difficult role. Simply put, if it were so difficult to be a single parent, fewer would choose it.
Prior to the Pill a man was quite rightly obliged to support any child he fathered because the woman had limited options, the Pill gave women the freedom to choose not to get pregnant, the legalisation of abortion gave women the option to terminate a pregnancy safely.
Todays contraception gives 100% protection against pregnancy if used properly, so the notion that a woman falls pregnant by "accident" is out of date.
Given all these facts it is ludicrous to suggest that women are disadvantaged by pregnancy. A pregnancy is not a disease or a disability on the contrary it is the essence of womanhood, an affirmation of health and fertility; the ability to produce life. A pregnancy is the gift of a new life.
How can it be right that men are still held to standards that reflect the social values of prior generations and yet the woman is not?
These values were established in a time when there was no Pill, abortion or Welfare State.
If a man impregnated a woman in the past he was expected to "make an honest woman of her" and to supply the material needs of both the woman and their children. The woman was expected to make a comfortable home and look after young children.
This was the trade off.
Women have since been liberated sexually by the Pill and abortion, and freed from their economic dependency on men by the State, but the man is still bound by the old rules; he is expected to support children he did not want.
Any woman who "finds" herself pregnant must be assumed to have done so deliberately or knowingly recklessly.
A womans right to see a pregnancy to term or abort it, is indeed her right, but where she chooses to see a pregnancy to term against a mans wishes she should not be able to demand financial support from him to raise a child he did not want. She has deliberately chosen to raise a child single handedly.
To say that a man has the right to abstain from sex is also true for the woman, but it is the man who must bare the most burdensome consequences of whatever decision is made by the woman. He may lose a child he wanted, or be forced to support a child he did not want for, 18 years.
This is unjust, however unlike the laws of nature, the (man made) laws governing these matters can be changed and must be changed. Those who are interested in protecting the rights of men must challenge the legal biases that discriminate against them.
With every "right", there is a corresponding obligation/responsibility, it seems that there are those who want all their "rights" upheld, but for someone else to pay the costs of those "rights".
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Mercenary
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday June 28th, 2005 23:49 |
|
In the early '80s, the one-child policy was selectively imposed upon the Chinese people as a way to override the popular choice to have two or more children. Additional pregnancies were subject to coerced abortion.
To reiterate, most people in the UK accept the pro-choice position; at present, however this is not written in stone. Should the need arise for forced abortion or even forced births, no one should be under any delusion that this will not be imposed, as in China where a womans so called "right to choose" is given no recognition.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Timeline
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday June 29th, 2005 00:54 |
|
Mercenary wrote: In the early '80s, the one-child policy was selectively imposed upon the Chinese people as a way to override the popular choice to have two or more children. Additional pregnancies were subject to coerced abortion.
To reiterate, most people in the UK accept the pro-choice position; at present, however this is not written in stone. Should the need arise for forced abortion or even forced births, no one should be under any delusion that this will not be imposed, as in China where a womans so called "right to choose" is given no recognition.
In reference to China....I mean when you are over-crowded, you're over-crowded  Humans "care" about others....but that is only if it satisfies their own self-interest in the process. So if someone really wants kids, but their country is over-crowded, then the person will justify in their mind that "one more kid won't hurt" or "it's god's will" or whatever. So humans have to be regulated sometimes or self-interest will definitely come before environmental concerns...
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Omaar
Villager
| Joined: | Thursday June 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Arid-zona |
|
| | | |
