Isn't it about time the Mens' Rights Movement stopped being treated like a joke?

[starlord]

I'm not saying it should. I'm saying an analogous "out" should be available for him as well.

so really you're not concerned with paternal rights?

As it currently stands there are 4 outcomes of a pregnancy. In all 4 women get what's amenable to them. Men get only 2 (When they agree with the mother). With my solution, men are happy in 3/4 outcomes while women are happy in at least 3/4 outcomes.

you havent provided an analogous out. and why is the welfare of children relegated to a numbers game?

[buck008]

That's because the situation is zero sum. In order for one party to gain in this particular area another must lose something.

In this case women lose the right to 21 years of child support for their unilateral decision not to abort.

Thank you, Laize. Finally someone admits it and we can drop this bullshit pretense of equality. You admit there is no equal solution. You want one that benefits your particular cause. I favor one that is more beneficial to the soon to be child.

[Rukentuts]

Thank you, Laize. Finally someone admits it and we can drop this bullshit pretense of equality. You admit there is no equal solution. You want one that benefits your particular cause. I favor one that is more beneficial to the soon to be child.

Read his post again, that's hardly what he said.

[Destruktion]

Seriously? Make better decisions with your life and things won't come back to bite you in the ass. Society doesn't need to protect you from drunken one night stands. If you don't want your life "ruined" cut that shit out.

Society already does protect that by allowing birth control options and abortion. I don't see why one more safety net specifically for situations when pregnancies occur regardless of safety measures taken is such a terrible thing to ask for.

And? Don't have drunken one-night stands. The same goes for women who don't want to be pregnant. If you are both using Birth Control and you still manage to conceive, you have to deal with it.

I would prefer not to have a drunken one-night stand, but nobody's perfect. The question I now pose to you is does the punishment fit the crime, so to speak?

[buck008]

Read his post again, that's hardly what he said.

That's not what he meant, but it is exactly what he said.

[starlord]

You were just trying to argue it was fair.

it is fair if we take into account that a father "has no responsibility for his children".

[Laize]

so really you're not concerned with paternal rights?

Of course I am. As I said, the 2 concepts are only loosely related. "I'm ready to be a father and want this child" isn't the same as "I'm not ready to be a father and don't want this child."

you havent provided an analogous out. and why is the welfare of children relegated to a numbers game?

Sure I have. He can disavow responsibility and rights of the child. From there, the woman has the option of caring for the child herself, aborting or adopting the child away.

Inb4 "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 05:31 AM ----------

Thank you, Laize. Finally someone admits it and we can drop this bullshit pretense of equality. You admit there is no equal solution. You want one that benefits your particular cause. I favor one that is more beneficial to the soon to be child.

The... current situation provides no rights for the father UNLESS he is in lockstep with the mother.

Wanting SOME rights is a "bullshit pretense of equality"?

[starlord]

You're getting pretty good at building straw men.

Fact is that wanting better protection for paternal custody is only loosely related to wanting better family planning choices.

they are in fact in direct opposition.

"men deserve more rights to their children"
vs
"men bear no responsibility for their children"

which is it?

[Rukentuts]

it is fair if we take into account that a father "has no responsibility for his children".

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:32 PM ----------

they are in fact in direct opposition.

"men deserve more rights to their children"
vs
"men bear no responsibility for their children"

which is it?

Why is the concept of choice so difficult to understand?

[starlord]

Inb4 "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

yeah, why would you think of children when determining what quality of life they will have?

[Nanotech]

Of course I am. As I said, the 2 concepts are only loosely related. "I'm ready to be a father and want this child" isn't the same as "I'm not ready to be a father and don't want this child."



Sure I have. He can disavow responsibility and rights of the child. From there, the woman has the option of caring for the child herself, aborting or adopting the child away.

Inb4 "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 05:31 AM ----------



The... current situation provides no rights for the father UNLESS he is in lockstep with the mother.

Wanting SOME rights is a "bullshit pretense of equality"?

There IS no analogous out inherently in this situation. Childbirth/child rearing and abortion all disfavor women simply due to biology. The man isn't the one putting his life and health at risk by giving birth, carrying the pregnancy to term or having an abortion, the woman is. In any situation imaginable the women bears the brunt of the risks associated with ANY of the situations you point out. This is unequal by nature's design, so no need to tell us there are totally equal ways out for both parties involved. The only way that would be achievable is if the child came to term in an outside bubble that both parents had to tend to or get rid of in equal terms.

[Aalyy]

I've learned a lot spending a Monday night on the forums instead of WoW, lol. Turns out there's a Putative Father Registry that dudes who have sex with girls and want parental rights to any child they may father, not even "have" fathered.... just "may", can register for. Imagine that!

I'm not totally heartless to the plight of fathers. I have a niece I never get to see because her mother took her out of the country when she was a baby and hasn't returned. I've seen my big tough lifer in the military brother, who's never missed a child support payment, crying in a dark corner during a holiday because he misses his daughter. Children need fathers and fathers need their children. But I think it's silly that so much of the MRM or Father's Rights crap is hung up on the Safe Haven laws. Laws that by and large save baby's lives. They could start by cutting that crap out if they want to stop being taken for a joke.

[Laize]

they are in fact in direct opposition.

"men deserve more rights to their children"
vs
"men bear no responsibility for their children"

which is it?

Men, on paper, have as many rights to children as necessary. Tender years doctrine is done and gone. The problem exists when family courts won't allow custody to men who legitimately want their children.

On the other side, when it comes to family planning, Men have no rights beyond contraception. If he doesn't want to be a father he has 2 self-determination options. A) Vasectomy (Which I just found out even those aren't 100%.. Seriously wtf is with the male reproductive system and being able to just keep on trucking?) or B) Just plain not having sex.

Let's say abortion were illegal. Say we were having this argument in reverse and I was saying you just wanted to shirk responsibility for your actions. You'd say "So my only options are tubal ligation or just not having sex?"

That wouldn't seem very acceptable to you, would it?

[stumpy]

I'm not saying it should. I'm saying an analogous "out" should be available for him as well.

As it currently stands there are 4 outcomes of a pregnancy. In all 4 women get what's amenable to them. Men get only 2 (When they agree with the mother). With my solution, men are happy in 3/4 outcomes while women are happy in at least 3/4 outcomes.

Uh, no.

"Woman gets abortion, Man pays nothing and suffers no physical effects" is in no way equivalent to "Man washes his hands, Woman is still pregnant and must either continue to deal with the not-inconsiderable physical burden of pregnancy and the monetary loss incurred during third trimester before putting the baby up for adoption or pay a hefty sum for an abortion and the associated physical stresses and risks."

If this were the case and you were a woman, you'd be right here on the board posting about it. We both know it.

(edit: adoption clause added)

[starlord]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:32 PM ----------

Why is the concept of choice so difficult to understand?

didnt you say they had no choice, and therefore bear no responsibility?

[Laize]

yeah, why would you think of children when determining what quality of life they will have?

So we're not concerned with whether they live or die, but if the woman decides they should live suddenly we're up in arms over their quality of life?

I'm not buying what you're selling.

[buck008]

The... current situation provides no rights for the father UNLESS he is in lockstep with the mother.

Wanting SOME rights is a "bullshit pretense of equality"?

No, the bullshit pretense was when everyone was talking about making the situation fair and equal for both parties involved. That is, clearly, impossible. The solution you propose is one that puts sole responsibility for a joint decision on one person. So now the mother has no say in the matter, that father can just up and leave for any reason. So it isn't ok for the mother to make unilateral decisions that affect the lives of both people for the next 18-21 years, but it is ok for the father to do so. That is essentially what you are saying. You can frame it however you like, but that is what you are saying. You're just replacing one shitty situation with a different shitty situation, but now life is slightly better for men. That's all.

[Rukentuts]

There IS no analogous out inherently in this situation. Childbirth/child rearing and abortion all disfavor women simply due to biology. The man isn't the one putting his life and health at risk by giving birth, carrying the pregnancy to term or having an abortion, the woman is. In any situation imaginable the women bears the brunt of the risks associated with ANY of the situations you point out. This is unequal by nature's design, so no need to tell us there are totally equal ways out for both parties involved. The only way that would be achievable is if the child came to term in an outside bubble that both parents had to tend to or get rid of in equal terms.

Insinuating that abortion is in any way "nature's design" is a flawed argument.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:38 PM ----------

didnt you say they had no choice, and therefore bear no responsibility?

Yeah, I'm not taking time addressing more strawman.

[Laize]

Uh, no.

"Woman gets abortion, Man pays nothing and suffers no physical effects" is in no way equivalent to "Man washes his hands, Woman is still pregnant and must either continue to deal with the not-inconsiderable physical burden of pregnancy and the monetary loss incurred during third trimester before putting the baby up for adoption or pay a hefty sum for an abortion and the associated physical stresses and risks."

If this were the case and you were a woman, you'd be right here on the board posting about it. We both know it.

(edit: adoption clause added)

What happens to a woman during pregnancy is not at issue.

She has the option to opt out of it. No one is challenging that.

The fact is that a man has no such option for opting out of paternity. There should be one.

[Aalyy]

Because your incorrect classifications present a terrible argument, and your combative attitude only further undermines it.

Incorrect classifications? From a man trying to lecture a woman about a decision regarding abortion using the word "simple". And mine is the terrible argument? K.