Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Spectral]

I'm not sure where this 'financial body' term you are using comes from... it isn't used here in the states. If you want to talk about assets and obligations that is fine, but it isn't the same thing as an actual flesh and bone body, as you are trying to equate it to.

I don't think it's a regional thing (the language), it's a bit of libertarian terminology in which property effectively is the person. It relies on the concept that money is obtained by work, so requiring someone to pay for something is actually enslaving them and denying them their bodily autonomy.

If you filter the thread through that lens, some of the arguments made are easier to understand.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 11:05 AM ----------

if the answer to not having childen is don´t have sex at all
then the answer to not getting abused in a relationship is don´t have a relationship at all

If being in a relationship with you guarantees a risk of abuse, then I'd concur that no one should ever think about getting in a relationship with you. You need to inform them up front though; everyone's aware that sex can result in pregnancy, but you're probably not telling women "I might beat you, FYI".

[Raiju]

I don't think it's a regional thing (the language), it's a bit of libertarian terminology in which property effectively is the person. It relies on the concept that money is obtained by work, so requiring someone to pay for something is actually enslaving them and denying them their bodily autonomy.

If you filter the thread through that lens, some of the arguments made are easier to understand.

So a fine now counts as slavery or am I still misunderstanding this concept?

[Spectral]

So a fine now counts as slavery or am I still misunderstanding this concept?

Requiring people to pay for something they haven't agreed to pay for is slavery by a certain strain of libertarian reasoning; fines for certain things would still be considered acceptable to the best of my understanding. This isn't my position and I wouldn't defend it, I'm just trying to communicate it.

[Deleted]

So a fine now counts as slavery or am I still misunderstanding this concept?

Well sort of. If you arbitrarily fine a citizen, you're forcing him to perform something of value for your benefit. It could also be called extortion, because if you don't pay, armed men show up at your door and throw you in jail or take your stuff.

[Stir]

I clearly stated that its both of their faults. you're not even reading my posts, and going on insane rants about feminists because of things I didn't say.

Yes, you have. Time and again. Just as people have clearly explained to you how that's not entirely true since the male does not get a say in the pivotal decision.

if a man chooses to have sex for whatever reason, he is fully informed of what could happen.
Oh suddenly that logic is sexism.

Fully informed, yes. But completely unable to take action either way. If I tie you down and tell you I'm going to blow up a building with the stuff I found in your kitchen, you are fully informed, and it's your cleaning agents I'll be using, but you're in no position to stop me.

no, the child is the entire point. child support is for the child.
and you said it here, not a page back.

Yes... You keep saying that.
Maybe it's because of my luxury position. You see, in the Netherlands, Child Support is granted by the state. Depending on the total salary of both parents, the state will grant you child support. If one of those parents opts out, the child support goes up because the remaining parent isn't earning as much as two working parents would. This happens regardless of the either parent's sex, and, as such, is much more fair to both sexes.
But I take it you're not from the Netherlands... Please just understand that this, too, in an option. It's the system that's at fault. Not the woman, and not the man. If your system simply doesn't acknowledge the fact that single parents exist, then it's your system's incapability to evolve with the times.

And regarding your other post...
"Men and Women share responsibility for their children."
If thats an insane sexist rant to you I'm afraid you're just not a rational person.

No; it's not sexist. However, in the context, it is important to note that the male does not have the same options as the female does in the conception and finalization of said child.
If one has the option of not going through with it, then so should the other. It really IS that simple.

[Raiju]

Requiring people to pay for something they haven't agreed to pay for is slavery by a certain strain of libertarian reasoning; fines for certain things would still be considered acceptable to the best of my understanding. This isn't my position and I wouldn't defend it, I'm just trying to communicate it.

I appreciate it, regardless (same @ Diurdi). I honestly skipped over the phrase in general as a google search on it did nothing and it was completely alien to me.

Could someone who believes in their financial body concept maybe outline where it does and doesn't (practically) apply? apologies for the slight OT but I don't think I'm the only one curious.

[starlord]

I did not equate a fetus to a child. You're twisting my words.

then i apologize. i find it disingenuous when people go "But its the fathers child inside her!" and not acknowledge that she may feel the same way.

I brought up the father's bonding (which is, by the way, biological fact) because everyone always seems to completely ignore it. You yourself dismiss it by naming the mother's bonding 'far stronger.'

Because that is biological fact. He gets the "periphery" of it.

So let me tell you an anecdote of two friends of mine:

Here is an article about it: http://www.attachmentparenting.org/s...tchemistry.php
here is the one about men: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ain15_cv_N.htm

It was after they had their first child; roughly two years. At some point, she notices that he suddenly gets increasingly happy and energetic, starts vigorously cleaning beyond his normal habits, and takes a very caring role in the relationship. After a few days, she asks him what's up, and he answers: 'You're pregnant! Of my second child!'
She was on birth control, at the time, but she had it checked and, it turned out, she wás pregnant.
Now here's the nastiness: He should have told her before, because she didn't want another child. She was on birth control for a reason. He clearly did want the child (initially, he didn't, but his hormone rush had pushed him in favour of having this child). There was still some time to get an abortion, but he kind of talked her out of it, and at last she was glad he did, but that doesn't alter the fact that he should have told her immediately... Which he had not, because he was afraid she was going to abort. In any case, had he abstained from telling her to the point where abortion was no longer a legal option, she'd be in her rights to abandon him and the child, and come off without a financial burden for a child she didn't want.

Abandoning it would be leaving it with him, in which case she would have a financial burden.
Or it could have been the much more common story: She gets pregnant, and he leaves her because he didn't want it.

True; it is. But I honestly don't see how that is relevant. The only thing this is relevant for is when you need to decide if someone is Jewish or not.

Its very relevant; if she doesn't know who the father is or where hes at, they must have a method for "default".
Otherwise the nurseries would be stuffed full of children waiting for their fathers to be found. A man can file for it later, but I dont know a good solution to this myself.

Of course it doesn't. That's like saying women don't have custody rights because they can abort/put up for adoption.

Not quite. The logic is "since childbirth is only a womans decision, a man has no inherent responsibilities. Its unfair to force him to have responsibilities for something he had no choice in." And therefore he has no inherent rights. Turning it around we get "Since childbirth is only a womans decision, the mother has all of the inherent responsibilities, and therefore all the inherent rights."

I disagree with both.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 08:39 AM ----------

Yes, you have. Time and again. Just as people have clearly explained to you how that's not entirely true since the male does not get a say in the pivotal decision.

Which is irrelevant to the purposes of child support. The only exceptions being rape.

Fully informed, yes. But completely unable to take action either way. If I tie you down and tell you I'm going to blow up a building with the stuff I found in your kitchen, you are fully informed, and it's your cleaning agents I'll be using, but you're in no position to stop me.

Thats after I let you in knowing full well you would do that.

Yes... You keep saying that.

I must, since people keep saying "Men shouldn't have to pay child support because of women." They pay it because of children.

Maybe it's because of my luxury position. You see, in the Netherlands, Child Support is granted by the state. Depending on the total salary of both parents, the state will grant you child support. If one of those parents opts out, the child support goes up because the remaining parent isn't earning as much as two working parents would. This happens regardless of the either parent's sex, and, as such, is much more fair to both sexes.
But I take it you're not from the Netherlands... Please just understand that this, too, in an option. It's the system that's at fault. Not the woman, and not the man. If your system simply doesn't acknowledge the fact that single parents exist, then it's your system's incapability to evolve with the times.

That is a good system. When I say they are at fault, it means they are at fault for the kids existence, and have responsibilities to it. Our system has the father (or Mother, depending on who has custody) pay a certain amount of wages (which could be neglible in any case). If they skips out on that, its a lot of time and money to track them down in any case.

Single parents not recieving support is a rampant problem. If one just dies, I dont think theres anything to account for that either.

No; it's not sexist. However, in the context, it is important to note that the male does not have the same options as the female does in the conception and finalization of said child.
If one has the option of not going through with it, then so should the other. It really IS that simple.

And in context its important to acknowledge that they are in inherent unequal positions. Not only that, opting out is very different from abortion in every way. I don't agree that either parent should be able to do that.

[Kasierith]

You can argue that all you like. The fact remains, however, that the child is only still in the picture because the mother made that decision unilaterally.

In no other area of life do we allow one person to make the decision for two provided both are adults.

I don't know what to tell you that you haven't already heard... but the decision was made at contraception. Perhaps locating a trustworthy partner who doesn't subscribe to misandrist magazines should take precedence over a quick lay.

[Laize]

I don't know what to tell you that you haven't already heard... but the decision was made at contraception. Perhaps locating a trustworthy partner who doesn't subscribe to misandrist magazines should take precedence over a quick lay.

Or we could let men have a say in their own financial planning that goes beyond "make sure you trust who you sleep with".

I wonder how many people told women they should've been more careful about who they slept with back before Roe v Wade.

[Ebildays]

You can argue that all you like. The fact remains, however, that the child is only still in the picture because the mother made that decision unilaterally.

In no other area of life do we allow one person to make the decision for two provided both are adults.

Lets say the pregnancy happened due to failed birth control.

The woman wants the child.

The man does not want the child.

What should happened? Do the wishes of man trump the wishes of the woman and she should abort? Since it is the woman's body does she has the right to keep it? Since they both knew the risks involved should they both be held responsible for the support of the child if the woman chooses to keep it?

Giving a man the option to "opt out" after a child in conceived is never going to happen because it looks like he just wants to run away after having his fun. It is not going to fly will society because for most people the needs of the child trumps anything else. And lets not forget the lengths that women went throught to get abortion legal, the amount of women that died from back door abortions or became sterile because of them. When a woman aborts a child she takes a risk with her health and even with becoming sterile. A man risks nothing with an "opt out" option so abortion will never have an equal male option.

The best thing men can hope for is a pre-conception option which will give more balance to the system.

[Kasierith]

Or we could let men have a say in their own financial planning that goes beyond "make sure you trust who you sleep with".

I wonder how many people told women they should've been more careful about who they slept with back before Roe v Wade.

False equivalency. One involves bodily autonomy and the other involves financial autonomy vs the welfare of a child. Of these two, one takes precedence.

But really.... why would proper condom use not be standard practice, due to the possibility of STD's if nothing else?

[starlord]

Or we could let men have a say in their own financial planning that goes beyond "make sure you trust who you sleep with".

I wonder how many people told women they should've been more careful about who they slept with back before Roe v Wade.

I'm sure a lot of them were told that. So they went and made a logical argument that bodily autonomy is garunteed in the constituition, and that prohibiting abortions violates that.
The only argument people have managed to form here is that "Women having babies is sexist because they can get abortions."

Thats like saying "Men having urinals is sexist, why do they get 2 options???? I don't care that they are different, because options!"

[Stir]

Abandoning it would be leaving it with him, in which case she would have a financial burden.
Or it could have been the much more common story: She gets pregnant, and he leaves her because he didn't want it.
Its very relevant; if she doesn't know who the father is or where hes at, they must have a method for "default".
Otherwise the nurseries would be stuffed full of children waiting for their fathers to be found. A man can file for it later, but I dont know a good solution to this myself.

No. More common is: She has it aborted because she didn't want it. Once we're past this stage, we can play the game of 'who left who.' And since it's the male's only option to leave in case of a child he wanted to have aborted, most of the time he'll leave. The number of women who are willing to give birth to a child they don't want, only to drop it with their partner and then leave, is understandably low.

Not quite. The logic is "since childbirth is only a womans decision, a man has no inherent responsibilities. Its unfair to force him to have responsibilities for something he had no choice in." And therefore he has no inherent rights. Turning it around we get "Since childbirth is only a womans decision, the mother has all of the inherent responsibilities, and therefore all the inherent rights."

There is no turning around. Simple as. The logic was: It is unfair for him/HER to have responsibilities for something he or SHE chose AGAINST. That is completely different from what you stubbornly seem to think it actually is.

Which is irrelevant to the purposes of child support. The only exceptions being rape.

Absolutely not. You seem to hold on to the position of 'sex is for making babies.' But that's not true, is it? Sex is originally for making babies, sure... But most mammals have evolved beyond that point. In all primate species, sex has different functions as well. In the case of chimpanzees, sex (and rape) shows dominance (performed by both sexes, by the way). In bonobos, which I'd rather be compared to to be honest, sex is a way in which all sorts of disputes are solved. Sex among them is also used to comfort.
In humans, sex is primarily a tool for monogamous couple bonding. A side effect is children, but we've evolved far beyond the point where reproduction is the only practical application for sex.
So by agreeing to sexual intercourse, you're NOT automatically agreeing to reproduce. And I think that that's where our differences of opinion are strongest.

Thats after I let you in knowing full well you would do that.

No... I didn't tell you that beforehand. What I told you was that we'd hang out together and do fun stuff.

I must, since people keep saying "Men shouldn't have to pay child support because of women." They pay it because of children.

I completely agree that people should pay child support when they decide they don't want to be a family, and don't get custody for the children. What I don't agree with is people who are forced into paying for something they didn't want in the first place.

That is a good system. When I say they are at fault, it means they are at fault for the kids existence, and have responsibilities to it. Our system has the father (or Mother, depending on who has custody) pay a certain amount of wages (which could be neglible in any case). If they skips out on that, its a lot of time and money to track them down in any case.
Single parents not recieving support is a rampant problem. If one just dies, I dont think theres anything to account for that either.
And in context its important to acknowledge that they are in inherent unequal positions. Not only that, opting out is very different from abortion in every way. I don't agree that either parent should be able to do that.

I agree; single parents who don't receive support is, indeed, a rampant problem. And I fully agree that a parent can't just opt out after legally having become the parent. By signing that document, you are legally the parent of the child, after all. You can't just expect to walk away from that. But I'm not trying to say that you should. I'm not trying to say that you should, at some point, be able to just go 'You know; I changed my mind... This kids thing? Not me. Bye!'
What I'm saying is: Someone who has no knowledge of a child's existence, or didn't agree to the child's birth, should simply not be held responsible for it in retrospect. A mother who is forced/coerced by her environment to give birth to the child shouldn't be held responsible for it afterwards... She should have the ability to simply NOT sign the documents, to dump the child with people who actually WANT it.

[Laize]

False equivalency. One involves bodily autonomy and the other involves financial autonomy vs the welfare of a child. Of these two, one takes precedence.

But really.... why would proper condom use not be standard practice, due to the possibility of STD's if nothing else?

Bodily autonomy is more important than the life of a fetus, but financial/legal autonomy is less important than the child's quality of life?

I'm sorry, that doesn't fly.

[Mayhem]

I'm sure a lot of them were told that. So they went and made a logical argument that bodily autonomy is garunteed in the constituition, and that prohibiting abortions violates that.
The only argument people have managed to form here is that "Women having babies is sexist because they can get abortions."

Thats like saying "Men having urinals is sexist, why do they get 2 options???? I don't care that they are different, because options!"

and if men being able to use urinals would have woman to pay for cleaning it, you would think otherwise... it´s not about that woman can get abortions, it´s that man don´t have a say in being a father or not if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, as if using a kondom wouldn´t allready say "yeah i don´t want to be a father, like really don´t!!", still the woman can chose to make him one, even if there are other options

but you will just answer with it´s her body and ignore everything i wrote because you can

[Kasierith]

Bodily autonomy is more important than the life of a fetus, but financial/legal autonomy is less important than the child's quality of life?

I'm sorry, that doesn't fly.

You're assuming that a fetus and a child are synonymous. They are not.

[Laize]

You're assuming that a fetus and a child are synonymous. They are not.

Where you want to draw the line on whether or not something is alive or called a child is a matter subject to debate. And not one I care to get into.

I, personally, think it's applicable from start to finish, I simply don't consider all human life sacred enough to worry about abortions.

And I get the sense that this will be a matter we fundamentally disagree on.

[starlord]

There is no turning around. Simple as. The logic was: It is unfair for him/HER to have responsibilities for something he or SHE chose AGAINST. That is completely different from what you stubbornly seem to think it actually is.

Its unfair, but its more unfair for a child to not be provided for because its parents decided they didn't want it. It doesn't matter what they chose later on, they chose to make it in the first place.

So by agreeing to sexual intercourse, you're NOT automatically agreeing to reproduce. And I think that that's where our differences of opinion are strongest.

You are automatically agreeing to the possibility, just like when you engage in any other risky activity.
Just because the risk is minimal doesn't mean it can be discounted. Someone else compared it to driving a car- you could be the best driver in the world, but you MUST have insurance to drive legally. You are automatically agreeing that you could get in an accident by driving.

I agree; single parents who don't receive support is, indeed, a rampant problem. And I fully agree that a parent can't just opt out after legally having become the parent. By signing that document, you are legally the parent of the child, after all. You can't just expect to walk away from that. But I'm not trying to say that you should. I'm not trying to say that you should, at some point, be able to just go 'You know; I changed my mind... This kids thing? Not me. Bye!'

No one is legally a parent until its born. Signing away parenthood beforehand is no different than doing it then.

What I'm saying is: Someone who has no knowledge of a child's existence, or didn't agree to the child's birth, should simply not be held responsible for it in retrospect.

We're not talking about people who had no knowledge or agreement.

A mother who is forced/coerced by her environment to give birth to the child shouldn't be held responsible for it afterwards... She should have the ability to simply NOT sign the documents, to dump the child with people who actually WANT it.

She should be because its not the kids fault it was born in that manner. And she has the option of adoption. That ensures its at least provided for. If she simply refused to account for its welfare at all its still child abuse, even if she didnt want it.

[Cybran]

Lets say the pregnancy happened due to failed birth control.

The woman wants the child.

The man does not want the child.

What should happened? Do the wishes of man trump the wishes of the woman and she should abort? Since it is the woman's body does she has the right to keep it? Since they both knew the risks involved should they both be held responsible for the support of the child if the woman chooses to keep it?

The woman decides for herself and the man decides for himself. Does this sound fair? If the man wants nothing to do with raising the child he signs a contract that the birth is against his wishes and pays only a minimal amount of Child Support. The rest of the burden falls on the woman that made the decision unilaterally, cause she was dealth with the better cards gender wise.

Giving a man the option to "opt out" after a child in conceived is never going to happen because it looks like he just wants to run away after having his fun. It is not going to fly will society because for most people the needs of the child trumps anything else. And lets not forget the lengths that women went throught to get abortion legal, the amount of women that died from back door abortions or became sterile because of them. When a woman aborts a child she takes a risk with her health and even with becoming sterile. A man risks nothing with an "opt out" option so abortion will never have an equal male option.

The best thing men can hope for is a pre-conception option which will give more balance to the system.

This is an exteremely sexist remark. For the sake of the children there should be calculated a minimal amount of child support. If the man is 100% certain he doesn't want anything to do with the child he signs that and it's done. Women that chase after rich guys or are looking for a graivy train raid in life will lose their interest. I think the better part of the men will suck it up and pay more to be allowed to be a part of their children's life. There could be a limit as well. If you abandon a second kid, fuck you you pay full for both.

[Spectral]

but you will just answer with it´s her body and ignore everything i wrote because you can

That's the only answer you should receive until that message drives itself into your head. Your personal desires do not give you the right to force medical procedures on others.