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

[Ebildays]

Let's drop the part about abortion being "possibly life threatening." Abortion is safer than childbirth.

That source does give a .6 chance of death out of 100,000 abortions so that does make it "possibly life threatening".

[Lolercaust]

That source does give a .6 chance of death out of 100,000 abortions so that does make it "possibly life threatening".

The point is that the mortality rate here is so low compared to childbirth that by calling the procedure "possibly life threatening" is being not only pedantic, but also disingenuous (or even deceptive) by presenting it as a serious concern.

[Spectral]

That source does give a .6 chance of death out of 100,000 abortions so that does make it "possibly life threatening".

I guess so. By that standard though, just about everything is life threatening.

[Ebildays]

The point is that the mortality rate here is so low compared to childbirth that by calling the procedure "possibly life threatening" is being not only pedantic, but also disingenuous (or even deceptive) by presenting it as a serious concern.

No, it is a serious concern because if you have ever had to have any kind of surgery where it could be life threatening no matter how small of a chance you think about it. Are you saying that if a doctor told you that you need to have surgery and that there is a small chance of death you are not going to think about it? I know I would be thinking "Knowing my luck I would be .6%.

I guess so. By that standard though, just about everything is life threatening.

Final Destination says so.

Joking aside yes, but if we live in fear of being hurt or dying people would never get out of bed. So we put aside the fear of dying to everyday things so we can function day to day. But when it is something outside the norm for us ( like abortion) we will think about that risk of death.

[Aalyy]

Wow, you're practically foaming at the mouth here.
There is no valid reason for a woman to have unilateral decision-making power over the father's role in the child's possible life. Period.

Describing my post with hysterical adjectives doesn't make it any less valid. Yes, sexism pisses me off esp. thinly disguised sexism where someone talks out both sides of his mouth about how fathers are so discriminated against but they should be allowed to walk away scott free from any responsibility if they don't happen to want a child. I mean, get real!

If men get to bear zero responsibility for a child just because they say so then that leaves the woman with 100% of the responsibility because of Biology regardless of her choice. That isn't fair. What was someone saying about making laws to circumvent Biology's inherent inequality??? Well there ya go! That's what we have on the books now.

[Rukentuts]

If men get to bear zero responsibility for a child just because they say so then that leaves the woman with 100% of the responsibility because of Biology regardless of her choice. That isn't fair. What was someone saying about making laws to circumvent Biology's inherent inequality??? Well there ya go! That's what we have on the books now.

Bull, it's entirely fair. She can either choose to have the child and take responsibility or not.

Or course, you love ratting on men for not wanting to be a father, but when women have an abortion because they don't want to be a mother, it's all fine and dandy. Stop it.

[Laize]

Describing my post with hysterical adjectives doesn't make it any less valid. Yes, sexism pisses me off esp. thinly disguised sexism where someone talks out both sides of his mouth about how fathers are so discriminated against but they should be allowed to walk away scott free from any responsibility if they don't happen to want a child. I mean, get real!

If men get to bear zero responsibility for a child just because they say so then that leaves the woman with 100% of the responsibility because of Biology regardless of her choice. That isn't fair. What was someone saying about making laws to circumvent Biology's inherent inequality??? Well there ya go! That's what we have on the books now.

So what you're saying is "Men have no reproductive rights but we should bleed our hearts out for women's"? Am I reading you correctly?

[darenyon]

Bull, it's entirely fair. She can either choose to have the child and take responsibility or not.

Or course, you love ratting on men for not wanting to be a father, but when women have an abortion because they don't want to be a mother, it's all fine and dandy. Stop it.

because abortion doesnt leave a child that needs taken care of.
and by placing all of the responsibility on the mother you make it so if she doesnt abort, she is putting her child at a disadvantage in any case.

[Laize]

because abortion doesnt leave a child that needs taken care of.
and by placing all of the responsibility on the mother you make it so if she doesnt abort, she is putting her child at a disadvantage in any case.

It's not placing responsibility on the mother.

She still has the option to abort or adopt the kid away. No one is taking those choices from her.

Do you really not see how she's choosing to bring the kid to term and, as such, if the father wants no part the entirety of the consequences of that decision should rest on her shoulders.

[darenyon]

It's not placing responsibility on the mother.

She still has the option to abort or adopt the kid away. No one is taking those choices from her.

it is. isnt the whole argument that men have no choice, and therefore no inherent responsibility?

the kids quality of life is *entirely* her responsibility. if she doesnt abort she is doing it a disservice.

[Rukentuts]

Do you really not see how she's choosing to bring the kid to term and, as such, if the father wants no part the entirety of the consequences of that decision should rest on her shoulders.

And before people beat the "deadbeat" horse any more, do you think that pregnant women would actually prefer to be told the man wants out while they still have the alternative of abortion instead of it happening after a baby has already been born?

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 07:25 PM ----------

ithe kids quality of life is *entirely* her responsibility. if she doesnt abort she is doing it a disservice.

Yeah, because adoption totally isn't another alternative. Or leaving it at a church, or leaving it at a firehouse, or leaving it at a hospital...

[Laize]

it is. isnt the whole argument that men have no choice, and therefore no inherent responsibility?

the kids quality of life is *entirely* her responsibility. if she doesnt abort she is doing it a disservice.

No, the argument is that men should have a choice of whether or not to bear responsibility.

If the kid's quality of life would entirely be her responsibility, that would be a choice she makes and not one that's forced upon her.

[Gilian]

I've never been discriminated against or seen any male discrimination personally
I don't mean to make it seem like there aren't issues, it's just that I haven't experienced or seen them in my everyday life, so I wouldn't be interested joining a movement like that.

I haven't seen any female discrimination either in my whole life.

[darenyon]

Yeah, because adoption totally isn't another alternative. Or leaving it at a church, or leaving it at a firehouse, or leaving it at a hospital...

which is totally better than being raised by its own parent...

[Rukentuts]

which is totally better than being raised by its own parent...

It is if the parent isn't able to care for it or not ready to be a parent. Not even close.

[darenyon]

No, the argument is that men should have a choice of whether or not to bear responsibility.

they get a choice, women bear an inherent responsibility to determine its future (or lack thereof).

If the kid's quality of life would entirely be her responsibility, that would be a choice she makes and not one that's forced upon her.

it essentially forces her to abort as the best possible option.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 05:39 PM ----------

It is if the parent isn't able to care for it or not ready to be a parent. Not even close.

adoption causes a lot of troubles in a kids life, and you know it. wouldnt it be better to provide some means of helping parents out instead of clogging the system?

[Rukentuts]

adoption causes a lot of troubles in a kids life, and you know it. wouldnt it be better to provide some means of helping parents out instead of clogging the system?

You know what else causes a lot of troubles in a kid's life? Having shit for parents.

[buck008]

No, the argument is that men should have a choice of whether or not to bear responsibility.

If the kid's quality of life would entirely be her responsibility, that would be a choice she makes and not one that's forced upon her.

The inherent hypocrisy in this that you refuse to address is that you are perfectly ok with the man making a unilateral decision that affects both parties, but not ok with a woman making a unilateral decision that affects both parties. You don't actually fix the problem, you just change the parameters of the problem by giving men an escape clause. Now there is still a kid, but it's just on one person or the state to take care of the problem. That's not a solution. That's just making the situation better for men. You refuse to see or accept this in any way.

Oh, also. No one is forcing the parent that doesn't want to be involved to be physically present, regardless of gender. Child support is sufficient.

[Laize]

they get a choice, women bear an inherent responsibility to determine its future (or lack thereof).

No, they don't have a choice. Everything after orgasm is out of their hands completely. That's anything but fair.

it essentially forces her to abort as the best possible option.

Pure hyperbole. It's not a false dichotomy in any sense of the word. If she can afford the kid she keeps it. If she can't she has choices. Don't pretend women can't be their own breadwinners.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 01:42 AM ----------

The inherent hypocrisy in this that you refuse to address is that you are perfectly ok with the man making a unilateral decision that affects both parties, but not ok with a woman making a unilateral decision that affects both parties. You don't actually fix the problem, you just change the parameters of the problem by giving men an escape clause. Now there is still a kid, but it's just on one person or the state to take care of the problem. That's not a solution. That's just making the situation better for men. You refuse to see or accept this in any way.

The man won't be making a unilateral decision whatsoever. He'll be making a self-determining decision that doesn't have to influence the woman's choice in whether or not to abort. If she lets it, that's her problem. If she doesn't let it affect her decision, good on her.

[Rukentuts]

The inherent hypocrisy in this that you refuse to address is that you are perfectly ok with the man making a unilateral decision that affects both parties, but not ok with a woman making a unilateral decision that affects both parties. You don't actually fix the problem, you just change the parameters of the problem by giving men an escape clause. Now there is still a kid, but it's just on one person or the state to take care of the problem. That's not a solution. That's just making the situation better for men. You refuse to see or accept this in any way.

And you refuse to see that having both parties able to choose actually improves the situation. Seriously, don't you think women would like to know ASAP as soon as a father doesn't want it?

"Oh yeah by the way I know you just gave birth and all...but uh, I'm not going to be there."