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

[Laize]

If they're not analogous then don't act like someone is a hypocrite for treating them as nonanalogous. A child is a human being that is dependent on the people who created it. A fetus is a clump of cells that exists on the whim of the host.

A fetus is no less alive than a tapeworm. They're both parasitic, dependent on the host and if you pull them out of the host, they die. The only distinction is one is a life stage of the homo sapiens species and the other is a fucking tapeworm. Doesn't change the fact that they're both alive. So if you don't mind killing a human (And you for sure know my stance on that in certain circumstances, this being one of them) then go right ahead. But don't kid yourself by denying that you're killing someone.

Yeah pregnant women never think of the father. No woman ever takes the father's desires into consideration.

You know full well I'm only referring to the women who would be affected by this change.

[buck008]

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure. I would for example, be interested in a system where child support that the father gives goes into an account where he can see the expenditures made and can bring a small court claim for stuff like designer clothes. But if the father can afford college for instance, that's something else.

So if the money is used for frivolous shit, there is some recourse to get it back or make sure it is spent on the proper things? I like it. You aren't going to convince me that an unwilling parent, no matter how wealthy, needs to be on the hook for half of what college costs these days. That's a bit much.

[Laize]

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure. I would for example, be interested in a system where child support that the father gives goes into an account where he can see the expenditures made and can bring a small court claim for stuff like designer clothes. But if the father can afford college for instance, that's something else.

There's no excuse for leaving a man on the hook for a ridiculously expensive college tuition bill for a kid he didn't even want.

You stand a MUCH better chance at getting a compromise here when you limit child support ONLY TO WHAT'S NECESSARY FOR IT TO LIVE.

[starlord]

A fetus is no less alive than a tapeworm. They're both parasitic, dependent on the host and if you pull them out of the host, they die. The only distinction is one is a life stage of the home sapiens species and the other is a fucking tapeworm. Doesn't change the fact that they're both alive. So if you don't mind killing a human (And you for sure know my stance on that in certain circumstances, this being one of them) then go right ahead. But don't kid yourself by denying that you're killing someone.

is this an argument against the justification for the "walk away option"?

[Rukentuts]

Was sort of my point. I thought Conservatives (maybe not you, I don't remember where you stand) don't want more welfare.

I don't know how much it would actually cost. The saved court costs and enforcement might offset it. That is, if we cap state assistance to living costs only.

[Deleted]

Hey peeps, instead of nagging about something as ridiculous as "Oh false rape accusations!" (which happen but are incredibly rare), just rather direct your gaze upon Europe, Finland for example. In two years a law will take an effect here that requires, absolutely //requires// companies to have certain amount of women in the top leadership. Yeah, right.

[Laize]

is this an argument against the justification for the "walk away option"?

It's my point of view on the whole "The child has a right to the best quality of life s/he can have" issue and the cognitive dissonance involved in reconciling it with "this lifeless clump of cells has no right to life, I should be able to abort".

In my point of view it's a human from conception to death. I simply have the view that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to let it live while it's dependent on her.

And it's not that I haven't thought about this. I've thought about it long and hard with an open mind. There's no fundamental distinction, in my mind, between a fetus and a baby. At the most basic level we're all just 46 chromosomal blueprints and the result of enzymes putting together whatever those blueprints have told them to build. Some are just farther along than others.

To that end, a fetus can be scrapped by the mother if it's still in utero and I'm okay with that. I, however, see a Texas-sized cognitive dissonance coming from people who say "THIS KID HAS A RIGHT TO QUALITY OF LIFE!" while also holding the believe that "This kid doesn't have a right to life itself".

It has both or it has neither. You can't pick one and not the other and still call it "equal".

[Kasierith]

Hey peeps, instead of nagging about something as ridiculous as "Oh false rape accusations!" (which happen but are incredibly rare), just rather direct your gaze to Europe, Finland for example. In two years a law will take an effect here that requires, absolutely //requires// companies to have certain amount of women in the top leadership. Yeah, right.

Even (most) feminists do not look at that with approval; why would we spend time arguing about something that we all agree is inherently unjust and sexist in its execution?

[Orange Joe]

Frankly any father who simply chooses to walk away from his child is a piece of shit.

I'm sorry I know this is way back in the thread but fuck this is stupid.....



What about the women that aborts or gives the kid up for adoption without the fathers consent?

[Deleted]

Even (most) feminists do not look at that with approval; why would we spend time arguing about something that we all agree is inherently unjust and sexist in its execution?

"shrug, it might be great to actually agree about something instead of throwing strongly biased information back and forth.

[buck008]

I'm sorry I know this is way back in the thread but fuck this is stupid.....



What about the women that aborts or gives the kid up for adoption without the fathers consent?

Asked and answered at least two dozen times. I really don't want to go back down that road.

[cutterx2202]

A cap is a great idea.

I'm more interested in ways to make the "options" fair to both.

Suggestion - a priority list:
1) If one or both of the biological parents wants to keep it, an abortion is illegal. If both want to keep it, normal custody talks begin. If only one person wants to keep it, it goes to that person after the birth. An abortion may only happen if both parties consent (even though any abortion is murder... I'll save that for another thread). For purposes of this argument, wanting a child to go up for adoption is the same as wanting to keep it until birth, but takes less priority if the other parent wants to keep the child. (So if one wants an abortion and the other adoption, the child may not be aborted, and must be birthed, given to the parent that wanted to keep/put up for adoption, and at that point may either keep or put up for adoption)

2) If custody is to go to only one of the two parents, (whether by custody talks or the other parent did not want the child) the other parent pays monthly child support capped at, say, $200/mo or 5% ($200 adjusted for inflation)(Idea from someone else). If the one to pay support is unemployed, they are relieved of payments for the duration of their unemployment.

This is looking at the majority of cases. Let's not be delusional and pretend all pregnancies are rape or a busted condom. Both parents consented to the responsibility of a child when they didn't wear protection and so both are partially responsible for that child.

*edit*
How this may be enforced:
Require written consent of both biological parents before an abortion is performed. (both sign some form readily available at a clinic.)
superceded by a third party doctor (think hospital) determining the woman's life is IMMINENTLY in danger. (Cannot be determined by abortion clinic doctors for obvious ethical reasons).

[Kasierith]

I'm sorry I know this is way back in the thread but fuck this is stupid.....

What about the women that aborts or gives the kid up for adoption without the fathers consent?

Are you suggesting that a man should have the influence to force a woman to carry her child to term?

[Laize]

I'm sorry I know this is way back in the thread but fuck this is stupid.....



What about the women that aborts or gives the kid up for adoption without the fathers consent?

Well, of course, that's perfectly fine because FEMINISM and BODILY AUTONOMY!

But men wanting an equivalent option is misogyny. Fuck me, right?

[buck008]

Well, of course, that's perfectly fine because FEMINISM and BODILY AUTONOMY!

But men wanting an equivalent option is misogyny. Fuck me, right?

Oh damn it. If we're going there again, I'm out. I thought we had made some real progress. Maybe even seen that the issue isn't that cut and dry.

[Laize]

Oh damn it. If we're going there again, I'm out. I thought we had made some real progress. Maybe even seen that the issue isn't that cut and dry.

Someone had a halfway decent idea for a cap on child support.

I think that limit should be at about $200 a month or 5% of take-home income. Whichever is less. Adjusted for inflation of course.

It's not ideal but it's a step in the right direction. Baby steps are better than no steps after all.

[artemishunter1]

Are you suggesting that a man should have the influence to force a woman to carry her child to term?

yes, having sex that led to the pregnancy is a mutual decision. No one forced it upon her. The father has the right to the baby as well as the mother. Mother can not make the sole decision alone. The mother does not have to raise the child, but as long as her own health is not in risk(which is almost always the case in the Western Nations), she should carry the child and give up the child after delivery. If she does not want that, then she should have sex without protection to begin with. Alternately, sterlize all females and males, and start having test tube babies, this way no one will have any right to anyone's body, babies will only be for reproduction and thats it.

[starlord]

It's my point of view on the whole "The child has a right to the best quality of life s/he can have" issue and the cognitive dissonance involved in reconciling it with "this lifeless clump of cells has no right to life, I should be able to abort".

In my point of view it's a human from conception to death. I simply have the view that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to let it live while it's dependent on her.

And it's not that I haven't thought about this. I've thought about it long and hard with an open mind. There's no fundamental distinction, in my mind, between a fetus and a baby. At the most basic level we're all just 46 chromosomal blueprints and the result of enzymes putting together whatever those blueprints have told them to build. Some are just farther along than others.

To that end, a fetus can be scrapped by the mother if it's still in utero and I'm okay with that. I, however, see a Texas-sized cognitive dissonance coming from people who say "THIS KID HAS A RIGHT TO QUALITY OF LIFE!" while also holding the believe that "This kid doesn't have a right to life itself".

It has both or it has neither. You can't pick one and not the other and still call it "equal".

every kid has the right to life once its born. every kid should have the best quality life.

but it seems strange that you argue for a policy that would encourage a practice you disapprove of.

[buck008]

A cap is a great idea.

I'm more interested in ways to make the "options" fair to both.

Suggestion - a priority list:
1) If one or both of the biological parents wants to keep it, an abortion is illegal. If both want to keep it, normal custody talks begin. If only one person wants to keep it, it goes to that person after the birth. An abortion may only happen if both parties consent (even though any abortion is murder... I'll save that for another thread). For purposes of this argument, wanting a child to go up for adoption is the same as wanting to keep it until birth, but takes less priority if the other parent wants to keep the child. (So if one wants an abortion and the other adoption, the child may not be aborted, and must be birthed, given to the parent that wanted to keep/put up for adoption, and at that point may either keep or put up for adoption)

2) If custody is to go to only one of the two parents, (whether by custody talks or the other parent did not want the child) the other parent pays monthly child support capped at, say, $200/mo or 5% ($200 adjusted for inflation)(Idea from someone else). If the one to pay support is unemployed, they are relieved of payments for the duration of their unemployment.

This is looking at the majority of cases. Let's not be delusional and pretend all pregnancies are rape or a busted condom. Both parents consented to the responsibility of a child when they didn't wear protection and so both are partially responsible for that child.

I like where your head is at. For me, I can't get behind a system that forces a woman to carry a child to term. As far as adoption goes, the idea that a woman can just give the baby up without dad's consent is a fallacy. Legal state adoption requires the consent of both parents via a waiver of parental rights. If a mother takes advantage of a Safe Haven law, that only waives her right. The father can petition to claim the child.

[Kasierith]

yes, having sex that led to the pregnancy is a mutual decision. No one forced it upon her. The father has the right to the baby as well as the mother. Mother can not make the sole decision alone. The mother does not have to raise the child, but as long as her own health is not in risk(which is almost always the case in the Western Nations), she should carry the child and give up the child after delivery. If she does not want that, then she should have sex without protection to begin with. Alternately, sterlize all females and males, and start having test tube babies, this way no one will have any right to anyone's body, babies will only be for reproduction and thats it.

If you are suggesting that a man have the right to force severe physiological, psychological, and emotional stress on a female by forcing her to undergo the entirety of pregnancy, than I suggest you reanalyze your approach on how to maintain a rational discussion. Getting caught up in disputes where there is literally no ground for such an approach is ultimately harmful for the MRM, because it is not a direction they will ever gain tract on, and it ultimately detracts from areas where focus and attention can actually do some good.