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

[Wells]

Regardless of why she has the option, the fact is that the system currently holds a man responsible for the unilateral decision of a woman.

There are many decisions on the way to a child being born, some of which are up to the man and some up to the woman, some up to both. All of them have to be made. A man could get a vasectomy and now he's made the unilateral decision regarding children by your reasoning.

She opted not to get an abortion, thus a child was born and the man is responsible

The man consented to an activity that can result in children. He's already responsible for the outcomes of that consent.

[Laize]

which means she should recieve preferential custody right?

If the man shirks responsibility for the child then he's forfeiting rights too. She absolutely receives preferential custody in that case.

[Rukentuts]

The man consented to an activity that can result in children. He's already responsible for the outcomes of that consent.

And no matter how many times you repeat it, it still continually ignores the other side of the coin.

[Wells]

There are no options for the man once the child is conceived.

There are many options prior.

"Bodily autonomy" would actually dictate letting the pregnancy run its course like nature intended.

Yeah, you're still not making any sense. We have the right to determine what we do with our bodies. That's why women get to terminate.

[Destruktion]

And before the "He had a choice, he didn't have to have sex." She had the choice too, she chose to have sex, therefore she made the choice to be potentially with a child that she'd have to raise alone. That terrible argument swings both ways, please stop using it.

Didn't even think of that. Good form.

There are many options prior.

We're not talking about prior, we're talking about during. Prior to conception the point is moot because both parties have birth control options available to them, but nevertheless all of these options can fail.

[Wells]

If the man shirks responsibility for the child then he's forfeiting rights too. She absolutely receives preferential custody in that case.

A guy who isn't even interesting in raising his child isn't giving anything up by forfeiting rights to the child that he has no interest in. All he's doing is saddling the mother with more burden.

[Northern Goblin]

The man consented to an activity that can result in children. He's already responsible for the outcomes of that consent.

She consented to the activity too, yet has options (non biological) to avoid that responsibility.

They both undertook the activity, one of them comes out of it with choices.

[Wells]

And before the "He had a choice, he didn't have to have sex." She had the choice too, she chose to have sex, therefore she made the choice to be potentially with a child that she'd have to raise alone. That terrible argument swings both ways, please stop using it.

its not a terrible argument because the two aren't in an equal position. The woman can abort because its her body. She gets an extra choice because she's the one who's body is being effected.

[Laize]

There are many decisions on the way to a child being born, some of which are up to the man and some up to the woman, some up to both. All of them have to be made. A man could get a vasectomy and now he's made the unilateral decision regarding children by your reasoning.

The man consented to an activity that can result in children. He's already responsible for the outcomes of that consent.

Again, because I think this analogy is appropriate I'll say it again.

If there's a car company and they're all in it to make a car. If the engineer goes to the CEO and says "I don't like this car. We shouldn't ship it." and the CEO says "fuck you we're doing this" and 10 months down the line the cars begin blowing up on the highway, whose responsibility is it? Do we look at the CEO who greenlit the decision (Whose decision was final) or the engineer who must have had a hand in it but vehemently disagreed with the decision?

[Northern Goblin]

which means she should recieve preferential custody right?

If the man wants no part of it, absolutely 100% yes.

He chooses to forfeit all rights.

[Wells]

She consented to the activity too, yet has options (non biological) to avoid that responsibility.

They both undertook the activity, one of them comes out of it with choices.

Only one of them has an option after conception because only one of them is actually carrying the child.

[Aalyy]

I wonder how it would feel to be a woman and be forced to be a mother when you didn't want to be.

Let's ask some pre Roe-v-Wade women that exact question.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term involves a government's intrusion into her body and a violation of her privacy. A woman cannot force a man to allow her to become a mother anymore than a man can force a woman to allow him to become a father. The difference being that a pregnancy occurs entirely within the domain of a woman's body and no one, no government or man, should be allowed to control that.

Once a child is born it is required that both parents support that child on the presumption that the rights of the child to be properly cared for trump whether or not either parent wanted to be a parent in the first place. It's not anti male but pro child. A woman can give full custody of the child to hte man but that doesn't exempt her from being responsible for child support anymore than the reverse.

The only difference here is an unavoidable one. Pregnancy occurs within the body of the woman and so she has full control over her own body. That's it, that's the only difference.

[Northern Goblin]

its not a terrible argument because the two aren't in an equal position. The woman can abort because its her body. She gets an extra choice because she's the one who's body is being effected.

Read the above repeat of that, she has non biological options available to her.

[Rukentuts]

A guy who isn't even interesting in raising his child isn't giving anything up by forfeiting rights to the child that he has no interest in. All he's doing is saddling the mother with more burden.

Maybe she should have thought that might happen when he mentioned how he didn't want kids before they fucked.

This is essentially your argument.

[Nanotech]

There are many options prior.

Yeah, you're still not making any sense. We have the right to determine what we do with our bodies. That's why women get to terminate.

The day the man is the one who is carrying the fetus in HIS body is the day he starts caring about such "nonsense" as body autonomy. :P

[Laize]

A guy who isn't even interesting in raising his child isn't giving anything up by forfeiting rights to the child that he has no interest in. All he's doing is saddling the mother with more burden.

You think a guy would have a perfectly clear conscience? You think there'd be no feelings of guilt that there's a kid out there with his genes and no idea who the father is?

[starlord]

If the man shirks responsibility for the child then he's forfeiting rights too. She absolutely receives preferential custody in that case.

what responsibilities does he have for a child that doesnt exist yet?

And before the "He had a choice, he didn't have to have sex." She had the choice too, she chose to have sex, therefore she made the choice to be potentially with a child that she'd have to raise alone. That terrible argument swings both ways, please stop using it.

Also, less of the "deadbeat" line, do you call every woman who aborts or puts up for adoption because she didn't want to take care of a child a deadbeat?

right, they both made a choice. and the key difference is a woman who aborts makes sure no child is born in the first place. a woman who adopts out puts it in care better than she can or is willing to provide.

a man who "opts out" is making life that much worse for the child.

[Wells]

Again, because I think this analogy is appropriate I'll say it again.

If there's a car company and they're all in it to make a car. If the engineer goes to the CEO and says "I don't like this car. We shouldn't ship it." and the CEO says "fuck you we're doing this" and 10 months down the line the cars begin blowing up on the highway, whose responsibility is it? Do we look at the CEO who greenlit the decision (Whose decision was final) or the engineer who must have had a hand in it but vehemently disagreed with the decision?

Funny, I like my car analogy more. When you get in a car you accept responsibility for the people you hit even if you didn't intend on it resulting.

[buck008]

T+1 month - only woman gets to decide whether the kid is adopted away

I picked that line in particular because it is very very wrong. If the child is born, and your name is on the birth certificate as the father, you have to sign a waiver of parental rights before the child can be given up for adoption. You don't argue the fact that women get to make the gestation decisions because they are the ones that actually carry the baby. What I don't see is how you are ok with the father saying "That's it, I'm out" in the first trimester, but you aren't ok with the mother saying "I'm keeping the baby". Both decisions affect both people's lives massively. Do you really not see that this is just a bandaid solution that favors your cause, and that's about it?

[Wells]

Maybe she should have thought that might happen when he mentioned how he didn't want kids before they fucked.

This is essentially your argument.

No its not. Not at all. To the point where I suspect you're just being obtuse.