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

[Felya]

Not when there's the option to abort and not have the child.

If she chooses to abort, we are no longer talking about child support. If the woman chooses to abort, should a man share in the expance involved? You only want responsobility for the part you like?

[Spectral]

I'm Pro-Child. Ever have one? It'll change your views pretty damn quickly.

I'm not sure why people think being more emotional about a topic is a good way to reach correct conclusions.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm not sure why people think being more emotional about a topic is a good way to reach correct conclusions.

If anything it should lead one to be more wary, no? Not saying that it should automatically invalidate an argument, but it should raise more concerns.

[Felya]

My question has never been answered

Because she is the one paying for everything. A woman can't just walk away, even though it's because of an action both of you took. What you are suggesting is to give the man influence over a woman's body, because that gives you the rights and obsolves you of responsobility resulting from sex. You want a right over a woman's body, even if that right amounts to extortion. The right to dictate, abort or I will not pay for it, is a noble right to strive for...

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:22 AM ----------

If anything it should lead one to be more wary, no? Not saying that it should automatically invalidate an argument, but it should raise more concerns.

Getting emotional over this thread, is like getting emotional over a Sam Kinison joke...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1dyV9d_1k

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:30 AM ----------

This was my first exposure to men's rights movement:

[Ebildays]

Because she is the one paying for everything. A woman can't just walk away, even though it's because of an action both of you took. What you are suggesting is to give the man influence over a woman's body, because that gives you the rights and obsolves you of responsobility resulting from sex. You want a right over a woman's body, even if that right amounts to extortion. The right to dictate, abort or I will not pay for it, is a noble right to strive for...

No, there is no influence over a woman's body. Because what I am suggesting takes place before a child is conceived and yes it gives the option for a man not to be responsible for what happens after sex. But you are failing to see the big important part of the suggestion, if a woman knows that the man is not going to pay child support she has a choice not to have sex with that man and to walk away. Him saying he will not pay for a child does not take over the rights of a woman's body and if she chooses to have sex with a man knowing he will not pay a dime that means she is okay with paying for everything. That she, herself, choose to pay for everything; it is a big difference between after finding out you are pregnant that you will have to foot the bill and finding out before a child is conceived that you may have to foot the bill.

The man is not telling her to abort, give the child up for adoption, or anything else, I don't really know where you are getting that from. The goal of what I am suggesting is that men be given a legal option to have their wishes up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a person engages in an activity that involves a risk (pregnancy) they should be held responsible for the outcome of that decision but in the spirit of compromise I have given an option. And with in that option is the option for the woman to walk away find a sexual partner that shares her same values and ideals when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, she is in no way forced to have sex with the man. If she chooses to still have sex with a man knowing that he does not have to pay child support and she will have to foot the bill how is that unfair to her when she willingly choose that option?

[Sunseeker]

Its really not. I'm saying that an action can result in a child. Take all the measures you want to lessen that chance. If you're a woman you can abort because your bodily autonomy > the chance that fetus will come to term. But once it comes to term and there is now a child with no ability to care for itself those who created it are obligated to care for it. Its really simple.

Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.

[Felya]

No, there is no influence over a woman's body.

How is saying, if you have the baby I won't pay for it, not trying to influence?

Because what I am suggesting takes place before a child is conceived and yes it gives the option for a man not to be responsible for what happens after sex. But you are failing to see the big important part of the suggestion, if a woman knows that the man is not going to pay child support she has a choice not to have sex with that man and to walk away. Him saying he will not pay for a child does not take over the rights of a woman's body and if she chooses to have sex with a man knowing he will not pay a dime that means she is okay with paying for everything. That she, herself, choose to pay for everything; it is a big difference between after finding out you are pregnant that you will have to foot the bill and finding out before a child is conceived that you may have to foot the bill.

You already have that right. Men can already write up a contract to obsolve them of taking care of the child, before it's conceived. That's what happens at sperm banks. What you are asking for is already in place...

The man is not telling her to abort, give the child up for adoption, or anything else, I don't really know where you are getting that from. The goal of what I am suggesting is that men be given a legal option to have their wishes up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a person engages in an activity that involves a risk (pregnancy) they should be held responsible for the outcome of that decision but in the spirit of compromise I have given an option. And with in that option is the option for the woman to walk away find a sexual partner that shares her same values and ideals when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, she is in no way forced to have sex with the man. If she chooses to still have sex with a man knowing that he does not have to pay child support and she will have to foot the bill how is that unfair to her when she willingly choose that option?

What you are arguing for already exists. This is how sperm banks function. You can already have a contract you both agree to, where you are not responsible for a child, before you have sex.

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:31 AM ----------

Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.

Are you saying that a woman can just walk away from a child she just gave birth to? The inherent paternity, obligation and custody is hers, because it comes out of her. She cannot deny the baby is hers...

A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:36 AM ----------

Why does this only mention women specifically:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/919a

[Sunseeker]

Are you saying that a woman can just walk away from a child she just gave birth to? The inherent paternity, obligation and custody is hers, because it comes out of her. She cannot deny the baby is hers...

Yes, she can. Most of the time a woman who just gave birth but doesn't want to be a parent can adopt out her child right away. She can then go on to pretend the child isn't hers just as much as the man does.

A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.

"Irreverible damage" say what?

I'm really starting to get sick of all this treatment of pregnancy as a life-threatening medical condition. Chances of death or injury due to pregnancy is minimal. Pregnancy is classified as a "disability" or a "illness" simply so that existing law can be applied to it and people don't have to think real hard and make new laws.

As for throwing her hands in the air, I was referring to after birth. Although it's rare, you can give up your children at times beyond birth. It's just more difficult. And if someone really didn't want to have their kid and the System wouldn't willingly take it, they can become a horrible parent and the System will take the child.

I'm not saying throwing her hands in the air will make the pregnancy go away. We've already established that even for a man this won't work out well either, since the woman could just get the courts on his ass about it.

[Wells]

Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.

I don't really support people being able to put kids up for adoption unless they can demonstrate some reason it would be in the child's best interest. I'm not even saying they should be forced to be dads. If they don't ever want to be there then fine, but they should at least fund their own child.

[Laize]

The well being of a child is not enouph rational reason?

No, it's not. Why should the man's wishes to not be a father be completely ignored?

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 08:22 AM ----------

Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.

The hell it doesn't. He never wanted to create a child. Its very existence ostensibly goes against his wishes.

Choosing when and if you become a father is the essence of reproductive rights.

[Wells]

Hitting someone with your car doesn't mean you're not responsible even if its against your wishes. Responsibility is rarely defined by desire for responsibility.

Choosing when and if you become a father is the essence of reproductive rights.

And that's why we have all kinds of measures to control your reproductive system. What you want has nothing to do with reproductive rights. You're trying to get out of something after you've reproduced.

No, it's not. Why should the man's wishes to not be a father be completely ignored?

Because most of us think the well being of the child you created takes priority over your desire not to have to give a fuck.

But then again personal responsibility and all.

[Laize]

Hitting someone with your car doesn't mean you're not responsible even if its against your wishes. Responsibility is rarely defined by desire for responsibility.

You had a choice to get in the car and drive. Once a woman's pregnant you have no say in what happens.

And that's why we have all kinds of measures to control your reproductive system. What you want has nothing to do with reproductive rights. You're trying to get out of something after you've reproduced.

No, if you're a guy you have 2 options. Abstinence or condoms. Even with perfect use it's been pointed out that 2% of women will test positive for seminal residue with a condom. Men need a LEGAL option for avoiding paternity. He shouldn't be subject to the whims of someone else.

Because most of us think the well being of the child you created takes priority over your desire not to have to give a fuck.

But then again personal responsibility and all.

It's her choice to bring the kid to term. If he never wanted it to happen it's HER personal responsibility.

[Wells]

You had a choice to get in the car and drive. Once a woman's pregnant you have no say in what happens.

And you had a choice to have sex. The outcome of which can be a child.

No, if you're a guy you have 2 options. Abstinence or condoms.

Or get snipped. Or sleep with a woman with an IUD. Or have her on the pill and use a condom. You have lots of options.

Even with perfect use it's been pointed out that 2% of women will test positive for seminal residue with a condom.

That study had a sample size of 47, I'm not terribly swayed,

It's her choice to bring the kid to term. If he never wanted it to happen it's HER personal responsibility.

I'm really not interested in getting back to "no innate responsibility, but innate rights".

[Laize]

And you had a choice to have sex. The outcome of which can be a child.

The outcome can be a fetus. After that it's the woman's choice whether or not it gets born.

Or get snipped. Or sleep with a woman with an IUD. Or have her on the pill and use a condom. You have lots of options.

You continue to propose "getting snipped" without acknowledging that it's practically fucking guaranteed permanent sterilization. Even if you're among the 50% who can be successfully reversed (A percentage which goes down the longer you wait) you're never going to be that fertile again. You may as well stay snipped if you wait more than 5 years. All the other options rely on the other person being totally upfront and honest.

That study had a sample size of 47, I'm not terribly swayed,

Uh huh. That's your prerogative I suppose.

I'm really not interested in getting back to "no innate responsibility, but innate rights".

You're being purposefully obtuse. Both are innate, but you should be able to surrender them.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing this anymore. You'll continue saying men should get sterilized or just rely on women to be on the ball and totally honest and never change their minds and say "well the guy is just fucked, sucks for him" in cases where the woman does change her mind or lie.

A man should have a right to family planning as well. He shouldn't be forced to be a father when he's not ready. End of story. Mothers aren't forced to be mothers when they're not ready (and no, I don't give a shit where that power comes from. They have it, men should have an analogous power. That's all there is to it.) and fathers shouldn't be forced to be fathers when they're not ready.

I'm not interested in running another 50 pages of this bullshit with people who will continually distort my position, propose unreasonable solutions and refuse to have an open mind.

Let's talk about something else.

How about alimony? Alimony is bullshit. No one should be able to initiate a no-fault divorce and collect permanent alimony.

[Felya]

Yes, she can. Most of the time a woman who just gave birth but doesn't want to be a parent can adopt out her child right away. She can then go on to pretend the child isn't hers just as much as the man does.

Do you often give things up for adoption, when you walk away from them? Walking away and giving up for adoption, are two very different things. One involves walking in any direction you like, while the other makes you go through the adoption process.

"Irreverible damage" say what?

How do you unpregnate a woman?

I'm really starting to get sick of all this treatment of pregnancy as a life-threatening medical condition. Chances of death or injury due to pregnancy is minimal. Pregnancy is classified as a "disability" or a "illness" simply so that existing law can be applied to it and people don't have to think real hard and make new laws.

Here is a diagram of an episiotomy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...episiotomy.gif

As for throwing her hands in the air, I was referring to after birth. Although it's rare, you can give up your children at times beyond birth. It's just more difficult. And if someone really didn't want to have their kid and the System wouldn't willingly take it, they can become a horrible parent and the System will take the child.

The system? You want the tax payer to pay for your kid? How about a hell no, you pay for your own damn kid, instead of having the tax payer cover it, because you don't want to deal with it. You pay for your fucking kid, don't pass the buck on us. Where is my right to not pay for the kid you toss at the 'system'?

I'm not saying throwing her hands in the air will make the pregnancy go away. We've already established that even for a man this won't work out well either, since the woman could just get the courts on his ass about it.

You want those laws gone so the woman cannot go after a man, yet see it as a way to stop men from running away?

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 06:14 PM ----------

A man should have a right to family planning as well. He shouldn't be forced to be a father when he's not ready. End of story. Mothers aren't forced to be mothers when they're not ready (and no, I don't give a shit where that power comes from. They have it, men should have an analogous power. That's all there is to it.) and fathers shouldn't be forced to be fathers when they're not ready.

A man does have that right for family planning, no one is forcing them to have sex. What you are asking for, is to not have responsobility as a result of your actions in sex. Once the woman is pregnant, it's too late for family planning. Your responsobility, just like hers, lays at the point of conception. After that, both of you are stuck with the reprecussions, but only one suffers physical reprecussions. The fetus is already growing, you are not forced to do anything, only the woman is forced to make the choice because it's part of her. You family plan before you have sex, because there is nothing you or she can do to make what is growing inside her disappear.

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 06:19 PM ----------

I'm not interested in running another 50 pages of this bullshit with people who will continually distort my position, propose unreasonable solutions and refuse to have an open mind.

Just a reminder, you are the one who refused to try to understand my post, yet felt the need to say that, and said that you are ignoring child birth in your rationalizing. Don't play the open minded game, where you have to ignore reality in order to see your perspective.

How about actually answering questions instead of playing the victim?

---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 06:33 PM ----------

No, it's not. Why should the man's wishes to not be a father be completely ignored?

Why should I grant wishes to men who don't want to take responsobility for their actions? You can wish all you want, that baby inside her cannot disappear. Instead of wishing, you shouldn't have had the sex. Once she is pregnant, neither you or her have a choice in it being there. If you do not wish to be the father, do not have sex.

[Grizzly Willy]

Uh huh. That's your prerogative I suppose.

No, it's really not. 47 is far too small of a sample size.

[Ebildays]

How is saying, if you have the baby I won't pay for it, not trying to influence?



You already have that right. Men can already write up a contract to obsolve them of taking care of the child, before it's conceived. That's what happens at sperm banks. What you are asking for is already in place...



What you are arguing for already exists. This is how sperm banks function. You can already have a contract you both agree to, where you are not responsible for a child, before you have sex.

I am not sure if you are joking or not.

Yes, it is going to have influence on if a woman chooses to have sex with a man after he has said that. But so is a man informing a woman that he is already married with 5 kids or has tested positive for HIV. It is called allowing a woman to make an informed choice and I didn't believe anyone would argue against that......well until I read your post that is.


You do understand that at a sperm bank the man has sold sperm in the process of selling his sperm he gives up all rights to it and anything that is created by it. And no where have I ever read where a man has made a legal contract not to pay child support for any children against his wishes and had it up held in court.

If contracts like do already exist then

A. Why are people not informed of their existence?
B. Why are then not made readily available for people?

I am a pretty informed person on a lot of things I have never heard about men having away to opt out of child support before a child can be conceived. This is not counting sperm banks where there is an entirely different dynamic going on there.

[Zeglo]

Men do have some inequalities, but Women still have it a lot worse.

I don't care about the Mens' Rights Movement right now. We still have it better in the majority of situations.

[Laize]

Men do have some inequalities, but Women still have it a lot worse.

I don't care about the Mens' Rights Movement right now. We still have it better in the majority of situations.

The only situation men have it better in is leadership positions.

In family courts we fall far short.

[Ebildays]

Okay this is a double post but I found this very nice post about condom failure on a website.

1) Use AFTER penetration by the male. Sperm are present in the pre-cum and pre-lubricant emitted by the male during sexual excitment.
That's why you should apply the condom to the erect male organ BEFORE any contact with the woman's sex organs.

2) Use of oil-based or petroleum based lubricant with Condom. Oils and Petroleium ROTS rubber and laytex items. They are drastically weakened within seconds by exposure to these products.

3) Failure to apply condom correctly. If you put the wrong side of the condom against the head of the penis, you've just contaminated the OUTSIDE of the condom with pre-cum (See note #1). The correct way to apply unrolls down the shaft of the penis. To check this, always unroll about an inch before applying, to make sure you know which way it rolls.

4) Failure to leave a reservour in the end of the condom for the semen/ejaculate. Most condoms need a litte room to accept the fluid ejaulated by the male. Some have special tips for this. ALL can be unrolled a turn or two to create this potential space.

5) Failure due to lack of lubrication. Any woman can tell you unlubricated sex is not enjoyable. If she's not turned on, or there's not enough lube, the friction can either drag the condom off the penis, or tear it. Not pleasant. Use water based lube outside the condom.

6) Failure to wear a condom. Some women cannot tell if a man is wearing a condom or not. ALL men can tell if the condom breaks, tears or slides off.

7) Excess lubrication inside the condom. The condom requires some friction or tightness inside the latex tube to keep it on the penis. By applying excess lube INSIDE the condom, the entire item "floats" on the shaft of the penis and can slide off.

8) Failure to stop thrusting after climax. See note #7 above. The semen acts as lube inside the condom and so, lubricates the entire shaft.

It is alright to place a drop of water based lube on the head of the penis before applying the condom. This small amount of lube can make sensation for the man much more intense... but it must be limited to just the head or glans.

9) Failure to wash up after sex.

10) Touching the woman's genitals with hands that have been exposed to the man's ejaculate.