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

[darenyon]

This discussion is just going in circles.

Darenyon doesn't want the options about financial responsibility that are available to the mother to be available to the father. Darenyon thinks it's fair that the man should never have an option to opt out financially, while the woman should always have.

Diurdi doesnt understand that women cant "financially opt out". abortion does not leave a child that myst be financially supported.

Darenyon doesn't understand that if a mother decides to bring a child into this world, contrary to the wishes of the father, then its her fault that the child is in a situation with only one parent - NOT THE FATHERS.

Diurdi doesnt understand that the child shouldnt suffer for both its parents decisions.

Essentially all Darenyon wants is to let women have the ability to fuck over a man's life whenever they want to. Because that's the only thing that would be lost to women if the law was changed.

darenyon doesnt want men to gain the ability to fuck over their children whenever they want to because they got cold feet.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 08:02 AM ----------

Absolutely not. If neither of you wants the child but you are unable to abort the pregnancy, then what you do is give it up for adoption.
A child is always better off with a parent that wants it, and should never have to live with a parent that doesn't. No child should ever be unwanted.

which is part of their responsibility- to ensure its properly taken care of if not by them then by someone else.

[Laize]

its his decision to give her that decision. dont see whats so hard about accepting that men have a hand in creating children.

I truly believe you don't read my posts or, if you do, have some learning disability that prevents you from comprehending them. That's not what I'm saying at all.

of course not. im not the one who constantly harps about evil members of the opposite gender out to get me and how i have no personal responsibility for the decision to have sex. "well you see i made a stupid decision and so its not my fault cause someone else could have fixed it for me but they didnt."

Why shouldn't we harp about evil members of the opposite sex? Do I criticize women for complaining about rapists and wife beaters? Of course not.

As Diurdi said, if a woman brings a pregnancy to term against the father's wishes then she is the only one at fault for that child having only one parent. You're fabricating an obligation on the part of a man who wanted no part of that kid's life. It's her decision to bring it to term and, if that decision conflicts with the father's, the burden should lie only with her.

they clearly didnt, because they didnt use a physician. all of them should have done the research. but no, its only the womens fault.

I'm through trying to reason with you. You seem to receive data that conflicts with your worldview and, instead of accepting that it may be true, you simply throw it out.

You are, quite in fact, beyond hope if you continue like this.

Received infraction.

~Badpaladin

[Lemonpartyfan]

It can be percieved as a forced decision, raising a child on your own with no financial support is not that easy. If she is well off then sure, no problem but if she will struggle then she might feel like the only option is abortion, something that she(in my example) really don't want to do.

Thats not a real reason to make this system sexist and gender biased. Chances are, if this mother would only keep the baby is she knew she would have money support from another, then she might not actually care about the real child that much huh? Again, thats her decision, and taking away someone elses choice, just because it has influence over someone elses choice is wrong, and terrible.

[darenyon]

I truly believe you don't read my posts or, if you do, have some learning disability that prevents you from comprehending them. That's not what I'm saying at all.

its not?

Why shouldn't we harp about evil members of the opposite sex? Do I criticize women for complaining about rapists and wife beaters? Of course not.

if a woman said "men should never have rights or obligations to their children because its entirely the womans decision to bring them to term" you'd call them a feminazi.

As Diurdi said, if a woman brings a pregnancy to term against the father's wishes then she is the only one at fault for that child having only one parent. You're fabricating an obligation on the part of a man who wanted no part of that kid's life. It's her decision to bring it to term and, if that decision conflicts with the father's, the burden should lie only with her.

oh look, you said it. and saved me the trouble of bolding. "its entirely the womans fault the child is has a single parent if the man chooses to abandon his responsibilities". its both their faults. she gets to work twice as hard to raise it and he gets to pay money for not being there.
his responsibility is inherent, not fabricated. as is hers.

I'm through trying to reason with you. You seem to receive data that conflicts with your worldview and, instead of accepting that it may be true, you simply throw it out.

You are, quite in fact, beyond hope if you continue like this.

we just fundamentally disagree on certain concepts.

[Lemonpartyfan]

i'll try to explain again.

when a woman aborts, the man is at liberty. no harm no foul.

when a man walks out, she must either abort or have a huge burden place on her.

who lies about what is entirely irrelevant.
he lied and she had it -> too bad it must be supported
she lied and had it -> too bad it must be supported.

child support is about children, not about "favoring a gender" or "taking away liberty" any more than any other parenting laws are.
which is why i find the claims of sexism absurd.

sex·ism [sek-siz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

The current unchanged laws are built on the bolded part. They were made (I believe in most cases) long before abortion was even legalized. This was made because after a divorce, the woman was automatically stuck with the child (because she is the mom! is that sexism okay with you?) and without very much education and work history, it put them in a real bind. Obviously back then, this law WAS about protecting people.

The thing is, later, abortion was legalized, and females got the choice to opt out of the "burden" (as you call it) while men, do not. This is sexism. You are only giving one gender a choice, only one gender a chance to protect/change/affect their own future. BOTH genders took the risk, BOTH genders willingly had sex, ONLY ONE gender gets to choose any type of outcome.

lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural lib·er·ties.
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

So how aren't the males liberties taken away again? They have no say in this matter. None. Zilch. Nada. Your basis is saying "Well men took the risk" blah blah blah. BUT SO DID WOMEN. Now only they get a choice. The male is at the mercy.

The male should be given a choice:

1) Joint custody- or paying child support.
2) Opting out- Paying half the adoption or abortion fees.

This gives the female a choice in her fate as well:

1) Joint custody, or receiving child support.
2) Opting out- Pay half the adoption or abortion fees.
3) Abortion. Its legal, and an option.


I also find it extremely ironic and contradicting when you demand males be on their knees to females because its about the "interest of the child" then turn around and say "the burden is on the female" if the man wants out..... little hypocritical in my book.

[Castiell]

darenyon doesnt want men to gain the ability to fuck over their children whenever they want to because they got cold feet

Poking holes into condoms, lying over birth control, using an inebriated man to trap him into giving his sperm, stealing sperm by any means.
You said multiple times in this thread that all these factors are risks a man takes simply by being a sexual being.

Utter bullshit, women like this need to be sterilised. Abortion in these cases is civil duty.

[darenyon]

Poking holes into condoms, lying over birth control, using an inebriated man to trap him into giving his sperm, stealing sperm by any means.
You said multiple times in this thread that all these factors are risks a man takes simply by being a sexual being.

Utter bullshit, women like this need to be sterilised. Abortion in these cases is civil duty.

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

[Castiell]

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

There is no kid, it gets aborted while its still a semi formed mess of molecules.
Should there be a kid because said woman managed to evade the abortion police.

Put a red cross on her house and make her notify neighbours when she moves.

Put it up for adoption, that woman is a danger to society and her child is better up without a mother at all.

[Ebildays]

This discussion is just going in circles.

Darenyon doesn't want the options about financial responsibility that are available to the mother to be available to the father. Darenyon thinks it's fair that the man should never have an option to opt out financially, while the woman should always have.

Darenyon doesn't understand that if a mother decides to bring a child into this world, contrary to the wishes of the father, then its her fault that the child is in a situation with only one parent - NOT THE FATHERS.

Essentially all Darenyon wants is to let women have the ability to fuck over a man's life whenever they want to. Because that's the only thing that would be lost to women if the law was changed.

Diurdi the man still has fault when a child is born unless it is a case of donor or male rape. A man does not just stop being at fault because he said he did want the child and wanted her to abort. We know that sex = babies, now we have come to point where we can have almost child free sex but there is still the risk of having a child. Whenever you choose to engage in sex you willingly accept the risk that comes along with that, man or woman. We know what it takes to make a baby so either the condom failed or the man was not wearing one because if you know you do not want kids you will wear a condom every time and not willingly give women the power to fuck over a man's life.

Now in a perfect world two people would sit down before having sex and honestly say what they would do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. If the man says that he does not want to be held responsible for the child he should be able to have that decision upheld. At that point the woman have the choice to either risk becoming a single parent, have sex but tell the man he must wear a condom every time, or just walk away. No, woman should be able to discount what a man wants and just have a child anyway because she knows he will have to take care of it no matter what. That is the problem with the way things are now and really that is what needs to change.

[darenyon]

The current unchanged laws are built on the bolded part. They were made (I believe in most cases) long before abortion was even legalized. This was made because after a divorce, the woman was automatically stuck with the child (because she is the mom! is that sexism okay with you?) and without very much education and work history, it put them in a real bind. Obviously back then, this law WAS about protecting people.

The thing is, later, abortion was legalized, and females got the choice to opt out of the "burden" (as you call it) while men, do not. This is sexism. You are only giving one gender a choice, only one gender a chance to protect/change/affect their own future. BOTH genders took the risk, BOTH genders willingly had sex, ONLY ONE gender gets to choose any type of outcome.

BOTH genders pay child support. they have no choice in the matter. only ONE carries a child in their body, but BOTH have the right of bodily autonomy.

So how aren't the males liberties taken away again? They have no say in this matter. None. Zilch. Nada. Your basis is saying "Well men took the risk" blah blah blah. BUT SO DID WOMEN. Now only they get a choice. The male is at the mercy.

The male should be given a choice:

1) Joint custody- or paying child support.
2) Opting out- Paying half the adoption or abortion fees.

This gives the female a choice in her fate as well:

1) Joint custody, or receiving child support.
2) Opting out- Pay half the adoption or abortion fees.
3) Abortion. Its legal, and an option.

abortion isnt "opting out", no one gets to opt out. abortion makes everything moot because there is no child.

I also find it extremely ironic and contradicting when you demand males be on their knees to females because its about the "interest of the child" then turn around and say "the burden is on the female" if the man wants out..... little hypocritical in my book.

what i find extremely ironic is guys complaining about how family courts are stacked against them and then claiming that they have no obligations to their children.

[Xanjori]

what i find extremely ironic is guys complaining about how family courts are stacked against them and then claiming that they have no obligations to their children.

What I find ironic is how few people actually examine family courts. Bringing up my own example again. My mother died and my father was left to raise me alone, he received no financial aid and worked extended shifts, as such I spent around 10 hours a day at a play centre, and when I moved on to school I had to spend my time with a teacher who would take care of me. Summer holidays I lived with my cousins.

Eventually my dad remarried and had another child. One day that wife decided to leave with no real reason and took my younger brother with me, at the time my dad was employed and my step-mother wasn't. My dad was told he had absolutely 0 chance of winning a custody battle despite having proven he could raise a child and despite having a job. He then had to pay child support, despite looking after a child himself still. So in the end, my dad was raising a child and paid child support, my step-mum was raising a child, and had no job and simply received child support. Where's the balance here?

I mean all your talk about the child is the important one, where was my equality here? My step-brother sure as hell had better living conditions than I had growing up, by a ridiculous amount.

[Grizzly Willy]

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

If the man is tricked into having a child, he has no responsibility to the child. You have two victims in this case: the man and the child. Neither of them are obligated to do anything because of the actions of the guilty party.

[Wells]

If a kid is born it is entirely because of the woman's choice. A man should not be de-facto obligated to financially support a woman's right to choose.

That's because the bolded would constitute rape or fraud.

[darenyon]

If the man is tricked into having a child, he has no responsibility to the child. You have two victims in this case: the man and the child. Neither of them are obligated to do anything because of the actions of the guilty party.

i would say its a case by case basis. poking a hole in a condom is little different than promising to be there for the kid and running off. in either case a parents still owe parental responsibility. if its a rape (of any kind) or then things can get murky.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 08:53 AM ----------

What I find ironic is how few people actually examine family courts. Bringing up my own example again. My mother died and my father was left to raise me alone, he received no financial aid and worked extended shifts, as such I spent around 10 hours a day at a play centre, and when I moved on to school I had to spend my time with a teacher who would take care of me. Summer holidays I lived with my cousins.

Eventually my dad remarried and had another child. One day that wife decided to leave with no real reason and took my younger brother with me, at the time my dad was employed and my step-mother wasn't. My dad was told he had absolutely 0 chance of winning a custody battle despite having proven he could raise a child and despite having a job. He then had to pay child support, despite looking after a child himself still. So in the end, my dad was raising a child and paid child support, my step-mum was raising a child, and had no job and simply received child support. Where's the balance here?

I mean all your talk about the child is the important one, where was my equality here? My step-brother sure as hell had better living conditions than I had growing up, by a ridiculous amount.

yeah thats pretty bad. i think working to ensure more equality in courts is better than this nonsense about abortion.

[Laize]

That's because the bolded would constitute rape or fraud.

The kid only exists because of the woman's choice. If the man makes his choice known well in advance for her to make an informed decision, there's literally NO good reason he should be held liable to financially support her choice.

If she willingly takes on the burden of raising a kid herself, so be it. Don't drag the guy down too.

[Grizzly Willy]

i would say its a case by case basis. poking a hole in a condom is little different than promising to be there for the kid and running off. in either case a parents still owe parental responsibility. if its a rape (of any kind) or then things can get murky.

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

[Lemonpartyfan]

Diurdi the man still has fault when a child is born unless it is a case of donor or male rape. A man does not just stop being at fault because he said he did want the child and wanted her to abort. We know that sex = babies, now we have come to point where we can have almost child free sex but there is still the risk of having a child. Whenever you choose to engage in sex you willingly accept the risk that comes along with that, man or woman. We know what it takes to make a baby so either the condom failed or the man was not wearing one because if you know you do not want kids you will wear a condom every time and not willingly give women the power to fuck over a man's life.

Now in a perfect world two people would sit down before having sex and honestly say what they would do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. If the man says that he does not want to be held responsible for the child he should be able to have that decision upheld. At that point the woman have the choice to either risk becoming a single parent, have sex but tell the man he must wear a condom every time, or just walk away. No, woman should be able to discount what a man wants and just have a child anyway because she knows he will have to take care of it no matter what. That is the problem with the way things are now and really that is what needs to change.

With this logic, we should outlaw Abortion.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 12:08 PM ----------

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

Wasn't Darenyon the one pointing "Woman hater" at everyone? It seems like Darenyon is obviously a man hater: Take away the fate, livelihood, money and choice of a male, and give it only to the woman, because of the "child" which would otherwise be a "burden" on the mother. But of course when you say " The womans choice directly burdens the father" she craps out the line about how men should shut up and take their responsibilities "for the child."

So when a man has to be responsible, its for the sake of the child. When a woman should be responsible, she is a poor burdened woman.... The hypocrisy.

[darenyon]

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

i dont see a difference between that and it just breaking as far as parental responsibilities go.

[Castiell]

i dont see a difference between that and it just breaking as far as parental responsibilities go.

thats like saying murder is equal to manslaughter.
Actually its exactly like that just in reverse.

[darenyon]

thats like saying murder is equal to manslaughter.
Actually its exactly like that just in reverse.

as far as the results, they are exactly the same. they are only punished differently.