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

[starlord]

and if men being able to use urinals would have woman to pay for cleaning it, you would think otherwise... it´s not about that woman can get abortions, it´s that man don´t have a say in being a father or not if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, as if using a kondom wouldn´t allready say "yeah i don´t want to be a father, like really don´t!!", still the woman can chose to make him one, even if there are other options.

but you will just answer with it´s her body and ignore everything i wrote because you can

He had the option of not impregnating her. She had the option of not doing it too. She gets one extra because her body works differently.
Everyone is "forced" to pay child support even if they don't want their kids.
Mom walks out? Fine, but provide for them.
Father walks out? Fine, but provide for them.

[Spectral]

Where you want to draw the line on whether or not something is alive or called a child is a matter subject to debate.

Not really, it's not. In this context, it's very neatly and cleanly legally defined.

[Stir]

Its unfair, but its more unfair for a child to not be provided for because its parents decided they didn't want it. It doesn't matter what they chose later on, they chose to make it in the first place.
You are automatically agreeing to the possibility, just like when you engage in any other risky activity.
Just because the risk is minimal doesn't mean it can be discounted. Someone else compared it to driving a car- you could be the best driver in the world, but you MUST have insurance to drive legally. You are automatically agreeing that you could get in an accident by driving.

Ah, but you see: You're not agreeing to the risk. If either one of you is using birth control, and it fails, the pregnancy is unwanted. Logically, it should be ended by asap to prevent harm. If the woman does not end the pregnancy, but the man wants her to end the pregnancy, then he's not taking that risk. It's not a risk when you're certain it won't happen unless the other party suddenly decides to screw you over.

No one is legally a parent until its born. Signing away parenthood beforehand is no different than doing it then.

I don't know what you mean by this sentence.

We're not talking about people who had no knowledge or agreement.

Yes. Yes, we are. We include them because it's only fair. We're not just talking about people who already have children, legally and all, and suddenly run away.

She should be because its not the kids fault it was born in that manner. And she has the option of adoption. That ensures its at least provided for. If she simply refused to account for its welfare at all its still child abuse, even if she didnt want it.

No; she should be able to file it for adoption, or have it raised by the people who forced her to proceed. Nobody should be forced, or even expected, to take care of a child they do not want, and were held against their will from preventing. There's tons of people who DO want those children; give them to those people, instead.

[DisposableHero]

Not really, it's not. In this context, it's very neatly and cleanly legally defined.

Then why is it different for men a women. If it is a fetus when the woman is choosing to abort or carry to term, why is it a child to a man who wants to have sovereignty over his financial future at the same time?

[Spectral]

Then why is it different for men a women. If it is a fetus when the woman is choosing to abort or carry to term, why is it a child to a man who wants to have sovereignty over his financial future at the same time?

Children and fetuses are literally not the same thing. This really isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry that biology doesn't conform to the desires of MRAs.

[DisposableHero]

Children and fetuses are literally not the same thing. This really isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry that biology doesn't conform to the desires of MRAs.

I agree. Here is what I'm getting at. The entity in question is only ever at a given time either a fetus or a child. This is something we have a definition for. When a woman is pregnant, legally, the entity growing inside her is a fetus. At that time she can legally choose to abort the fetus.

We are arguing that at that time men should be allowed to surrender their parental rights and responsibilities legally, and we are being told that at that time they cannot, because it violates the child's rights. So at that time is it a fetus or a child?

[Cybran]

That's the only answer you should receive until that message drives itself into your head. Your personal desires do not give you the right to force medical procedures on others.

But you don't mind vaccines and circumcision. Double standards?

[Spectral]

I agree. Here is what I'm getting at. The entity in question is only ever at a given time either a fetus or a child. This is something we have a definition for. When a woman is pregnant, legally, the entity growing inside her is a fetus. At that time she can legally choose to abort the fetus.

We are arguing that at that time men should be allowed to surrender their parental rights and responsibilities legally, and we are being told that at that time they cannot, because it violates the child's rights. So at that time is it a fetus or a child?

That's a semantic argument, at best. A man's desire to not pay money will not make the child not exist; transferring cost from the individual responsible to society is not a great approach.

[Cybran]

Children and fetuses are literally not the same thing. This really isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry that biology doesn't conform to the desires of MRAs.

So while the child is a fetus the man is at the mercy of the woman, cause he is inferior?

[Spectral]

But you don't mind vaccines and circumcision. Double standards?

Children don't have bodily complete autonomy, adult women do.

I really need to people to look up what "double standard" means before using it indiscriminately. It refers to treating people differently in situations that are the same. Vaccinating a child to prevent them from dying of preventable diseases isn't just not the same as denying women bodily autonomy, it's not even remotely similar.

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 12:59 PM ----------

So while the child is a fetus the man is at the mercy of the woman, cause he is inferior?

No, he's not fucking pregnant. This really isn't that complicated.

[Cybran]

That's a semantic argument, at best. A man's desire to not pay money will not make the child not exist; transferring cost from the individual responsible to society is not a great approach.

At the time the child is a fetus. Why can the woman at the time surrender her responsibilies, but he cant?

[Spectral]

At the time the child is a fetus. Why can the woman at the time surrender her responsibilies, but he cant?

As far as I know, men are under no obligation to pay for fetuses in anyway.

She can prevent the existence of a child while he cannot, because that's how biology works.

[DisposableHero]

That's a semantic argument, at best. A man's desire to not pay money will not make the child not exist; transferring cost from the individual responsible to society is not a great approach.

It is absolutely not a semantic argument. The person responsible for the fetus becoming a child is the woman who carries it to term. That should be the consequence of getting to make the choice. She has the financial obligation because she makes the decision. Transferring the cost from the one responsible to an unwilling participant isn't a great approach either. Maybe we should stop financing women who want children but are too poor to afford them and too lazy to find a man who wants to be a father?

[starlord]

Ah, but you see: You're not agreeing to the risk. If either one of you is using birth control, and it fails, the pregnancy is unwanted. Logically, it should be ended by asap to prevent harm. If the woman does not end the pregnancy, but the man wants her to end the pregnancy, then he's not taking that risk. It's not a risk when you're certain it won't happen unless the other party suddenly decides to screw you over.

No, you were already screwed over. The other "driver" can decide not to sue you, but that doesn't mean they are screwing you over if they do.

I don't know what you mean by this sentence.

Signing away parenthood at birth is exactly the same as signing away parenthood before birth. No one is a parent until the child is born.

Yes. Yes, we are. We include them because it's only fair. We're not just talking about people who already have children, legally and all, and suddenly run away.

They had the knowledge and agreement of sex. Otherwise its already illegal to use a mans sperm without his knowledge.

No; she should be able to file it for adoption, or have it raised by the people who forced her to proceed. Nobody should be forced, or even expected, to take care of a child they do not want, and were held against their will from preventing. There's tons of people who DO want those children; give them to those people, instead.

She is able to file for adoption. Thats part of her responsibility.
Dumping it in the trash or on someone else's doorstep is illegal, with the exception of a firestation or police station (which is adopting it to the government).

A guy who "signs away his parenthood" is doing the equivalent of dumping it on her doorstep. Your problem now, I don't care what you do with it.

This is what happens when you allow people to "sign away parenthood".
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...859405,00.html

A majority of the children are older than 13 and have a history of being treated for mental-health issues. Nearly every abandoned child came from a single-parent household. In September, one father walked into a hospital and left nine children, ages 1 to 17. He reportedly told hospital workers that he'd been overwhelmed since his wife died a few days after their youngest was born.

There is already a lack of resources, we should be fixing that instead of exacerbating the problem.

Your country's system seemed like a good one, but its very "socialist". I don't think people here would accept that.

[Spectral]

Maybe we should stop financing women who want children but are too poor to afford them and too lazy to find a man who wants to be a father?

This shits on children that have done nothing wrong.

[DisposableHero]

This shits on children that have done nothing wrong.

Then blame the women who couldn't be arsed to find a willing father. They are the one's who created the situation.

[Spectral]

Then blame the women who couldn't be arsed to find a willing father. They are the one's who created the situation.

Ladies and gentleman, the MRA movement! The solution to kids being poor? Blame the women.

[Cybran]

This shits on children that have done nothing wrong.

The only reason these children are born is that they are a tool for the mothers. The whole world would be better off if the single moms got their funding cut and their numbers started going down.

[Daez]

"Mens' Rights" is a misnomer. Its the same as saying the KKK just supports Equality for Whites. Seriously, when women earn $0.75 on the dollar of what a man earns for the exact same work there is a problem. When women are told what they should do with their own bodies there is also a problem. Any man that thinks women are currently treated equally by the law is insane. Lets allow women to be equal before we start championing the rights of men (which all to often stem from the fact that men think they have the right to control women). Even your examples have much more to do with men believing they should control women than anything else. Think about it logically... A man lies to a woman just as much as a woman lies to a man... It is just about different things. Also, if you do not want to get a woman pregnant than there is a completely logical way to go about that...do not have sex. Problem solved!

[DisposableHero]

Ladies and gentleman, the MRA movement! The solution to kids being poor? Blame the women.

I didn't say it was a solution. I don't think there is a good solution, but I think placing the burden on society as a whole rather than solely on men whose only mistake was trusting the wrong woman is much better than the current solution.

Also, its MRM, for Men's Rights Movement, Men's Rights Activist Movement seems a little verbose.