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

[Deleted]

1)The man is at the mercy of his decisions and the responsibilities towards his child. The mother has nothing to do with that responsibility.

2) If you decide to make a child and change your mind 3 months into the pregnancy, too bad, dad. You don't get to force an abortion on someone no matter how much you wish you could.

3) If your wife has a kid by someone else and you decide to be that kids father, you take that responsibility and no, you don't get to just suddenly stop cause you don't feel like playing house anymore.

4) This is not complicated and it is hardly a travesty of justice that you are responsible for a child when you elect to become a parent. Under extenuating circumstances, you sue to give up paternity if you want, but you don't go halfway and raise the kid while not wanting to pay for it. I am all for a father in this situation receiving social assistance if he needs it, but you don't get to give up responsibility for your kids cause you don't want them all of a sudden.

1) The mother has everything to do with the responsibility when it's she who forces it upon him.

2) If the father agrees to have a child, he should indeed bear full responsibility. That's not what this is about. If the woman decieves him into having one against his wishes, he should not have to. A pre-emptive decision or a decision made when the pregnancy is discovered makes sure that we know whether the father agreed to have a child or not.

No one is arguing that you can force an adoption on a woman. She is still in full control of her body, even if the man doesn't want someone with his genes to be born. The man just doesn't become the legal father.

3) If you consciously decide to father the child even though you're not the biological father, you should be responsible for the kid the rest of its childhood. If the mother lies and the papers state you're the biological father when you're not, the father shouldn't have to care for the kid. This can be solved through early DNA tests however.

4) This isn't about people who consciously elect to become parents. It's about those who are decieved into becoming ones.

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 08:20 PM ----------

Uh? In Sweden women are free to abort whenever they want to up until week 18. Why would they need a reason for an abortion?

After that you need a reason to abort though, like serious illness of child, the mother being very young or the mother's health being at significant risk.

[Sicarus]

"The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion.... To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples. " - Valerie Solanas

This is feminism in a nutt shell. They are no better then the KKK or Black Panthers.

Valerie Solanas is a fucking dingbat.

I'm easily the most emotional out of all of my friends, including the females.

So, using her reasoning, females are accident prone and will always hold themself back from creating the perfect !MEGA!-woman, evidence being the Y gene.

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 02:24 PM ----------

Really.. ever heard of Woman's Suffrage?

I think he meant the new generation.

[Ebildays]

Which is simple to fix. You simply give the man the option to legally surrender his paternal rights and obligations during the pregnancy.

Are women required to provide proof of failed contraceptives when getting an abortion? Could you not in that case say they walked into their pregnancy willingly as well? How does society handle that one?

Now, you and I both know that is not going to work giving a man the option to legally surrender his paternal rights and obligations during the pregnancy. Maybe give men the same about of time that a woman has to get an abortion. Now there will have to be some protections built in for the man to cover if they have not be told in time and etc.

You cannot compare abortion tbecause a woman may risk a pregnancy because she knows that option is there. For men there is no option, men know this so why risk putting your self at the mercy of a woman? And if the man makes his choice known before hand I don't feel he needs to prove there was failed contraceptive because I assume the man was doing his part and using a condom. And it is not about trust but about making sure you are protecting yourself.

[Deleted]

After that you need a reason to abort though, like serious illness of child, the mother being very young or the mother's health being at significant risk.

Yeah but who doesn't notice you're pregnant by then? :/

[Laize]

The "fee" is so he will have some type of legal rights to the child without it the man is nothing to child and the child is nothing to the man. His ex-wife would have no legal obligation to even allow the man to see or talk to the child. Now when the child gets older he could seek the man out himself but hat would be it without the "fee".

It's not a "fee". It's a fee, plain and simple. The bio-parents are married. They don't need the child support. All it is is an onerous fee placed on the poor asshole who got duped into forming a paternal bond with a kid that wasn't his.

You're claiming that this poor guy who got duped into raising someone else's kid against his will should pay for access to the child even though the child doesn't need it.

What kind of horseshit is that?

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 08:58 PM ----------

Honestly, your sense of self-entitlement is staggering. You don't want to have to use condoms to prevent pregnancies, and you want to abdicate any responsibility for the children you make. Its points of view like this that make your movement look like a joke.

No one is suggesting allowing a man to not take any precautions and abdicate responsibility for a pregnancy.

A pregnancy he took precautions against (but his SO sabotaged) should NOT be liable for said child.

[Uselessrouge]

t

but this came from a men's news website so this carries as little weight as a full male jury voting on the definition of pregnancy caused from rape.

.

MEN for Manchaster Evening News.. :P just in case.. ^^

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...and_steal.html


look at the big banner top corner x)

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The man should be able to give up his rights and obligations to the child, either pre-emptively or whenever he finds out about the pregnancy (i'm not sure which is the most feasible method). He should be liable for atleast half of the abortion payments and related expenses if the woman agrees to abort, or any fees related to putting the child up for adoption (if the woman doesn't want to abort but doesn't want to keep the kid). The woman still gets to choose if a kid is born or not, and what happens with the child.

I do agree that if a man doesn't wear a condom with a women he has just recently met, that he's damn stupid. I don't know how you can work things like this into legislation though without causing other problems.

This obviously doesn't solve the problem where the man has been decieved into fathering a child that wasn't his for a long time. It's not as prevalent of a problem though.

I agree. A male should be able to opt out. A male should also pay half of the fees, if any are applicable.

The female is then left with three options:

1) Abort the baby and pay half the fee.

2) Put it up for adoption, and pay half the fee.

3. Keep the baby and support it by herself.

I believe this would be much closer to "fair."

[Ebildays]

I agree. A male should be able to opt out. A male should also pay half of the fees, if any are applicable.

The female is then left with three options:

1) Abort the baby and pay half the fee.

2) Put it up for adoption, and pay half the fee.

3. Keep the baby and support it by herself.

I believe this would be much closer to "fair."

But at what point should a man be able to opt out? Before? After? During?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But at what point should a man be able to opt out? Before? After? During?

I guess thats the million dollar question. Someone had mentioned earlier, the cut off for men should be the same as the cut off for women to get an abortion. That sounds okay to me.

[Ebildays]

I guess thats the million dollar question. Someone had mentioned earlier, the cut off for men should be the same as the cut off for women to get an abortion. That sounds okay to me.

That was me but I would like the option for before, myself. I feel that it would go over better because it people will be able to put a better spin on it being fair to both men and women.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That was me but I would like the option for before, myself. I feel that it would go over better because it people will be able to put a better spin on it being fair to both men and women.

Before? Before the cut off for abortion?

[Deleted]

Women lie, this is news for me ><
Here's another fact, men lie aswell :
"I only had 1 glas"
"I wasn't looking at her ass!"
"Ofcoarse I think you are attractive"
"I would never cheat you"
"I change my underweir and socks everyday"
"I don't fancy going to the pub, I would rather stay home with you"
"she totally didn't friendzone me! I friendzoned her!"
"that never happened to me before"
...

[Deleted]

No one is suggesting allowing a man to not take any precautions and abdicate responsibility for a pregnancy.

A pregnancy he took precautions against (but his SO sabotaged) should NOT be liable for said child.

How would someone sabotage a mans protection? O_o

[Ebildays]

Before? Before the cut off for abortion?

Yup, if a man has told his partner before they had sex it should be up held but that is because I feel that would have the greatest chance of getting passed. Going for the abortion cut off is kinda of iffy about getting passed but it may work.

[starlord]

Who anywhere is suggesting that?

How many times must it be pointed out that no one is saying women in general are out to get men.

Why do you keep insisting someone said that?!

That's not the notion though, not from the survey anyway.
The notion as "proven" by the survey is that (what was it, 51%?) would essentially be an evil bitch out there to get men. Just the fact that they think beforehand about whether or not they would tell their partner about an illegitimate baby and decided they wouldn't makes it so.

the survey says it. you presented it as a part of your argument so dont act all shocked when its addressed as being irrelevant and stupid.

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 01:46 PM ----------

and oh look, it was an "opt out of child support" thread from laize, how shocking.
where ever did i put that post of his about how he gives not a shit for children or single parents in need...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

How would someone sabotage a mans protection? O_o

Its not uncommon. A female I know actually did it. She poked holes in the condom.

Yup, if a man has told his partner before they had sex it should be up held but that is because I feel that would have the greatest chance of getting passed. Going for the abortion cut off is kinda of iffy about getting passed but it may work.

I see what you mean, but I don't know how well that would work in a relationship. "oh yeah, if you accidentally get pregnant, I will not support you"

I do feel it should be a long period of time BEFORE the abortion cut off, to give the female appropriate time to think about what she wants to do, instead of the male waiting until the DAY OF or something lame like that.

[Deleted]

Its not uncommon. A female I know actually did it. She poked holes in the condom.

Huh? You don't bring them out just before the act and put it on?

[starlord]

I see what you mean, but I don't know how well that would work in a relationship. "oh yeah, if you accidentally get pregnant, I will not support you"

then you probably shouldnt be in a relationship.

[Deleted]

That was me but I would like the option for before, myself. I feel that it would go over better because it people will be able to put a better spin on it being fair to both men and women.

Ideally the decision should be made before any sexual activity and impregnation takes place. I'm just wondering how you prove that you've decided it before hand?

Not everyone has access to a lawyer who can write a legal document for you. Have the government keep some database about if you want to have a child or not? Not so sure about that either, it's pretty private information. And what would the default selection be?

Anyway, I think any of these choices would be an improvement over the current situation. Might as well start with what is easiest to sell.

[DisposableHero]

Yup, if a man has told his partner before they had sex it should be up held but that is because I feel that would have the greatest chance of getting passed. Going for the abortion cut off is kinda of iffy about getting passed but it may work.

I would be a little less strict. I would say the standard should be set to allow a reasonable amount of time for the woman to decide if she is still going to keep the baby knowing she would be supporting it herself. I don't think this has to be before the pregnancy.

I also believe the man should be allowed to choose at a later time if it can be proven that the woman concealed the pregnancy until after the normal cut off time.

and oh look, it was an "opt out of child support" thread from laize, how shocking.
where ever did i put that post of his about how he gives not a shit for children or single parents in need...

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you cannot possibly prove that the child's rights should be considered at a time where it is still valid to consider aborting the fetus. If you don't believe in a woman's right to choose you've lost the public debate already.

I don't give a shit about single parents in need if they chose to become unsupported single parents with full knowledge of what they were getting into and had an option to avoid it. I don't think anyone should. They are choosing to live beyond their means, no one should be obligated to help them, and no one should give a shit about them. I believe in social safety nets but they are there for people who cannot reasonably avoid poverty on their own, when you choose to live beyond your means you are abusing the assistance programs designed for people who need them.

Feel free to clip that at "I don't give a shit about single parents in need" and respond with righteous indignation, I'm sure it will be a compelling argument.