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

[FusedMass]

I'm just going to add this from CNN

The mythical 'war on men'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/living...ml?hpt=hp_bn11

[Wells]

Because the woman did not use protection when having sex. She accepted the consequences of action. Besides, we live in a society. Individual rights are sometimes sacrificed. A man also has to take care of the child, even if he does not want to raise the child.

You didn't answer the question. There's no logical reason that not using protection mandates you surrender your bodily autonomy.

Not to mention you can still get pregnant on protection, as Laize has pointed out.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm unaware of a point where pregnant men were denied their bodily autonomy.

I'm just going to repeat the point again. A woman has a right to abort because her bodily autonomy cannot be violated here. Why should a man get the same right when his bodily autonomy is never is question?

Why are you getting hung up on the bodily autonomy thing? It's more about the social and financial aspects, not the biological or physical aspects. If I understand right, they're saying that the man deserves the chance to have a say as far as wanting the child or not goes, and that the law should support him equally.

Like, if the mother chooses to keep the pregnancy AND keep the child, but the father wants nothing to do with it, that the father should be given the legal option to not be forced to support a child he did not want.

You're a smart guy, Wells. I don't know if I stated what their position is exactly, but that should still be close enough to be understandable, right? Do you just not agree with letting the guy walk away from a child he wants no part of, very early in the pregnancy?

[raechuul]

In the U.S. woman have little to no risk in delivery of children, thanks to modern healthcare. Risk is no longer a valid factor.

Maybe in delivery childbirth has little to no risk, but there are so many complications possible during pregnancy. There are miscarriages that are very dangerous to a mother's health, Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome, things like ectopic pregnancy, etc. Many women with relatively normal pregnancies say childbirth is a relief from all the crap that they dealt with during the nine months. (Random pains, having to pee every 5 seconds, morning sickness, and so on.) Although it must be horribly painful, it lasts only a day or two for the actual birth.

[Synros]

Because, in the end, it was and still remains a shitload worse for women. Maybe I'd take it a little bit more seriously if i'd ever personally experienced negative male discrimination before, but as it stands I have not.

You must not watch a lot of TV, good.

But the whole, women who don't want a child are pro-choice, men who don't want a child are lowlife dead beats. Feminism isn't about equality anymore, its about superiority. Those two, are mainly what I have a problem with.

Maybe in delivery childbirth has little to no risk, but there are so many complications possible during pregnancy. There are miscarriages that are very dangerous to a mother's health, Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome, things like ectopic pregnancy, etc. Many women with relatively normal pregnancies say childbirth is a relief from all the crap that they dealt with during the nine months. (Random pains, having to pee every 5 seconds, morning sickness, and so on.) Although it must be horribly painful, it lasts only a day or two for the actual birth.

The majority of complication can be avoided by how well the mother lives during the pregnancy. Like not smoking, drinking, other drugs, and eating shit foods (like GMO, which will causes birth defects).

[Wells]

Why are you getting hung up on the bodily autonomy thing? It's more about the social and financial aspects, not the biological or physical aspects. If I understand right, they're saying that the man deserves the chance to have a say as far as wanting the child or not goes, and that the law should support him equally.

Like, if the mother chooses to keep the pregnancy AND keep the child, but the father wants nothing to do with it, that the father should be given the legal option to not be forced to support a child he did not want.

You're a smart guy, Wells. I don't know if I stated what their position is exactly, but that should still be close enough to be understandable, right? Do you just not agree with letting the guy walk away from a child he wants no part of, very early in the pregnancy?

I get their argument, it just ignores why a woman has abortion rights and shouts gimme those choices too! Equal powers are only for equal parties, and there is no way to make women and men equal parties here.

[starlord]

Why are you getting hung up on the bodily autonomy thing? It's more about the social and financial aspects, not the biological or physical aspects. If I understand right, they're saying that the man deserves the chance to have a say as far as wanting the child or not goes, and that the law should support him equally.

Like, if the mother chooses to keep the pregnancy AND keep the child, but the father wants nothing to do with it, that the father should be given the legal option to not be forced to support a child he did not want.

You're a smart guy, Wells. I don't know if I stated what their position is exactly, but that should still be close enough to be understandable, right? Do you just not agree with letting the guy walk away from a child he wants no part of, very early in the pregnancy?

theres a fundamental difference between walking out on a kid & aborting a fetus socially and financially as well so you cant say that they are "equal choices". one does not necessitate the other. "very early in the pregnancy" doesnt matter, because unlike abortion, it doesnt make the situation moot.

[Aalyy]

I'm just going to add this from CNN

The mythical 'war on men'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/living...ml?hpt=hp_bn11

See? Now that is a real man! Strong and confident enough not to be threatened by women as his equals. Thankfully men like him are actually in the majority, not that you'd be able to tell that from this thread, lol.

[Itisamuh]

I get their argument, it just ignores why a woman has abortion rights and shouts gimme those choices too! Equal powers are only for equal parties, and there is no way to make women and men equal parties here.

Wrong. There is a very easy way to make both parties equal here. Someone posted this a while back and I copied it, so whoever made this post many months ago, if you see this, I am not taking credit for the idea even though I wholeheartedly agree.

"In order to be just to all parties concerned, the current arrangement must be changed. As it is, the system is unfair to men. My own proposal treats all parties with equal importance in the decision-making process.

1: If the father does not want the child but the mother does, the mother is presented with a choice: the father is liable for all medical costs incurred for an abortion, or the father is not held liable for child support and has no legal rights regarding the child's upbringing. If she wants it, she must be prepared to pay for its associated costs herself. If he does not want it, he must be prepared to pay for abortion of the pregnancy.

2: If the father wants the child but the mother does not, the mother is presented with a choice: the father will be liable for all medical costs incurred for giving birth to the child, and the mother will not be held liable for child support, nor will she have any legal rights regarding the child's upbringing. Or, the mother is responsible for costs incurred for an abortion. If he wants the child, he must be prepared to pay for its associated costs himself. If she does not want it, she must be prepared to pay for abortion of the pregnancy.

The choice is completely given to the pregnant woman in all cases, but the difference to how the system now functions is that she can not eat her cake and have it too. This solution provides necessary legal protection to parties who do not wish to have the financial burden of a child foisted on them against their will."

Problem solved. The final say is on the mother, but both parents have equal rights, and legitimate couples are unaffected.

[mickybrighteyes]

so would I be far wrong in assuming the majority of this thread is basically "/lol and <insert comparison concerning equality on some aspect where men have the better deal>"?

[Wells]

Itisamuh, that's still not an equal choice. If the woman doesn't not want the child both parties are off the hook after the abortion both parties are off the hook.

If the father does not want the child the mother is either forced to give up the child or pay for it entirely herself. The woman's choice does not change the man's, it nullifies the situation. The man's choice changes the woman's options.

[Itisamuh]

Itisamuh, that's still not an equal choice. If the woman doesn't not want the child both parties are off the hook after the abortion both parties are off the hook.

If the father does not want the child the mother is either forced to give up the child or pay for it entirely herself. The woman's choice does not change the man's, it nullifies the situation. The man's choice changes the woman's options.

I'm tired, so maybe I'm just misreading what you're saying, but I really don't see the difference. Yes, the mother is the one who has to deal with the pregnancy and birth if she so chooses, that's irrefutable, but beyond that what's the difference?

[darkminaz]

Itisamuh, that's still not an equal choice. If the woman doesn't not want the child both parties are off the hook after the abortion both parties are off the hook.

If the father does not want the child the mother is either forced to give up the child or pay for it entirely herself. The woman's choice does not change the man's, it nullifies the situation. The man's choice changes the woman's options.

Well you can't exepct that a woman will sacrifise her body to give the man a child (just asume she doesn't want one and she doesn't wana be with him .. so they had sex, she is pregnant .. dude tells her .. i wana have it ..) so she has to give up 9 month of drugs (hard or soft) to ensure a healthy baby and some pain, a fat belly and some skin problems.

I'd like if it's like you said with the simple if the dad doesn't want it he can choose to say "NO" , if she still keeps it it's her problem

[Wells]

I'm tired, so maybe I'm just misreading what you're saying, but I really don't see the difference. Yes, the mother is the one who has to deal with the pregnancy and birth if she so chooses, that's irrefutable, but beyond that there's no difference.

The difference is the end result.

Woman's Choices:
End pregnancy - no responsibility for anyone.
Carry to term - everyone shares in duty

Men's Choices:
Stay - everyone shares in duty
Walk away - mother loses second choice and has it replaced with "bear burden alone".

You can see how that's not equal power.

In reality the best you can do is this: If a child is born both parties care for it. In the mean time the woman can choose to end it because its her body.

[buck008]

Wrong. There is a very easy way to make both parties equal here. Someone posted this a while back and I copied it, so whoever made this post many months ago, if you see this, I am not taking credit for the idea even though I wholeheartedly agree.

"In order to be just to all parties concerned, the current arrangement must be changed. As it is, the system is unfair to men. My own proposal treats all parties with equal importance in the decision-making process.

1: If the father does not want the child but the mother does, the mother is presented with a choice: the father is liable for all medical costs incurred for an abortion, or the father is not held liable for child support and has no legal rights regarding the child's upbringing. If she wants it, she must be prepared to pay for its associated costs herself. If he does not want it, he must be prepared to pay for abortion of the pregnancy.

2: If the father wants the child but the mother does not, the mother is presented with a choice: the father will be liable for all medical costs incurred for giving birth to the child, and the mother will not be held liable for child support, nor will she have any legal rights regarding the child's upbringing. Or, the mother is responsible for costs incurred for an abortion. If he wants the child, he must be prepared to pay for its associated costs himself. If she does not want it, she must be prepared to pay for abortion of the pregnancy.

The choice is completely given to the pregnant woman in all cases, but the difference to how the system now functions is that she can not eat her cake and have it too. This solution provides necessary legal protection to parties who do not wish to have the financial burden of a child foisted on them against their will."

Problem solved. The final say is on the mother, but both parents have equal rights, and legitimate couples are unaffected.

I find this solution to be personally distasteful, but it's better than anything else that has come up. I still think you are trying to force equality on an inherently unequal situation. Equality doesn't mean everyone is one uniform shape and shade of grey, it just means we give people the same protections under the law. We give women the ability to abort a pregnancy due to a variety of reasons discussed here. The few vociferous men here who are against that, feel that the singular choice that women have, that men, by their very nature can not have, makes the whole system invalid and biased towards men. This is an incorrect assessment of the situation. You may not be satisfied that women get a reactive choice in this matter and you don't, but that's pretty much too bad. How often does life really give you a reactive way to make up for a mistake with no consequences at all. Never. Not once. That's what you are asking for here. And you ask for it because women get one by virtue of the parasite they host for nine months. Life has consequences. Deal with it.

At this point the circular debate in this thread is getting old.

[Itisamuh]

I think we're focusing on different aspects, Wells. You seem to be more concerned with the pregnancy itself, I'm referring more to the after effects. To me, right now it's more like:

Woman's Choices:
End pregnancy; man's preference is irrelevant; no responsibilities for either
Give birth; man is totally at the mercy of whether the woman wants to stay with him or force him to pay child support

Man's choices: Irrelevant

With the proposed idea, while not perfect, it's as close as possible because the mother still decides what to do with her body, but both parents have a say. I'm sorry, but if one parent can choose to opt out, the other should be able to as well. The man shouldn't be at the mercy of the woman if he makes a mistake, while she has an out for her's. Whatever the policy is, it should consider both parents.

[Grizzly Willy]

The debate became old when we started the 2nd lap.

[Itisamuh]

I find this solution to be personally distasteful, but it's better than anything else that has come up. I still think you are trying to force equality on an inherently unequal situation. Equality doesn't mean everyone is one uniform shape and shade of grey, it just means we give people the same protections under the law. We give women the ability to abort a pregnancy due to a variety of reasons discussed here. The few vociferous men here who are against that, feel that the singular choice that women have, that men, by their very nature can not have, makes the whole system invalid and biased towards men. This is an incorrect assessment of the situation. You may not be satisfied that women get a reactive choice in this matter and you don't, but that's pretty much too bad. How often does life really give you a reactive way to make up for a mistake with no consequences at all. Never. Not once. That's what you are asking for here. And you ask for it because women get one by virtue of the parasite they host for nine months. Life has consequences. Deal with it.

At this point the circular debate in this thread is getting old.

I never said it was in good taste, but it doesn't have to be. It's fair, and that's what should count. Since legitimate couples would be unaffected by the idea, it's not like all men would abandon their kids. That's how some people act like it would be if men were given a choice, and that's ridiculous. All this would do is curb the amount of women who screw around outside relationships, get pregnant, and draw in an unearned check from the father each month. You bring up consequences; it should go for both parents, and that's the whole point.

[Wells]

After the child I frankly don't give a fuck what either party wanted. There is a child. They created it. The most important thing is its welfare.

[PizzaSHARK]

After the child I frankly don't give a fuck what either party wanted. There is a child. They created it. The most important thing is its welfare.

On a personal level I absolutely agree, but in large-scale... who cares? It's just one more kid when there's already hundreds of millions of us in the country and several billion on the planet.

You're suggesting that one parent be forced to sacrifice their future - who, let's face it, is currently WAY more relevant than that might-be-a-baby is - because the other parent refuses to reach a compromise.