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

[Rukentuts]

Incorrect classifications? From a man trying to lecture a woman about a decision regarding abortion using the word "simple". And mine is the terrible argument? K.

You still haven't learned the definition of the word, apparently. This is my last reply to you, since apparently you cannot keep your combative tendencies in check in this thread (or others).

[Nanotech]

[QUOTE=Rukentuts;19230685]Insinuating that abortion is in any way "nature's design" is a flawed argument.[COLOR="red"]

Huh? Where did I say abortion is nature's design? It may be nature's design only if a miscarriage occurs but not otherwise. I don't even know where you got this. Nature's design is that the fetus/baby or whatever you want to call it is inside the woman 100% of the cases, and she bears all the burden associated with that, whether it be carrying ot to term and giving birth or abortion.

Your comment makes me think you're just picking out random words to argue with at this point.

[starlord]

Men, on paper, have as many rights to children as necessary. Tender years doctrine is done and gone. The problem exists when family courts won't allow custody to men who legitimately want their children.

right.

On the other side, when it comes to family planning, Men have no rights beyond contraception. If he doesn't want to be a father he has 2 self-determination options. A) Vasectomy (Which I just found out even those aren't 100%.. Seriously wtf is with the male reproductive system and being able to just keep on trucking?) or B) Just plain not having sex.

which is the fault of nature, not "unequal treatment".

Let's say abortion were illegal. Say we were having this argument in reverse and I was saying you just wanted to shirk responsibility for your actions. You'd say "So my only options are tubal ligation or just not having sex?"

That wouldn't seem very acceptable to you, would it?

too bad its not analogous. abortion makes the child itself a non issue.

[Laize]

No, the bullshit pretense was when everyone was talking about making the situation fair and equal for both parties involved. That is, clearly, impossible. The solution you propose is one that puts sole responsibility for a joint decision on one person. So now the mother has no say in the matter, that father can just up and leave for any reason. So it isn't ok for the mother to make unilateral decisions that affect the lives of both people for the next 18-21 years, but it is ok for the father to do so. That is essentially what you are saying. You can frame it however you like, but that is what you are saying. You're just replacing one shitty situation with a different shitty situation, but now life is slightly better for men. That's all.

Let's be clear now. Crystal clear.

The sole responsibility for a joint decision is never anyone's to bear.

Actually that's not true. The decision to have sex can result in a fetus. Let's write up a list of the decisions involved in making a kid and follow them from conception to T+1 month of life.

Conception - Both man and woman agree.
Gestation - only woman gets to decide
T+1 month - only woman gets to decide whether the kid is adopted away

The fact is that the moment gestation begins, the man has no decision in the matter. You can't just say "this kid is the result of his decision" when you're ignoring the fact that the woman made a decision to carry the child in the first place. The only reason that kid is alive is because once gestation started, the man had no say in the process. You're holding him hostage for a decision he never agreed to.

[Wells]

What happens to a woman during pregnancy is not at issue.

She has the option to opt out of it. No one is challenging that.

The fact is that a man has no such option for opting out of paternity. There should be one.

Women only have an option because to deny abortions would surrender bodily autonomy.

[stumpy]

What happens to a woman during pregnancy is not at issue.

She has the option to opt out of it. No one is challenging that.

Except for the part where the woman's "opt-out" is far more onerous than that of the man, who has to pay and suffer nothing.

Or the part where the man's "opt-out" greatly magnifies the financial burden of all options available to the woman, while the woman's has no such effect on the man.

Which brings us back to the recurring point: your system takes a situation already slanted against women and slants it further against men, in the name of making things "more fair" for men.

Which brings us back to the other recurring point: No, it's not time for the MRM to be taken seriously if this is their primary line of argument instead of, I don't know, actually trying to bring about some reforms that will actually help, and actually can be achieved.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm sure this can go on for twenty more eerily similar pages tonight, but I really don't feel like it.

[starlord]

Insinuating that abortion is in any way "nature's design" is a flawed argument.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:38 PM ----------

Yeah, I'm not taking time addressing more strawman.

explain to me again how the child existing is solely the womans responsibility because "she had an out".

[Laize]

right.
which is the fault of nature, not "unequal treatment".

The law exists to smooth out inequalities in nature. If you piss me off I'm not allowed to beat you bloody despite the fact that nature provides me the tools to do so. I would hope that's the case anyway. You're not in Iran are you?

too bad its not analogous. abortion makes the child itself a non issue.

If the birth happens, the child is only an issue because of a unilateral decision made by the mother.

[Aalyy]

You still haven't learned the definition of the word, apparently. This is my last reply to you, since apparently you cannot keep your combative tendencies in check in this thread (or others).

This is typical behavior of the loser in an argument.

[Laize]

Except for the part where the woman's "opt-out" is far more onerous than that of the man, who has to pay and suffer nothing.

Or the part where the man's "opt-out" greatly magnifies the financial burden of all options available to the woman, while the woman's has no such effect on the man.

Which brings us back to the recurring point: your system takes a situation already slanted against women and slants it further against men, in the name of making things "more fair" for men.

Which brings us back to the other recurring point: No, it's not time for the MRM to be taken seriously if this is their primary line of argument instead of, I don't know, actually trying to bring about some reforms that will actually help, and actually can be achieved.

Just because there's no perfect analogue doesn't mean we shouldn't try to provide one.

[Rukentuts]

Women only have an option because to deny abortions would surrender bodily autonomy.

"Bodily autonomy" is just fancy words trying to disguise the fact that pregnancy is a reasonably expected consequence of sex.

[Wells]

The law exists to smooth out inequalities in nature. If you piss me off I'm not allowed to beat you bloody despite the fact that nature provides me the tools to do so. I would hope that's the case anyway. You're not in Iran are you?

Your rage issues are not analogous to human physiology.

If the birth happens, the child is onlyan issue because of a unilateral decision made by the mother .

This is not true in any way shape or form, you just think the options available to you are too bad.

"Bodily autonomy" is just a fancy word trying to disguise the fact the pregnancy is a reasonably expected consequence of sex.

What is this load of shit?

[Rukentuts]

What is this load of shit?

You make a compelling argument.

[Northern Goblin]

If a father was ever given an opt out clause, it should be in the first trimester. That way the woman has either makes the choice to abort, set up for adoption or chooses to carry to term with the intent to raise as a single mother.

I disagree with the notion the Father could just throw his arms up in the air at any point and go "Fuck it, I'm out." But giving the mother his wishes to not be a father, she makes an informed choice.

Condoms break and people lie about using non visible means of birth control.

And sure a vasectomy sounds great, if you aren't a young man who's living on a shoe string budget in his first couple of years out of school, or trying to get through college, and would love children later on in life when he's financially able to take care of them. Because anyone who takes a vasectomy with the goal that they'll get it reversed a few years down the line and everything will be fine is under severe wishful thinking.

And before the "He had a choice, he didn't have to have sex." She had the choice too, she chose to have sex, therefore she made the choice to be potentially with a child that she'd have to raise alone. That terrible argument swings both ways, please stop using it.

Also, less of the "deadbeat" line, do you call every woman who aborts or puts up for adoption because she didn't want to take care of a child a deadbeat?

Again to reiterate, men should never be allowed to walk out the moment they feel like it, but have the right to declare their intentions early and let her make an informed choice on what she wants to do.

[Laize]

Women only have an option because to deny abortions would surrender bodily autonomy.

Regardless of why she has the option, the fact is that the system currently holds a man responsible for the unilateral decision of a woman.

She opted not to get an abortion, thus a child was born and the man is responsible

When determining responsibility, you don't skip the most recent and relevant decision when deciding who's to blame.

Say you're designing a car. The engineer says "I don't think this car should be produced". The CEO says "FUCK IT! WE'RE DOING IT LIVE!" and ships the car.

10 months down the line there's a fucking disaster with the cars exploding. You don't get to lay blame with the engineer who disagreed with the decision to produce the car.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 05:48 AM ----------

If a father was ever given an opt out clause, it should be in the first trimester. That way the woman has either makes the choice to abort, set up for adoption or chooses to carry to term with the intent to raise as a single mother.

I disagree with the notion the Father could just throw his arms up in the air at any point and go "Fuck it, I'm out." But giving the mother his wishes to not be a father, she makes an informed choice.


Also, condoms break, people lie about using non visible means of birth control.

And sure a vasectomy sounds great, if you aren't a young man who's living on a shoe string budget in his first couple of years out of school, or trying to get through college, and would love children later on in life when he's financially able to take care of them. Because anyone who takes a vasectomy with the goal that they'll get it reversed a few years down the line and everything will be fine is under severe wishful thinking.


And before the "He had a choice, he didn't have to have sex." She had the choice too, she chose to have sex, therefore she made the choice to be potentially with a child that she'd have to raise alone. That terrible argument swings both ways, please stop using it.


Again to reiterate, men should never be allowed to walk out the moment they feel like it, but have the right to declare their intentions early and let her make an informed choice on what she wants to do.

And less of the deadbeat line, do you call every woman who aborts or puts up for adoption because she didn't want to take care of a child a deadbeat?

Holy shit thank you

Someone goddamn gets it.

[Wells]

You make a compelling argument.

No, seriously, what you wrote makes absolutely zero sense. Bodily autonomy is a basic human right.

[Destruktion]

This is not true in any way shape or form, you just think the options available to you are too bad.

There are no options for the man once the child is conceived.

[Northern Goblin]

What is this load of shit?

If you're not going to engage in the discussion...

[Rukentuts]

No, seriously, what you wrote makes absolutely zero sense. Bodily autonomy is a basic human right.

You mean the right they exercised when they had sex?

[starlord]

The law exists to smooth out inequalities in nature. If you piss me off I'm not allowed to beat you bloody despite the fact that nature provides me the tools to do so. I would hope that's the case anyway. You're not in Iran are you?

If the birth happens, the child is only an issue because of a unilateral decision made by the mother.

which means she should recieve preferential custody right?