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

[Wells]

Anyway, this has been a fascinating 112 page case study in why the MRM is treated like a joke. I'm going to step out because its just going in circles and 112 pages is far too much conversation for anyone else to jump in.

I'll finish out by repeating my original statement. Its time for the MRM to stop being treated like a joke when it stops acting like one. For instance, arguing they should have more power in family court (totally correct) while also arguing they should have no responsibility to raise their children if they don't want it. How do you expect to run a movement like that? To say nothing of the people who just come across as angry at women.

The MRM has to work on its goals and messaging before they'll be taken seriously. That includes actively working with women's rights groups who should be their natural allies here.

[Laize]

That's exactly what Laize wants to do.

It's not creating a shitty situation. It only even possibly becomes a shitty situation if she opts to keep the baby.

[buck008]

It's not a shitty situation for her. She still has the option of keeping the kid or aborting/adopting it. There's no reason to place a financial burden on the man when she's the one who made the decision to keep it against the father's wishes.

And there's the other part. You have no problem with the father saying unilaterally that he is not going to participate physically or financially in the raising of a child he helped create. But it's awful for the woman to say, I'm keeping this thing, so we're in it together.

So you are actually perfectly fine with one person making a choice that clearly has an impact on the other person in this situation. That's the hypocrisy of it. Because when you make a choice that potentially ruins her life, hey, freedom of choice. When she makes the same choice, it's gender discrimination and we have to fix it.

You won't ever see that your proposed solution is just a terrible one. Because there isn't a good one. When you get into a situation where a child comes into the world and one of the biological parents doesn't want it, it just is going to be bad. The only thing you are doing is finding a way for men to get out of that shitty situation. You aren't improving it at all. That's why I say it's a terrible solution.

[Northern Goblin]

That's exactly what Laize wants to do.

No he doesn't. Legally you have given both sides a choice, what's unfair is biology.

Take the ethics out, and look at it from a purely factual point at what Laize is proposing.

Do both sides have the choice to walk away together? Yes.

Does the mother have the choice to walk away and have the Father single handedly raise? Yes.

Does the father have the same option in reverse? Yes.


When you add biology, it becomes unfair because of the circumstances. What the current situation does is because biology is unfair, it makes the law unfair to try and act as a counterweight. Which doesn't work.

As I said, the sooner we get artificial uteruses and non invasive, non painful abortion methods, the sooner all this sorts itself out.

[Laize]

The MRM has to work on its goals and messaging before they'll be taken seriously. That includes actively working with women's rights groups who should be their natural allies here.

Do you realize there are members of women's rights groups are on my side?

Karen DeCrow, attorney for and former president of the National Organization for Women Karen DeCrow said:

“if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support … autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”

It's not like Men are alone in this.

[Northern Goblin]

well as ive said before, the only way such an option makes sense is to give it to the woman as well, but the financial help is pretty crucial, that was the whole purpose of the system. so thered have to be some help there.

Which is why I said, if you inform your partner of your wishes early on, they can make an informed choice. No one is forced to be a parent in the first trimester.

but i find all this talk that "men have no obligations to their children, but women do" pretty ridiculous.

Who the hell argued that?

[buck008]

Do you realize there are members of women's rights groups are on my side?

Karen DeCrow, attorney for and former president of the National Organization for Women Karen DeCrow said:



It's not like Men are alone in this.

Doesn't make it any less of a bad decision.

[tristannarutofan]

I'm not lookng to get sucked into this argument. I definately think it sucks for a man be forced to have a child if the woman wants to keep it, and it sucks for a woman if the man doesnt take responsibility.

Either way....

So basically he gets off no matter what (pun intended). No consequences to his life or health, gets to invade the domain of another's person (the person for whom a pregnancy's implications on life and health are a real issue), or walks away with zero consequences whatsoever?

this right here is complete bollox. "invade another person". Psh. I believe the entire issue is over consensual sex. I dont think anyone here is arguing on the side of rapists. And hopefully no one is talking about cases of ignorance because thats an issue about spreading knowledge of safe sex, not an issue about birth control.

You make it sound like the man is the only person involved. Just as women having to carry babies is unfair, so is the fact that leads up to that. That if you are a woman, sorry, but you know that if you have sex with a man you could get pregnant. Every woman over the age of 13 should know that if anyone in her life is doing anything right.

You can demonize a man for what he does after a pregnancy is discovered. But you cant demonize him for making the same decision the woman did.

[Northern Goblin]

Completely unrelated to the discussion (do NOT make a mountain out of this one) but if anyone knows the law for the following hypothetical scenario, enlighten me for personal curiosity.

A man is the victim of rape, his attacker conceives during and keeps the child.

Can she force him to pay child support, or does the law absolve him?

[starlord]

Which is why I said, if you inform your partner of your wishes early on, they can make an informed choice. No one is forced to be a parent in the first trimester.

right now the difficulty of the choice is somewhat alleviated by a system that helps provide for a single parent. removing it makes it that much harder. abortion isnt supposed to be the go - to solution, but a last resort. essentially this proposal punishes unmarried women for having sex. i suppose those who arent ready for fatherhood would see a lot less of it.

Who the hell argued that?

everyone who argued that helping create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities.

[Laize]

Completely unrelated to the discussion (do NOT make a mountain out of this one) but if anyone knows the law for the following hypothetical scenario, enlighten me for personal curiosity.

A man is the victim of rape, his attacker conceives during and keeps the child.

Can she force him to pay child support, or does the law absolve him?

Precedent dictates that the man is, indeed, obligated to pay child support.

Apparently his right to family planning doesn't extend beyond the act of sex even if that act is non-consensual.

[Grizzly Willy]

Completely unrelated to the discussion (do NOT make a mountain out of this one) but if anyone knows the law for the following hypothetical scenario, enlighten me for personal curiosity.

A man is the victim of rape, his attacker conceives during and keeps the child.

Can she force him to pay child support, or does the law absolve him?

The man should not be forced to pay child support. At that point it's theft at the end of an umbilical cord.

[Humungo]

everyone who argued that helping create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities.

He asked who argued that because NOBODY ARGUED THAT!

[Aalyy]

I'm not lookng to get sucked into this argument. I definately think it sucks for a man be forced to have a child if the woman wants to keep it, and it sucks for a woman if the man doesnt take responsibility.

Either way....



this right here is complete bollox. "invade another person". Psh. I believe the entire issue is over consensual sex. I dont think anyone here is arguing on the side of rapists. And hopefully no one is talking about cases of ignorance because thats an issue about spreading knowledge of safe sex, not an issue about birth control.

You make it sound like the man is the only person involved. Just as women having to carry babies is unfair, so is the fact that leads up to that. That if you are a woman, sorry, but you know that if you have sex with a man you could get pregnant. Every woman over the age of 13 should know that if anyone in her life is doing anything right.

You can demonize a man for what he does after a pregnancy is discovered. But you cant demonize him for making the same decision the woman did.

You should read the last couple dozen pages or at least the posts that preceded the one you responded to if you want to have any clue as to what you are talking about.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:13 PM ----------

He asked who argued that because NOBODY ARGUED THAT!

He did in fact argue that. His argument boils down to a man should get to decide whether he's in or out since he has no say on the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. So all the man has to do is say I'm out when he learns the woman is pregnant to be totally absolved of all parental responsibility. If that's not arguing that helping to create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities then I don't know what is.

[Northern Goblin]

i suppose those who arent ready for fatherhood would see a lot less of it.

Some women already consider it a criteria for even casual relationships, just in case.

everyone who argued that helping create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities.

It goes both ways, a woman can opt out of parental responsibilities, nobody argued that only one side can opt out.

The difference isn't in law, but in nature.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 07:16 AM ----------

He did in fact argue that. His argument boils down to a man should get to decide whether he's in or out since he has no say on the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. So all the man has to do is say I'm out when he learns the woman is pregnant to be totally absolved of all parental responsibility. If that's not arguing that helping to create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities then I don't know what is.

And a woman can do the same, but with an informed choice! It's not like she's being told "Yeah I'll be around to help you out" then surprised when he's done a runner 9 months later. If anything it protects women in that situation because they've got his decision made. And yes by him notifying her I mean this in a legally binding way.

A man can opt out of being a father, and a woman can opt out of being a mother. That is what people are arguing for.

[Laize]

You should read the last couple dozen pages or at least the posts that preceded the one you responded to if you want to have any clue as to what you are talking about.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 11:13 PM ----------



He did in fact argue that. His argument boils down to a man should get to decide whether he's in or out since he has no say on the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. So all the man has to do is say I'm out when he learns the woman is pregnant to be totally absolved of all parental responsibility. If that's not arguing that helping to create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities then I don't know what is.

You can call it what you want. I call it family planning.

All the arguments people use in this thread AGAINST a "financial abortion" are the same ones used by the right against regular abortion.

Opponents' arguments amount to "it's different because of biology".

I agree, the way the sexes absolve themselves of responsibility is different. That doesn't mean both sides don't deserve one.

[Humungo]

If that's not arguing that helping to create a child has no bearing on parental responsibilities then I don't know what is.

No, he did not argue that in the least. And i think I see what is going on here. Kindly define what you define as a "Child" for the viewing public. Because I certainly don't define it as a small wad of cells stewing in a woman's uterus within the first 20 weeks.

Since aforementioned person was talking specifically about that time frame as he stated repeatedly. Then no, nobody argued that.

[Eremiel]

Completely unrelated to the discussion (do NOT make a mountain out of this one) but if anyone knows the law for the following hypothetical scenario, enlighten me for personal curiosity.

A man is the victim of rape, his attacker conceives during and keeps the child.

Can she force him to pay child support, or does the law absolve him?

He's got to pay child support.

[starlord]

Some women already consider it a criteria for even casual relationships, just in case.

i hate to be "that guy", but i think we all know its not unheard of for even the best intentioned guy to get cold feet.

It goes both ways, a woman can opt out of parental responsibilities, nobody argued that only one side can opt out.

The difference isn't in law, but in nature.

when a woman aborts, there is no child to "opt out" of. if she keeps it and gives it away, she is still fulfilling her responsibilities by placing it in a better home than she can or will provide.

[Northern Goblin]

Thanks, wasn't sure if the courts abstained the father in that case. I know they do in cases where the male has been tricked or a discarded condom has been used (see State of Louisiana vs Frisard) I was wondering if the above was handled differently.