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

[Sunseeker]

Abortion isn't about shirking away from responsibilities.

Isn't it? Or is that just spin?

Pregnancies involve significant risks and are akin to physical trauma. Not allowing a woman to avoid something like that if they aren't wanting children is pretty cruel, and would only see an increase in dangerous DIY abortions which carry numerous risks.

I am aware of the dangers of back-alley abortions, but that's entirely besides the point.

I've seen numerous women go through pregnancies. And while the experience is not the greatest thing one can experience(at times), I would hardly call a pregnancy akin to "physical trauma".

The reason men can't throw away their potential child is because they can't bear children. If it affected their bodily autonomy, it would be immoral. If the father doesn't want the child, there's not much he can do without forcing the woman to have an abortion, which would be heinous. The child has a parent that is willing to look after it and take care of it, however if it's found that without support from the people responsible for bringing it into the world it would be impoverished or suffer in some way then courts will award alimony.

So, a man can't force a woman to have an abortion, and you're also unwilling to give him the right to opt out of parenthood. An option that you're willing to give to women...because they suffered immeasurably through pregnancy? I may be speaking from personal experience, but as far as "physical trauma" and "suffering" go, pregnancy isn't very high on the list. Some women LOVE being pregnant and having children, for them the experience is positive unlike any other.

You're not going to win me over by saying that pregnancy is a horrible traumatic experience filled with nothing but suffering, therefore the man MUST be forced to support her decision.

---------- Post added 2012-11-29 at 04:31 PM ----------

Give men a pre-active option that is equal to a woman's post-active option and things would balance themselves out.

Sure, i'm not saying men need the same options, they can't because only women gestate babies. They just need equitable options.

Above and beyond preventative measures, a woman has the option to abort or adopt away. A man has neither of those options. He cannot legally sign away his fatherly rights to the mother if she doesn't allow him to, and he cannot abort his pending parenthood.

All I'm saying on this particular matter is that father's should have an option similar to that of the mother, without having to take your one-night-stand to a lawyer and have her sign a legal document saying you're not going to be responsible for any kids she may or may not have.

[Auloria]

I feel like I'm in an alternate reality, watching one Calvin avatar argue against another. o.O

[Shadowmelded]

Isn't it? Or is that just spin?

I don't know about you but I can't really hold it against anyone for not wanting to endure agony and risk death. Making abortions illegal would be pretty callous just to prove some point that 'men have it tougher'

I am aware of the dangers of back-alley abortions, but that's entirely besides the point.

Not when you're implying that abortion is being abused. Making it more difficult to have the procedure done will just result in more back-alley abortions and children raised in bad environments/being neglected. We all know the social issues that come with that. I know you've not actually stated that you want to make it more difficult to have an abortion, but that seems to be the only logical conclusion to your point of view that abortion is somehow an unfair advantage for women.

So, a man can't force a woman to have an abortion, and you're also unwilling to give him the right to opt out of parenthood. An option that you're willing to give to women...because they suffered immeasurably through pregnancy?

He is allowed to waive his parental rights, but not his parental responsibilities without due cause. It's not because women suffer through pregnancy, it is a medical law issue. They have a right to bodily autonomy. The man's autonomy is not being brought into play here. If you feel that women shouldn't have the final word in what happens to their body then it's really a slippery slope after that. Therefore men that are that paranoid about a woman potentially blackmailing them with a child should be extra proactive towards their goal of not having children, since they do not have a medical procedure that allows them to end the pregnancy that does not run counter to the woman's bodily autonomy.

After the child is afforded personhood, the law acts in it's best interest. It doesn't act vindictively towards men, it just happens that the applications of the law are influenced by biased individuals.

I'm not saying that paternity cases are fine, there is definitely a bias, but that's more to do with preconceived gender stereotypes than targeted systematic discrimination which soooo many people in this thread are claiming.

[Laize]

Yeah, once again, this is why MRM is a joke. You're too busy focusing on women to a point that it feels like subversive misogyny and not on trying to spread a message like 'Oh hey, here's an issue that men suffer from due to the way our legal system is set up, or due to bias among individuals that influence jury decisions'
Less vilifying women would do wonders for the 'movement'

How did you get "vilification of women" from that? Seems more like an indictment of society.

[Shadowmelded]

How did you get "vilification of women" from that? Seems more like an indictment of society.

Because it's leaning on the idea that women are profiteering from flaws in society at the cost of men. A more moderated approach instead of using women in EVERY example and portraying them as having an easier time than men would really do wonders for the group's image.

[Sunseeker]

I don't know about you but I can't really hold it against anyone for not wanting to endure agony and risk death. Making abortions illegal would be pretty callous just to prove some point that 'men have it tougher'

"Agony" and risk "death". Come on, if pregnancy were that horrible we'd have died off ages ago. We're living in an age where childbirth and childbearing is easier than ever! If it were as terrible and "agonizing" as you make it out to be, how on earth would the human race have made it through the dark ages? Or any point in time before the advent of modern medicine?

I'm not trying to argue that men have it worse than women. I'm saying that men should have an option post-conception, just like women do.

Not when you're implying that abortion is being abused.

By your own arguments it's impossible to abuse abortion. And that wasn't the point I was making anyway(you do read my posts right?)
The point I am endevoring to make is that after conception, women have two options. After conception, men have none.

Making it more difficult to have the procedure done will just result in more back-alley abortions and children raised in bad environments/being neglected. We all know the social issues that come with that. I know you've not actually stated that you want to make it more difficult to have an abortion, but that seems to be the only logical conclusion to your point of view that abortion is somehow an unfair advantage for women.

No, it really isn't. The option I'm pressing for is to give men alternatives of their own. Men can abort their pending parenthood by signing a form saying they will asset no parental rights and be held liable for none. There you go, male "abortion".

He is allowed to waive his parental rights, but not his parental responsibilities without due cause. It's not because women suffer through pregnancy, it is a medical law issue. They have a right to bodily autonomy. The man's autonomy is not being brought into play here. If you feel that women shouldn't have the final word in what happens to their body then it's really a slippery slope after that. Therefore men that are that paranoid about a woman potentially blackmailing them with a child should be extra proactive towards their goal of not having children, since they do not have a medical procedure that allows them to end the pregnancy that does not run counter to the woman's bodily autonomy.

You are restricting his legal autonomy by forcing the woman's decision upon him. Without legal autonomy, we are essentially slaves.

And why does he need "due cause"? A woman can walk in to an abortion clinic, offer no explanations, get an abortion, and walk out a few hours later. Why should a man's rights be any more restricted? If he wants to sign away all the benefits and all the responsibilities of fatherhood, why can't he? The woman can, but if the woman chooses not to, then the man is forced to retain his fatherhood.

After the child is afforded personhood, the law acts in it's best interest. It doesn't act vindictively towards men, it just happens that the applications of the law are influenced by biased individuals.

The law rarely acts in the interests of the child. What benefit is it to the child to force a grown man to pay a woman he doesn't love money for a child he doesn't want to be the father of? "Hey Jimmy, your dad hates me, and he hates you, but the state forces him to give me money because I didn't get an abortion!"

Yeah....

I'm not saying that paternity cases are fine, there is definitely a bias, but that's more to do with preconceived gender stereotypes than targeted systematic discrimination which soooo many people in this thread are claiming.

That's true, and in a time when we're seeing more and more stay-at-home fathers, I think that some discussion on the social equity of men and women is warranted. And FIY: system discrimination is founded on preconceived stereotypes.

[Ebildays]

Sure, i'm not saying men need the same options, they can't because only women gestate babies. They just need equitable options.

Above and beyond preventative measures, a woman has the option to abort or adopt away. A man has neither of those options. He cannot legally sign away his fatherly rights to the mother if she doesn't allow him to, and he cannot abort his pending parenthood.

All I'm saying on this particular matter is that father's should have an option similar to that of the mother, without having to take your one-night-stand to a lawyer and have her sign a legal document saying you're not going to be responsible for any kids she may or may not have.

Well I am not saying you should have to go to a lawyer to get a legal document like that. I don't see why a couple could not go a clinic or doctors office to get a form to be signed and have it witnessed by someone in the office like the office manger or clerk. I know that a small fee would be imposed because my doctor's office charged me to fill out the paperwork I needed to have done to get my health insurance.

There comes a point when you have to decide if the one night stand is worth the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or can you just wait until you know for sure that you will not find yourself having to pay child support 9 months down the road.

As of right now most people are not going to agree with allowing a man to "ditch" his responsibility when he finds out he got a woman pregnant. I don't know if that will ever happen or not. But I am willing to bet that most people will agree with letting a man state his intentions before sex and waive his parental rights in case a woman becomes pregnant before hand. At that point what grounds does the woman have to try and get child support? She signed papers before hand stating that she knows and agreed with the man waiving his parental rights in the case of an unwanted pregnancy and she still willingly had sex with him knowing the risks and the outcome. And because the form was signed in a neutral place and with a witness that could testify to the woman's state at the time she signed a woman would have a hard time claiming she signed under duress in a bit to try to get the form revoked. And who knows maybe down the road laws will change and men will be able to do so on the "fly" so to speak.

The women's rights movement did not move in leaps and bounds but in small steps. The men's rights movement will have to first make small steps to see big changes in the long run.


@Auloria

I am Calvin's evil twin Kalvin.


As for abortion vs a man waiving his right, one takes away both of the people involved parental rights while the other only takes away one persons parental rights. For it be 100% equal a man signing away his parental rights would have to be like a woman giving up the child for adoption. If a woman can give a child up for adoption without asking a man, the man should have that same option.....and I know I am going to get nailed to the cross for saying that.

[Wells]

This is about right.

[img]http://5pol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/175.jpg[img]

No confirmation bias here, no sir.

Really doesn't help that image you guys have of just being bitter at women though.

[Maelle]

No confirmation bias here, no sir.

Really doesn't help that image you guys have of just being bitter at women though.

156 pages of bitterness, is a lot of bitter :P

*hastily retreats before being burned at the stake*

[Laize]

Because it's leaning on the idea that women are profiteering from flaws in society at the cost of men. A more moderated approach instead of using women in EVERY example and portraying them as having an easier time than men would really do wonders for the group's image.

Is there anything in that image that's incorrect?

[Maelle]

Is there anything in that image that's incorrect?

I was going to reply to you, then I remembered I had some men to sexually harass, force to lift heavy objects for me and generally oppress. Poor things... I simply have no time in my busy schedule of taking advantage of men to argue in forums.

[Wells]

Is there anything in that image that's incorrect?

All the assumptions it makes. It doesn't say "SOME TIMES MEN ARE CALLED CHEAP IF THEY DON'T PAY FOR THE DATE".

It just assumes that always true in all instances.

Or that women are always applauded for hitting men.

Or that women never face legal consequences for sexual harassment.

And then there's way its presented. When women don't get in trouble for sexual harassment that's a problem with the legal system, but your web cartoon acts like its a problem with women.

[Shadowmelded]

I'm not trying to argue that men have it worse than women. I'm saying that men should have an option post-conception, just like women do.

And I'm saying that since the child is alive and not a prenate, then it has personhood and the rights and responsibilities that come along with that are deferred to the parents. You can waive rights, you can't waive a responsibility because the child depends on the parents in that situation.

By your own arguments it's impossible to abuse abortion. And that wasn't the point I was making anyway(you do read my posts right?)
The point I am endevoring to make is that after conception, women have two options. After conception, men have none.

Kinda dickish but whatever. 'Is it, or is that spin?' seems to me as an accusation that it's being used for something other than it's intended purpose (preserving maternal health) but either way it is starting to get further and further away from the point at hand so I'll drop this argument.

To address the point I seemed to miss; Both of the options are designed to allow for a better future for the child. It stems from ethics. If you can write a better, more egalitarian paternity law than we have now then I'm all ears, honestly. Keep in mind it has to be logically consistent with pretty much every facet of medical law.

No, it really isn't. The option I'm pressing for is to give men alternatives of their own. Men can abort their pending parenthood by signing a form saying they will asset no parental rights and be held liable for none. There you go, male "abortion".

Way too prone to abuse.

You are restricting his legal autonomy by forcing the woman's decision upon him. Without legal autonomy, we are essentially slaves.

He consented to the act, his legal autonomy is not restricted by the mother, and the alternative would be to totally ignore the mother's autonomy.

And why does he need "due cause"? A woman can walk in to an abortion clinic, offer no explanations, get an abortion, and walk out a few hours later. Why should a man's rights be any more restricted? If he wants to sign away all the benefits and all the responsibilities of fatherhood, why can't he? The woman can, but if the woman chooses not to, then the man is forced to retain his fatherhood.

Well to be honest, the difference between a prenate and an actual child that has personhood should be apparent.

The law rarely acts in the interests of the child. What benefit is it to the child to force a grown man to pay a woman he doesn't love money for a child he doesn't want to be the father of? "Hey Jimmy, your dad hates me, and he hates you, but the state forces him to give me money because I didn't get an abortion!"

The alimony affords the mother more time to invest in raising her child if she does not have to work a full time job since she will more than likely now be the sole provider for a family since the father doesn't want to be around. Especially considering she'll have to do the work of 2 parents, I don't really see an issue with that.

That's true, and in a time when we're seeing more and more stay-at-home fathers, I think that some discussion on the social equity of men and women is warranted. And FIY: system discrimination is founded on preconceived stereotypes.

I never said discussion isn't warranted, however discussions that are made through the argument of 'Hey they have x, we want x too' are ridiculous and only serve to hurt the movement as it portrays the people in favor of it as opportunistic and borderline misogynists if they're willing to deny certain aspects of reality that clash with their ideology, that are in fact quite demeaning to women.

[Deleted]

Kinda dickish but whatever. 'Is it, or is that spin?' seems to me as an accusation that it's being used for something other than it's intended purpose (preserving maternal health) but either way it is starting to get further and further away from the point at hand so I'll drop this argument.

Not being funny but if you're telling me that a woman has never gone "I may well have a boyfriend / husband and we're both happy, I have the financial ability to look after a child but I don't want a child so I'm aborting it." - I'm inclined to disagree.

[Rukentuts]

He consented to the act, his legal autonomy is not restricted by the mother, and the alternative would be to totally ignore the mother's autonomy.

Can we please stop with this autonomy bullshit? Autonomy is the reason we have abortion, not the reason why women use it.

The alimony affords the mother more time to invest in raising her child if she does not have to work a full time job since she will more than likely now be the sole provider for a family since the father doesn't want to be around. Especially considering she'll have to do the work of 2 parents, I don't really see an issue with that.

Considering giving birth is a unilateral decision, the amount of shits I give is exactly zero.

I never said discussion isn't warranted, however discussions that are made through the argument of 'Hey they have x, we want x too' are ridiculous and only serve to hurt the movement as it portrays the people in favor of it as opportunistic and borderline misogynists if they're willing to deny certain aspects of reality that clash with their ideology, that are in fact quite demeaning to women.

You have in fact, summarized the feminist movement from the beginning. You now have the hypocrisy to say that because men do it, they're misogynists. Another "feminist" I guess.

[Wells]

Can we please stop with this autonomy bullshit? Autonomy is the reason we have abortion, not the reason why women use it.

1. what are you drawing this data from?
2. Its irrelevant why they use it. What matters is why they can use it. They can use it because its their body.

[Spectral]

Can we please stop with this autonomy bullshit?

I'd recommend against it (stopping, that is).

[Rukentuts]

1. what are you drawing this data from?
2. Its irrelevant why they use it. What matters is why they can use it. They can use it because its their body.

1) Common sense. We have abortion because of bodily autonomy. Women choose to use it however, for a variety of reasons: economic, parental readiness, etc.
2) It matters if it's the exact same reasons that you decry men need to "take responsibility".

I'd recommend against it (stopping, that is).

Oh you silly goose.

[Wells]

Oh my, "common sense".

[Shadowmelded]

Can we please stop with this autonomy bullshit? Autonomy is the reason we have abortion, not the reason why women use it.

"the alternative would be to totally ignore the mother's autonomy."
keyphrase; the alternative. Which would be forcing a woman to get an abortion, which WOULD violate her bodily autonomy as she would not have the final say in what happens to her body.

It's funny that I'm labelled a feminist though. I detest feminists as much as I detest reddit MRM fanboys, because of their overzealous approach to an issue surrounded in nuance. I'd rather we got rid of pre-conceived gender notions altogether, but hey, I guess if you don't have a rebuttal, resort to slander.