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

[Wells]

Or he's analysing the situation and saying "This is what I'm doing, you're free to do what you want from here on out, but just so you know I'm not being involved in it."

What's the downside? She could decide she doesn't want the child and has multiple options available to her so she doesn't raise it, or she chooses (yes she makes the choice fully aware) that she's raising it alone.

So let me get this straight.

Woman's options: Every shares burden or get a very rough procedure and no one gets responsibility.

Man's options: Walk away at no cost and let the woman either take all his burden or get a very rough procedure to avoid having to pay for the both of them.

Real equal, that.

[obdigore]

Pft... From what I can tell... these "problems" that women seem to refer to when they say women have it bad, are flat out idiotic. When I read feminist stuff anywhere, it's always highly biased and seems as if it was written by a lesbian. I only care about equality in america, so scratch all the other countries.

The most rubbish, arrogant comment that I still see, is feminist complaining about how our government is mainly men. It makes me laugh because the people... both men and women, vote for who they want. So when I hear some feminist crying about how there aren't any women presidents, I think to myself about how arrogant they are to perceive that men or some outside force is responsible for why a woman isn't president. Considering majority of america's population is women... why is it that there isn't a women president? Because neither women nor men have voted one in.

This goes back to what some people were saying in the Bi-Sexual Senator thread. You would think that something like Congress which is supposed to be representative of the population (the House at least) would have a roughly equal amount of races and sexes and religions as the population as a whole, which is blatantly false. I, at least, see some injustice there. Be it the parties themselves, the people pulling the strings, the media, or whatever. The point is if people have the same chances then the representatives would be much closer to the current demographics of the country, instead of what they are now.

[Northern Goblin]

I was talking about artificial insemination.

Aha, point taken then if you can't get it reversed.

But speaking of vasectomy failure, there's still a chance (1 in 2000 but hey, someone has to be the unlucky one) that the snip was completely ineffective. What then when you've taken precautionary measures?

Pointing out how terrible abortion is is perfectly relevant when Laize acts like a vasectomy is the end of the world.

Hyperbole doesn't make your argument any better.

[starlord]

you men have had your seat since about... forever. i think you'd do alright to get the short end of the stick for a while. ;P

in all seriousness.... i'm more for human rights, than men and women's rights. i say we should work more on that than focusing on differences.

if only that were the case. unfortunately the "mens rights movement" seems to primarily consist of wanting to weasel out of child support because "women can get abortions anyways."

[Northern Goblin]

So let me get this straight.

Woman's options: Every shares burden or get a very rough procedure and no one gets responsibility.

Man's options: Walk away at no cost and let the woman either take all his burden or get a very rough procedure to avoid having to pay for the both of them.

Real equal, that.

Not really, there's the potential but highly unlikely scenario of "Woman will carry it to term and then waiver all rights to the male to raise it as sole parent."

Highly unlikely because instead in that case the woman tends to just abort it.

[Wells]

But speaking of vasectomy failure, there's still a chance (1 in 2000 but hey, someone has to be the unlucky one) that the snip was completely ineffective. What then when you've taken precautionary measures?

Honestly 1 in 2000 is so rare it really doesn't have much place in this discussion.

Hyperbole doesn't make your argument any better.

Nor does ignoring the argument and just complaining about some pretty mild hyperbole.

[Laize]

I eagerly await Fengore jumping on you for repeating yourself despite all arguments to the contrary.


Responsibility is not first created after conception. The man made decisions that directly led to pregnancy. He bears responsibility for the result of that decision.

The woman made the same decision and has the legal right to opt out of it. A man should have the same. Regardless of the reason she has the right to opt out, she does have that right.

And you keep acting like he was just wandering around minding his own business when he tripped and stumbled into a vagina.

Or that his desire to not take care of his own child trumps the childs need to be taken care of.

A) You don't get to disregard a child's right to life period and then get up in arms when someone challenges its right to quality of life.

B) You're disregarding the fact that a woman makes a decision against a man's wishes to bring his child into the world. A child he didn't plan on or want. Regardless of biology, he deserves a way to avoid that because the option is extended to women.

Let me ask you. Say someone followed your advice and remained abstinent. From my past conversations with you I'd say it's safe to say you'd call his "paranoia" that women were out to get him and his reticence to engage in sex because he's afraid of becoming a father unhealthy.

[Wells]

Not really, there's the potential but highly unlikely scenario of "Woman will carry it to term and then waiver all rights to the male to raise it as sole parent."

Highly unlikely because instead in that case the woman tends to just abort it.

So you agree that the proposed situation just makes the decision unequal in favor of the man?

[Northern Goblin]

if only that were the case. unfortunately the "mens rights movement" seems to primarily consist of wanting to weasel out of child support because "women can get abortions anyways."

Both sides should have the right to opt out of parenthood, either by termination or single parent raising.

Not even sure why this discussion is happening, everyone knows men's reproductive rights are non existent and a good portion of that is justified by biological circumstances. There are far more pressing issues at hand.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 06:29 AM ----------

So you agree that the proposed situation just makes the decision unequal in favor of the man?

Only in the sense that a man can't carry to term. But I believe someone, might have been you, said about 20-30 pages back that biology isn't fair.

Doesn't mean the court legislation has to be unbalanced to match.

[Wells]

The woman made the same decision and has the legal right to opt out of it. A man should have the same. Regardless of the reason she has the right to opt out, she does have that right.

The decisions are completely unequal. A man gets to just walk. A woman has to get a traumatic procedure. Not equal.

A) You don't get to disregard a child's right to life period and then get up in arms when someone challenges its right to quality of life.

Sure I do. A fetus is a fetus. It has no right to life. A child is a child. It is a human being that is entirely dependent on others.

You're disregarding the fact that a woman makes a decision against a man's wishes to bring his child into the world.

Just because you seem to think that sex should have no chance of children doesn't mean that you're unaware its possible without the appropriate countermeasures. Whether you life to or not, you've chosen to take an action with that as a possible outcome.

Let me ask you. Say someone followed your advice and remained abstinent. From my past conversations with you I'd say it's safe to say you'd call his "paranoia" that women were out to get him and his reticence to engage in sex because he's afraid of becoming a father unhealthy.

If a man chose to remain totally abstinent because he was not ready to accept the tiny risk of a child but did not want to get snipped that's fine for him. Personally a decision I find somewhat silly but w/e

[buck008]

Not even sure why this discussion is happening, everyone knows men's reproductive rights are non existent and a good portion of that is justified by biological circumstances. There are far more pressing issues at hand.

I said that like 20 pages ago.

[Laize]

So you agree that the proposed situation just makes the decision unequal in favor of the man?

It's not unequal in favor of men.

There are currently 2 options. The woman keeps it or the woman doesn't.

In all instances the woman gets what she wants. The man only gets what he wants if he's in lockstep with the woman.

If he disagrees, he's fucked. I'm saying give him one option so he can have some self-determination. The woman will still have options available to him if men take their out.

[Wells]

Only in the sense that a man can't carry to term. But I believe someone, might have been you, said about 20-30 pages back that biology isn't fair.

No, biology isn't fair. Women have to bear children. That's a pretty bad reason to create a legal system that just increases their burden.

Doesn't mean the court legislation has to be unbalanced to match.

Apparently it has to be burdened the other way.

Both sides should have the right to opt out of parenthood, either by termination or single parent raising.

I've opted out of parenthood. I still have sex and haven't gotten snipped and enjoy a statistically nonexistence chance of impregnating anyone. Science is a wonderful thing.

[Northern Goblin]

Honestly 1 in 2000 is so rare it really doesn't have much place in this discussion.

How many people do you think have had the snip? Shouldn't the law protect those people too, despite going to the lengths they have and still being in this predicament?

Seriously, if you're going to start removing groups from the discussion just because they're a minority then you render the entire debate pointless.

some pretty mild hyperbole.

Accusing of someone acting like the Doomsday is happening is hardly mild, but I digress.

[Wells]

It's not unequal in favor of men.

There are currently 2 options. The woman keeps it or the woman doesn't.

In all instances the woman gets what she wants. The man only gets what he wants if he's in lockstep with the woman.

If he disagrees, he's fucked. I'm saying give him one option so he can have some self-determination. The woman will still have options available to him if men take their out.

Let me ask you what is equal about this.

Man: walk away for free, no pain, no burden or share in responsibility.

Woman: Absolve all responsibility, share in it, or under go a horrid procedure she may find morally reprehensible if its even available.

How are those equal? Where is the woman's decision to walk away for free?

[Aalyy]

I'm saying you can't leave a man out of the decision whether to continue a pregnancy and then say he's responsible because you decided not to abort.

So you're saying that unless a man has control over a woman's body during her pregnancy he shouldn't be held responsible for a child that may result from his participation in sex? 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? You want this to be written into the law of the land?

How is that a fair position to take? Or one that's supposed to make the MRM look less like a joke?

[Grizzly Willy]

Is this crapfest of white knights and misogynists still going on? Ah well, carry on.

Yeah, I'm not sure who to back here, so I'm sitting out. Although, the idea of storing my, *ahem*, seed in a sperm back and getting snipped sure sounds appealing. Assuming I ever get that far, at least.

[Wells]

How many people do you think have had the snip? Shouldn't the law protect those people too, despite going to the lengths they have and still being in this predicament?

Your doctor tells you its not perfect. If you're really paranoid continue using other forms of birth control for a while, since almost all conceptions occur shortly after.

[Northern Goblin]

No, biology isn't fair. Women have to bear children. That's a pretty bad reason to create a legal system that just increases their burden.

How does it? Women aren't forced to carry to term.

Apparently it has to be burdened the other way.

No one is forcing a woman to carry for 9 months and then raise the child all alone without help.

I've opted out of parenthood. I still have sex and haven't gotten snipped and enjoy a statistically nonexistence chance of impregnating anyone. Science is a wonderful thing.

Good for you, not everyone is as fortunate, and in a first world population of over a billion, those statistically non existent chance make a much bigger number.

[obdigore]

So you're saying that unless a man has control over a woman's body during her pregnancy he shouldn't be held responsible for a child that may result from his participation in sex? 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? You want this to be written into the law of the land?

How is that a fair position to take? Or one that's supposed to make the MRM look less like a joke?

Stop with the hyperbole, it helps nothing. Laize's position is that a man should be able to tell a woman that he is opt-ing out of any responsibility while the fetus is still very undeveloped, allowing the woman to make her decision with all possible facts.

Acting like Laize wants to force abortions or tell a woman she can't have an abortion is stupid. Stop doing it.