Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[starlord]

I truly believe you don't read my posts or, if you do, have some learning disability that prevents you from comprehending them. That's not what I'm saying at all.

its not?

Why shouldn't we harp about evil members of the opposite sex? Do I criticize women for complaining about rapists and wife beaters? Of course not.

if a woman said "men should never have rights or obligations to their children because its entirely the womans decision to bring them to term" you'd call them a feminazi.

As Diurdi said, if a woman brings a pregnancy to term against the father's wishes then she is the only one at fault for that child having only one parent. You're fabricating an obligation on the part of a man who wanted no part of that kid's life. It's her decision to bring it to term and, if that decision conflicts with the father's, the burden should lie only with her.

oh look, you said it. and saved me the trouble of bolding. "its entirely the womans fault the child is has a single parent if the man chooses to abandon his responsibilities". its both their faults. she gets to work twice as hard to raise it and he gets to pay money for not being there.
his responsibility is inherent, not fabricated. as is hers.

I'm through trying to reason with you. You seem to receive data that conflicts with your worldview and, instead of accepting that it may be true, you simply throw it out.

You are, quite in fact, beyond hope if you continue like this.

we just fundamentally disagree on certain concepts.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

i'll try to explain again.

when a woman aborts, the man is at liberty. no harm no foul.

when a man walks out, she must either abort or have a huge burden place on her.

who lies about what is entirely irrelevant.
he lied and she had it -> too bad it must be supported
she lied and had it -> too bad it must be supported.

child support is about children, not about "favoring a gender" or "taking away liberty" any more than any other parenting laws are.
which is why i find the claims of sexism absurd.

sex·ism [sek-siz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

The current unchanged laws are built on the bolded part. They were made (I believe in most cases) long before abortion was even legalized. This was made because after a divorce, the woman was automatically stuck with the child (because she is the mom! is that sexism okay with you?) and without very much education and work history, it put them in a real bind. Obviously back then, this law WAS about protecting people.

The thing is, later, abortion was legalized, and females got the choice to opt out of the "burden" (as you call it) while men, do not. This is sexism. You are only giving one gender a choice, only one gender a chance to protect/change/affect their own future. BOTH genders took the risk, BOTH genders willingly had sex, ONLY ONE gender gets to choose any type of outcome.

lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural lib·er·ties.
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

So how aren't the males liberties taken away again? They have no say in this matter. None. Zilch. Nada. Your basis is saying "Well men took the risk" blah blah blah. BUT SO DID WOMEN. Now only they get a choice. The male is at the mercy.

The male should be given a choice:

1) Joint custody- or paying child support.
2) Opting out- Paying half the adoption or abortion fees.

This gives the female a choice in her fate as well:

1) Joint custody, or receiving child support.
2) Opting out- Pay half the adoption or abortion fees.
3) Abortion. Its legal, and an option.


I also find it extremely ironic and contradicting when you demand males be on their knees to females because its about the "interest of the child" then turn around and say "the burden is on the female" if the man wants out..... little hypocritical in my book.

[Deleted]

darenyon doesnt want men to gain the ability to fuck over their children whenever they want to because they got cold feet

Poking holes into condoms, lying over birth control, using an inebriated man to trap him into giving his sperm, stealing sperm by any means.
You said multiple times in this thread that all these factors are risks a man takes simply by being a sexual being.

Utter bullshit, women like this need to be sterilised. Abortion in these cases is civil duty.

[starlord]

Poking holes into condoms, lying over birth control, using an inebriated man to trap him into giving his sperm, stealing sperm by any means.
You said multiple times in this thread that all these factors are risks a man takes simply by being a sexual being.

Utter bullshit, women like this need to be sterilised. Abortion in these cases is civil duty.

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

[Deleted]

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

There is no kid, it gets aborted while its still a semi formed mess of molecules.
Should there be a kid because said woman managed to evade the abortion police.

Put a red cross on her house and make her notify neighbours when she moves.

Put it up for adoption, that woman is a danger to society and her child is better up without a mother at all.

[Ebildays]

This discussion is just going in circles.

Darenyon doesn't want the options about financial responsibility that are available to the mother to be available to the father. Darenyon thinks it's fair that the man should never have an option to opt out financially, while the woman should always have.

Darenyon doesn't understand that if a mother decides to bring a child into this world, contrary to the wishes of the father, then its her fault that the child is in a situation with only one parent - NOT THE FATHERS.

Essentially all Darenyon wants is to let women have the ability to fuck over a man's life whenever they want to. Because that's the only thing that would be lost to women if the law was changed.

Diurdi the man still has fault when a child is born unless it is a case of donor or male rape. A man does not just stop being at fault because he said he did want the child and wanted her to abort. We know that sex = babies, now we have come to point where we can have almost child free sex but there is still the risk of having a child. Whenever you choose to engage in sex you willingly accept the risk that comes along with that, man or woman. We know what it takes to make a baby so either the condom failed or the man was not wearing one because if you know you do not want kids you will wear a condom every time and not willingly give women the power to fuck over a man's life.

Now in a perfect world two people would sit down before having sex and honestly say what they would do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. If the man says that he does not want to be held responsible for the child he should be able to have that decision upheld. At that point the woman have the choice to either risk becoming a single parent, have sex but tell the man he must wear a condom every time, or just walk away. No, woman should be able to discount what a man wants and just have a child anyway because she knows he will have to take care of it no matter what. That is the problem with the way things are now and really that is what needs to change.

[starlord]

The current unchanged laws are built on the bolded part. They were made (I believe in most cases) long before abortion was even legalized. This was made because after a divorce, the woman was automatically stuck with the child (because she is the mom! is that sexism okay with you?) and without very much education and work history, it put them in a real bind. Obviously back then, this law WAS about protecting people.

The thing is, later, abortion was legalized, and females got the choice to opt out of the "burden" (as you call it) while men, do not. This is sexism. You are only giving one gender a choice, only one gender a chance to protect/change/affect their own future. BOTH genders took the risk, BOTH genders willingly had sex, ONLY ONE gender gets to choose any type of outcome.

BOTH genders pay child support. they have no choice in the matter. only ONE carries a child in their body, but BOTH have the right of bodily autonomy.

So how aren't the males liberties taken away again? They have no say in this matter. None. Zilch. Nada. Your basis is saying "Well men took the risk" blah blah blah. BUT SO DID WOMEN. Now only they get a choice. The male is at the mercy.

The male should be given a choice:

1) Joint custody- or paying child support.
2) Opting out- Paying half the adoption or abortion fees.

This gives the female a choice in her fate as well:

1) Joint custody, or receiving child support.
2) Opting out- Pay half the adoption or abortion fees.
3) Abortion. Its legal, and an option.

abortion isnt "opting out", no one gets to opt out. abortion makes everything moot because there is no child.

I also find it extremely ironic and contradicting when you demand males be on their knees to females because its about the "interest of the child" then turn around and say "the burden is on the female" if the man wants out..... little hypocritical in my book.

what i find extremely ironic is guys complaining about how family courts are stacked against them and then claiming that they have no obligations to their children.

[Xanjori]

what i find extremely ironic is guys complaining about how family courts are stacked against them and then claiming that they have no obligations to their children.

What I find ironic is how few people actually examine family courts. Bringing up my own example again. My mother died and my father was left to raise me alone, he received no financial aid and worked extended shifts, as such I spent around 10 hours a day at a play centre, and when I moved on to school I had to spend my time with a teacher who would take care of me. Summer holidays I lived with my cousins.

Eventually my dad remarried and had another child. One day that wife decided to leave with no real reason and took my younger brother with me, at the time my dad was employed and my step-mother wasn't. My dad was told he had absolutely 0 chance of winning a custody battle despite having proven he could raise a child and despite having a job. He then had to pay child support, despite looking after a child himself still. So in the end, my dad was raising a child and paid child support, my step-mum was raising a child, and had no job and simply received child support. Where's the balance here?

I mean all your talk about the child is the important one, where was my equality here? My step-brother sure as hell had better living conditions than I had growing up, by a ridiculous amount.

[Grizzly Willy]

which nicely sidesteps the matter of -why is any of that the kids fault?

If the man is tricked into having a child, he has no responsibility to the child. You have two victims in this case: the man and the child. Neither of them are obligated to do anything because of the actions of the guilty party.

[Wells]

If a kid is born it is entirely because of the woman's choice. A man should not be de-facto obligated to financially support a woman's right to choose.

That's because the bolded would constitute rape or fraud.

[starlord]

If the man is tricked into having a child, he has no responsibility to the child. You have two victims in this case: the man and the child. Neither of them are obligated to do anything because of the actions of the guilty party.

i would say its a case by case basis. poking a hole in a condom is little different than promising to be there for the kid and running off. in either case a parents still owe parental responsibility. if its a rape (of any kind) or then things can get murky.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 08:53 AM ----------

What I find ironic is how few people actually examine family courts. Bringing up my own example again. My mother died and my father was left to raise me alone, he received no financial aid and worked extended shifts, as such I spent around 10 hours a day at a play centre, and when I moved on to school I had to spend my time with a teacher who would take care of me. Summer holidays I lived with my cousins.

Eventually my dad remarried and had another child. One day that wife decided to leave with no real reason and took my younger brother with me, at the time my dad was employed and my step-mother wasn't. My dad was told he had absolutely 0 chance of winning a custody battle despite having proven he could raise a child and despite having a job. He then had to pay child support, despite looking after a child himself still. So in the end, my dad was raising a child and paid child support, my step-mum was raising a child, and had no job and simply received child support. Where's the balance here?

I mean all your talk about the child is the important one, where was my equality here? My step-brother sure as hell had better living conditions than I had growing up, by a ridiculous amount.

yeah thats pretty bad. i think working to ensure more equality in courts is better than this nonsense about abortion.

[Laize]

That's because the bolded would constitute rape or fraud.

The kid only exists because of the woman's choice. If the man makes his choice known well in advance for her to make an informed decision, there's literally NO good reason he should be held liable to financially support her choice.

If she willingly takes on the burden of raising a kid herself, so be it. Don't drag the guy down too.

[Grizzly Willy]

i would say its a case by case basis. poking a hole in a condom is little different than promising to be there for the kid and running off. in either case a parents still owe parental responsibility. if its a rape (of any kind) or then things can get murky.

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Diurdi the man still has fault when a child is born unless it is a case of donor or male rape. A man does not just stop being at fault because he said he did want the child and wanted her to abort. We know that sex = babies, now we have come to point where we can have almost child free sex but there is still the risk of having a child. Whenever you choose to engage in sex you willingly accept the risk that comes along with that, man or woman. We know what it takes to make a baby so either the condom failed or the man was not wearing one because if you know you do not want kids you will wear a condom every time and not willingly give women the power to fuck over a man's life.

Now in a perfect world two people would sit down before having sex and honestly say what they would do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. If the man says that he does not want to be held responsible for the child he should be able to have that decision upheld. At that point the woman have the choice to either risk becoming a single parent, have sex but tell the man he must wear a condom every time, or just walk away. No, woman should be able to discount what a man wants and just have a child anyway because she knows he will have to take care of it no matter what. That is the problem with the way things are now and really that is what needs to change.

With this logic, we should outlaw Abortion.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 12:08 PM ----------

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

Wasn't Darenyon the one pointing "Woman hater" at everyone? It seems like Darenyon is obviously a man hater: Take away the fate, livelihood, money and choice of a male, and give it only to the woman, because of the "child" which would otherwise be a "burden" on the mother. But of course when you say " The womans choice directly burdens the father" she craps out the line about how men should shut up and take their responsibilities "for the child."

So when a man has to be responsible, its for the sake of the child. When a woman should be responsible, she is a poor burdened woman.... The hypocrisy.

[starlord]

If she poked a hole in the condom then no, he doesn't.

i dont see a difference between that and it just breaking as far as parental responsibilities go.

[Deleted]

i dont see a difference between that and it just breaking as far as parental responsibilities go.

thats like saying murder is equal to manslaughter.
Actually its exactly like that just in reverse.

[starlord]

thats like saying murder is equal to manslaughter.
Actually its exactly like that just in reverse.

as far as the results, they are exactly the same. they are only punished differently.

[Deleted]

as far as the results, they are exactly the same. they are only punished differently.

Exactly, the result is the same: Insemination.
As far as the parental responsibilities, the "punishment", are concerned they differ.

[Ebildays]

With this logic, we should outlaw Abortion.

I don't know where you get that from?
When a child is conceived everyone is at fault because they knew the risks, you just don't stop being at fault because you did not a child. Yes a woman can abort but since men do not have that option why even bring it to the table? There is no logic is bring an option to the table after the fact when you have no control over the option. I say give me the option before to lay it on the table so they will not be held legally responsible for a child and if the woman chooses to still have sex with the guy knowing all the risk including being a single parent with no help from the man it is on her. As it stands now woman take the risk because they know come hell or high water the man will still have to pay. Take that net away and women will become more picky about who they have sex with or the risks they will take with brith control.

Just because a person is at fault does not mean that they cannot have an abortion or opt out for the child. It just means that "Hey the child is not Jesus Christ it took two people to make it".

i dont see a difference between that and it just breaking as far as parental responsibilities go.

There is a big difference between the two.

If a woman wants a child so bad that she will go against a man's wishes after he tried to protect himself she should carry the weight of full responsiblity for the child. She knew what she was doing and that the child would suffer by not having a father there and still choose to go for that type of life for her child. A man should not have to suffer because a women is crazy, the poor kid on the other is going to have to live with a crazy parent.

The condom breaking is just an accident and hopfully the couple talked about what they would do in the event of that happening.

[starlord]

Exactly, the result is the same: Insemination.
As far as the parental responsibilities, the "punishment", are concerned they differ.

thats not punishment, going to jail for fraud & possibly having those responsibilities revoked is.
the guy would still have a claim to it.