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

[Ebildays]

"People who live in expensive houses have higher income than people who live in cheap houses. Higher income is a tangible benefit of buying an expensive house."

There are so many explainations why your "statistic" is flawed:

1. People who die young usually haven't had the chance to get married yet
2. People who are total losers/use drugs/involved in crime/etc get married less than people with healthier lifestyles.

In other words, it's more probable that those men who would already live longer have a higher chance of getting married, than the other way around.

There is no need to guess about the statistic or give reasons why it may be flawed when the studies are out for you to read for yourself and find out how they came to that conclusion. You can also see if they have already addressed the issues that you have brought up.

Cohabitation is good and all when both parties agree to it but most women and men still want to get married. So you are with some one who wants to get married and you don't for the most part no matter how "in love" they are with you they will leave to find some one that can better answer their needs.

I tried pointing out that most family law that involve children are written with the child's best interest in mind but was met with 'Why should he have to care for something he never wanted in the first place' I really don't see how to progress passed that. Objectivism hoo!

You are not being objective yourself when looking at the problem.

While not the same the problem is something like this.

And outside party forces a woman to carry a child to term that she does not want or cannot care for. Once the child is born family law state that because it is in the best interest for the child the woman must pay 20% of her income for the next 21 years to take care of the child. Is that right? This is what basically happens to men in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Due to nature men have no control, once a woman gets pregnant, of his reproductive rights and after the child is born family law states the man has do what is in the best interest for the child. Now if the man has stated before hand where he stands in regards to his reproductive rights and the woman agreed to them but later reneges and forces the man to pay child support for the child how is that fair? If a man states his wishes in regards to his own reproductive rights before a child is conceived is it right that a woman can just wave it off as if it does not matter and proceed to do has she wishes. If you say yes, no matter how good the reason, you are saying yes to violating a mans reproductive rights.

I will say this again I don't agree with men being given the choice to walk away after a child have been conceived but I do believe that men should be able to have their reproductive wishes up held legally if they have given the woman informed consent and she has agreed to it before a child is conceived. It gives men some measure of control of their reproductive rights after a child is born if they have may their wishes clear to a woman.

If you want to progress past that, with me at least, explain to me how the best interest of a child trumps having someone's reproductive rights violated?

[Wells]

If you want to progress past that, with me at least, explain to me how the best interest of a child trumps having someone's reproductive rights violated?

Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.

[Laize]

That's exactly what you're asking for. What are you actually giving up? What 2-3 years are you talking about? You've been arguing for days you shouldn't have to pay for any of it and keep saying that's a compromise. Doesn't sound like you're offering any concessions to the other side here Laize.

Then what the hell is a compromise if not giving up on your ideal just to get moving in the right direction?

Responsibilities are defined by our actions, not by whether we want them or not.

Your responsibilities also shouldn't be dictated by others.

One is a criminal act that ends in death. The other is sex that ends in a child.

Not to mention the engineer didn't go out to do something with a reasonable expectation that an exploding death machine could result. You know you can have a kid as a result of sex.

It's an imperfect analogy but no analogy is ever perfect, Wells. You can't pick apart minor differences and say the whole thing is unusable.

Yes, children are a possible result of sex. They don't have to be, though. That's why we have family planning.

[Grizzly Willy]

If our responsibilities shouldn't be dictated by others, why do we have laws?

[Laize]

Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.

That child only exists as a result of the mother's decision not to abort.

In our hypothetical situation, if this were a nuclear missile on a sub it would not launch because both keys were not turned. In everything else in life, when both parties equally responsible for a decision cannot agree, nothing happens. Giving a man no say in the decision in whether or not a child is born is the same as giving the other party both keys to a nuclear missile and then blaming both parties for the result even though one vehemently disagreed and, for all his decision was worth, may as well have been tied to a chair screaming not to do it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 04:24 AM ----------

If our responsibilities shouldn't be dictated by others, why do we have laws?

Laws safeguard our rights. They make sure others' freedoms don't infringe on our rights. For example, I have a right to spin around wildly holding a set of knives in both hands. My right to do that ends when someone else steps into my arms' reach.

[Shadowmelded]

You are not being objective yourself when looking at the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

.

Now if the man has stated before hand where he stands in regards to his reproductive rights and the woman agreed to them but later reneges and forces the man to pay child support for the child how is that fair? If a man states his wishes in regards to his own reproductive rights before a child is conceived is it right that a woman can just wave it off as if it does not matter and proceed to do has she wishes. If you say yes, no matter how good the reason, you are saying yes to violating a mans reproductive rights.

I will say this again I don't agree with men being given the choice to walk away after a child have been conceived but I do believe that men should be able to have their reproductive wishes up held legally if they have given the woman informed consent and she has agreed to it before a child is conceived. It gives men some measure of control of their reproductive rights after a child is born if they have may their wishes clear to a woman.

I don't disagree with you on this, however I am against allowing men to abandon children after the act has occurred. The changes to the law that have been posted so for as examples of 'fair' treatment of men would be far too prone to abuse and neglects to take into account how many children suffer under situations like this currently that aren't being brought to the forefront already. It would just create an even bigger issue for the rest of society, which society already has a difficult time with preventing the problem and providing for people who suffer under those conditions.

If you want to progress past that, with me at least, explain to me how the best interest of a child trumps having someone's reproductive rights violated?

The child as an individual is far more vulnerable in this situation than the father wanting to abandon it. A child's best interest doesn't trump someone's reproductive rights, but financial greed and selfish desires 'not to be tied down' should not cancel out personal responsibility. If there is a valid claim to waive parental responsibilities, courts already deal with that, whether it be no financial security, unfit state of mind to raise a child etc...

[Wells]

Then what the hell is a compromise if not giving up on your ideal just to get moving in the right direction?

What is your ideal?

Your responsibilities also shouldn't be dictated by others.

They aren't. No one is raping you here. You made a decision that directly resulted in a child.

It's an imperfect analogy but no analogy is ever perfect, Wells

Then don't try to argue by analogy.

. You can't pick apart minor differences and say the whole thing is unusable.

Comparing a criminal act to a child isn't exactly minor.

That child only exists as a result of the mother's decision not to abort.

Still not an issue of reproductive rights.

I'm curious though, you've repeatedly said that because the woman has the final choice the man has no responsibility if he doesn't want it. Doesn't that mean the woman should get to decide if the man has rights to the kid when its born? I mean if its all up to her why should he get a slice of the proverbial pie?

[Laize]

What is your ideal?

Not being held accountable at all for a woman's decision not to terminate.

They aren't. No one is raping you here. You made a decision that directly resulted in a child.

No, you made a decision that resulted in a fetus. The woman made a decision that resulted in that fetus turning into a child. By your definitions anyway.

Comparing a criminal act to a child isn't exactly minor.

I don't see it as a criminal act.

Still not an issue of reproductive rights.

I'm curious though, you've repeatedly said that because the woman has the final choice the man has no responsibility if he doesn't want it. Doesn't that mean the woman should get to decide if the man has rights to the kid when its born? I mean if its all up to her why should he get a slice of the proverbial pie?

He's still the child's putative father. We allow parents to forfeit their innate rights to children. I'm simply saying that it shouldn't have to be a unanimous decision to forfeit your rights to a child.

[Wells]

That child only exists as a result of the mother's decision not to abort.

How is that different than what you're suggesting here?

No, you made a decision that resulted in a fetus. The woman made a decision that resulted in that fetus turning into a child. By your definitions anyway.

So the father has no right to the child unless the mother says so then?

[Laize]

How is that different than what you're suggesting here?

So the father has no right to the child unless the mother says so then?

No. The mother is simply granted the right to kill off the fetus before it's born. The father has rights to the child that fetus will become but the mother has rights to terminate the fetus.

[Wells]

Laize how is your ideal different than what you are offering?

How does the father still have rights if he has no responsibility?

[Laize]

Laize how is your ideal different than what you are offering?

I was offering having the man pay for child support for 2-3 years. It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than 21.

How does the father still have rights if he has no responsibility?

I've said this multiple times over 50+ pages. Rights and responsibility are inextricably linked. You don't get one without the other. I would suggest the law treat it as though a man has innate rights (and responsibilities) to a child from the moment of conception though the fetus can be terminated in a unilateral decision.

If that child IS born, however, the man (and woman if you wish to extend the right to her) should have an option to forfeit their rights and responsibilities.

[Wells]

I was offering having the man pay for child support for 2-3 years. It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than 21.

So you're offering 3 years child support top to bag off at least 15.

The 3 cheapest years as well mind you.

You're not John Boehner irl by chance are you?

Rights and responsibility are inextricably linked. You don't get one without the other.

Yes, but you've also said he has no responsibility in the creation of the child since the mother can abort. If he has no responsibility for the creation of the child then how does he ever have any right to the child?

[Laize]

So you're offering 3 years child support top to bag off at least 15.

You're not John Boehner irl by chance are you?

And what do you suggest?

Problem: The child support system unfairly hooks unwilling men to 18-21 years of financial obligation they did not want and may not be able to handle.

Solution: ???

At least I'm offering realistic suggestions as opposed to "Don't fuck people you don't trust"... as if that was the cause behind every unwanted pregnancy and could solve all the problems related to unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, but you've also said he has no responsibility in the creation of the child since the mother can abort. If he has no responsibility for the creation of the child then how does he ever have any right to the child?

He's got no say in whether or not the fetus turns to a child (again, by your definition). He has no responsibility for the birth of the child. Once it's born he has exercisable rights.

The entire problem is that from conception to birth he has no say in whether the kid is born at all. In effect, a simple decision to have sex (Which, I'm not sure about you, but generally doesn't involve a signed contract with a notary public witness as part of foreplay) can hook him for 18-21 years because "sucks to be him".

[Wells]

And what do you suggest?

I have zero problem with the status quo. My concern first and foremost for the welfare of the child.

Problem: The child support system unfairly hooks unwilling men to 18-21 years of financial obligation they did not want and may not be able to handle.

Want is fairly irrelevant to me when we're talking about your desire to not pay for the child you created. And child support payments are based on income. If you can't afford it you need to fix your finances.

The problem is you're offering a compromise to people who don't even agree there is a problem.

He's got no say in whether or not the fetus turns to a child (again, by your definition). He has no responsibility for the birth of the child. Once it's born he has exercisable rights.

So again, no responsibility for the creation of the child, but once its born he has rights to it. Seems fair.

The entire problem is that from conception to birth he has no say in whether the kid is born at all. In effect, a simple decision to have sex (Which, I'm not sure about you, but generally doesn't involve a signed contract with a notary public witness as part of foreplay) can hook him for 18-21 years because "sucks to be him".

If a child is born despite the many ways to avoid that situation he's on the hook for 18-21 years not because "sucks to be him", but because he directly participated in the creation of a living breathing fully self aware human being that requires support.

[raechuul]

Problem: The child support system unfairly hooks unwilling men to 18-21 years of financial obligation they did not want and may not be able to handle.

Did these women rape the men they were with? Men and women are equally as culpable for unwanted pregnancies. And not only men must pay child support... sometimes the mother drops the kid on the father.
My manager has joint custody with her ex-husband and he lives in a lavish four bedroom home while she pays for some of her lunches with crumpled dollar bills and quarters. She doesn't have to pay child support, but he won basically everything they owned in the divorce and got re-married shortly after. But she didn't scream about the divorce being sexist. Just unlucky and her ex had a girlfriend at the time that swayed his opinions on the whole process.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm not sure how you can justify rights for something you don't have any responsibility in creating.

[Laize]

I have zero problem with the status quo. My concern first and foremost for the welfare of the child.

You might think that, but the welfare of the child should be the concern of the people who chose to bring it into this world. If only one person wanted it in the world, the other person shouldn't be forced to concern themselves with its well being.

Want is fairly irrelevant to me when we're talking about your desire to not pay for the child you created. And child support payments are based on income. If you can't afford it you need to fix your finances.

The problem is you're offering a compromise to people who don't even agree there is a problem.

Just because you don't think there's a problem with the status quo doesn't mean there aren't a huge number of people who think there are gaping flaws in the system.

It may be that the person has fucked up finances. That doesn't mean a simple action should force them to fuck their finances further. What about minimum wage earners who live paycheck to paycheck with no money left over for even a movie once a month? Such a person is clearly not capable of supporting a child but that's exactly what the status quo forces on him. He winds up with the choice to either work a second job or go to jail.

So again, no responsibility for the creation of the child, but once its born he has rights to it. Seems fair.

If he had exercisable rights during the development stage, the woman wouldn't be allowed to abort without his consent. So no, he has no rights or responsibilities during gestation. The choice to bring it into the world is entirely the woman's. Once it's born he's allowed to exercise his innate rights and responsibilities which he should also be free to forfeit within a reasonable amount of time.

If a child is born despite the many ways to avoid that situation he's on the hook for 18-21 years not because "sucks to be him", but because he directly participated in the creation of a living breathing fully self aware human being that requires support.

No, it does "suck to be him" because he had no say in whether or not the kid was born. If he was a completely unwilling party to its being born, he shouldn't be forced (kicking and screaming the whole way) to take care of it.

That the child requires support is not on his shoulders because he never wanted it born in the first place. There's only one person who allowed it to happen.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 06:14 AM ----------

I'm not sure how you can justify rights for something you don't have any responsibility in creating.

The man shares no responsibility for the child being born.

Does the man have any say in whether or not the child is born? No, he does not. This is inarguable.

The man has innate rights to the child which he should be able to surrender.

[Wells]

What you want takes a back seat to the well being of the child you created. Personal responsibility and all that.

It may be that the person has fucked up finances. That doesn't mean a simple action should force them to fuck their finances further. What about minimum wage earners who live paycheck to paycheck with no money left over for even a movie once a month? Such a person is clearly not capable of supporting a child but that's exactly what the status quo forces on him. He winds up with the choice to either work a second job or go to jail.

Given the number of times you've claimed everyone can create savings I'm not sure how serious I'm supposed to take your concerns now.

If he had exercisable rights during the development stage, the woman wouldn't be allowed to abort without his consent. So no, he has no rights or responsibilities during gestation. The choice to bring it into the world is entirely the woman's. Once it's born he's allowed to exercise his innate rights and responsibilities which he should also be free to forfeit within a reasonable amount of time.

Repeating no innate responsibility but innate rights with more words doesn't change what you're saying.

That the child requires support is not on his shoulders because he never wanted it born in the first place. There's only one person who allowed it to happen.

The guy who didn't get a vasectomy?

[Ebildays]

Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.

You are talking about after a child is conceived and I am talking about before it is. If there is no child conceived I do not see why a man cannot state that he does not want children and will not support them and not have that legally up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Women would then have the option to either sex with the man knowing that there is a chance she may become pregnant and end up being the sole provider for the child. If she chooses to have sex with the man after knowing that she is agreeing to the terms and conditions. And if an unwanted pregnancy does happen she still has the following options

1. Have the baby and keep it knowing she will be the sole provider.
2. Have the baby and put it up for adoption
3. Abortion (if that is not a non-option for her)

The only thing that changes for the woman is option one and that is only that she would not have the financial backing of a man.

Now when a woman over looks the man's wishes for whatever reason it does violate a man's reproductive rights because he no longer has a choice in with who and when he becomes a father.

How is giving a man the option to "walk away" before a child is even conceived hurts the woman or the child? How?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)



I don't disagree with you on this, however I am against allowing men to abandon children after the act has occurred. The changes to the law that have been posted so for as examples of 'fair' treatment of men would be far too prone to abuse and neglects to take into account how many children suffer under situations like this currently that aren't being brought to the forefront already. It would just create an even bigger issue for the rest of society, which society already has a difficult time with preventing the problem and providing for people who suffer under those conditions.



The child as an individual is far more vulnerable in this situation than the father wanting to abandon it. A child's best interest doesn't trump someone's reproductive rights, but financial greed and selfish desires 'not to be tied down' should not cancel out personal responsibility. If there is a valid claim to waive parental responsibilities, courts already deal with that, whether it be no financial security, unfit state of mind to raise a child etc...

If a woman chooses to have sex with a man with the fore knowledge that he does not plan to support any child born from that act is she not to blame for the option that she chooses in the case that the man has waived his parental rights before the child was conceived? And we cannot really argue about a child's best interest when there is the option to abort( take away the option of life for a potential child), and many women do choose to abort for financial greed and selfish desires "not to be tied down". We have said that a woman's right to privacy out weigh the rights of a potential child for any reason.

You have the attitude that because the child as an individual is far more vulnerable it needs are more important than that of the male. But if you look at it objectively the child is not really are vulnerable as you think but because for the first years of its life it is part of a mother/child unit. Women will also tend to have a better network of people that can and will help look after a child if the woman needs to work or take a break. The child is just not in the world looking out for itself and since the mother has determined that she will have the baby and keep it she must be able to support it and protect it from abuse and neglect. That is the choice that the mother made and many women do that without receiving child support from a man. It is only poor excuses for mothers that use "Well I did not get any child support so that is why..........happened."

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand myself so I will go with a different definition of Objectivism with the focus on the bold part.

Objectivism— n
1.	the tendency to stress what is objective
2.	philosophy
	a. the meta-ethical doctrine that there are certain moral truths that are independent of the attitudes of any individuals
	b. the philosophical doctrine that reality is objective, and that sense data correspond with it