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

[Laize]

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

Personal responsibility doesn't work if the decision to bring the child to term isn't in your control.

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.

I thought I'd speak in terms you'd understand. You seem to be a strong advocate of poor people.

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

I thought since I've been repeatedly saying that rights and responsibility are inextricably linked you'd get that I'm not suggesting they're separable. I'm simply saying you should be able to forfeit both.

The guy who didn't get a vasectomy?

A vasectomy is only a last-resort option for men who don't want children ever. You know full well that they're only reversible half the time and even if you reverse it immediately (the next day) your fertility is permanently cut in half. The longer you wait, the more likely you'll still be effectively infertile.

The person who's responsible for the kid being born is no one except the mother.

[Wells]

Personal responsibility doesn't work if the decision to bring the child to term isn't in your control.

The pregnancy is very much in your control. Fetuses aren't delivered by storks Laize.

A vasectomy is only a last-resort option for men who don't want children ever.

Science can do wonderful things with a turkey baster now.

[Laize]

The pregnancy is very much in your control. Fetuses aren't delivered by storks Laize.

Whether or not she gets pregnant is largely controllable by men. Failing that, however, he's shit out of luck. There needs to be a remedy for that.

Science can do wonderful things with a turkey baster now.

Do you really think that men who aren't in a financial position to take care of children somehow are in a position to freeze their sperm and pay for IVF? Do you know how much IVF costs every session?

[Grizzly Willy]

But, Laize, it's not your child. You don't have any part in creating it because you aren't responsible for creating it.

[Laize]

But, Laize, it's not your child. You don't have any part in creating it because you aren't responsible for creating it.

Of course you had a hand in creating it. You're just not responsible for it being born.

[Felya]

When a woman has an abortion, it has no physical impact on a man. The women's ultimate choice on pregnancy, is unlike that of a man. Because regardless of how much rights a man has, he will never and cannot ever, suffer the physical pain. A man will not actually have a bloody mess come out of him as a result of the abortion. It's absolutely barbaric to compare a mans right to a biological reality.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 07:11 AM ----------

Of course you had a hand in creating it. You're just not responsible for it being born.

It's like a farmer who is responsible for planting the seed, but not the harvest. It's like not reaping what you sow.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 07:14 AM ----------

It's not his fault, no parasite was living in his body that ultimately risked his life by ripping him open. If it was the man who had to push a baby from between his legs, than he would be responsible. Until a man can suffer the pain of child birth, he has no responsobility on the birth. Am I right?

[Deleted]

The pregnancy is very much in your control. Fetuses aren't delivered by storks Laize.

Science can do wonderful things with a turkey baster now.

Does or does not the woman have the power to decide whether the child is born or not assuming abortion is legal?
Does or does not the man have the power to decide whether the child is born or not?

[Laize]

When a woman has an abortion, it has no physical impact on a man. The women's ultimate choice on pregnancy, is unlike that of a man. Because regardless of how much rights a man has, he will never and cannot ever, suffer the physical pain. A man will not actually have a bloody mess come out of him as a result of the abortion. It's absolutely barbaric to compare a mans right to a biological reality.

I'm ignoring arguments about the woman's body because I'm not questioning her bodily autonomy. I'm questioning the fact that the man is given no legal say in whether or not he becomes a father beyond the act of having sex. It's like the law treats men solely as sperm donors and financiers.

It's like a farmer who is responsible for planting the seed, but not the harvest. It's like not reaping what you sow.

Poor comparison. The farmer is responsible for growing the seed. If it doesn't grow, it's his fault. If it does grow, he obviously wants to reap it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 07:30 AM ----------

A 23-year old man who slept with a female teenager would never walk away with probation.

[Wells]

Of course you had a hand in creating it. You're just not responsible for it being born.

You might want to take a moment to think this one out.

Does or does not the woman have the power to decide whether the child is born or not assuming abortion is legal?
Does or does not the man have the power to decide whether the child is born or not?

Why should people in inherently unequal positions get the same power?

[Laize]

You might want to take a moment to think this one out.

I've thought it out perfectly well. You're both responsible for creating it. Only she's responsible for it being born, though. She, alone, has the choice to terminate or bring to term.

Yes, it's because her body is the one in question. That doesn't mean we should remove all power from the man.

Why should people in inherently unequal positions get the same power?

Why shouldn't we use the law to equalize the effects of the positional inequality as best we can?

[Wells]

I've thought it out perfectly well. You're both responsible for creating it. Only she's responsible for it being born, though. She, alone, has the choice to terminate or bring to term.

If you really want to continue with this "you had a hand in creating it you're just not responsible it was created" line of thought have fun.

Why shouldn't we use the law to equalize the effects of the positional inequality as best we can?

You should only use the power of law to equalize inequality with no merit. Like refusing to serve black people. Or paying someone less money because they're a jew. In fact that's exactly what we do now. If you can demonstrate a reason to not hire someone you don't have to. Movie theaters get to hire actors based on skin color for instance. The inequality between men and women here comes from the fact that men and women have different burdens here that you can't reconcile. There is no way to make a man carry a baby. Using the law to give men those options is an abuse of using government power to enforce equality.

[Laize]

If you really want to continue with this "you had a hand in creating it you're just not responsible it was created" line of thought have fun.

I'm not sure why you're equating "created" with "born".

You should only use the power of law to equalize inequality with no merit. Like refusing to serve black people. Or paying someone less money because they're a jew. In fact that's exactly what we do now. If you can demonstrate a reason to not hire someone you don't have to. Movie theaters get to hire actors based on skin color for instance. The inequality between men and women here comes from the fact that men and women have different burdens here that you can't reconcile. There is no way to make a man carry a baby. Using the law to give men those options is an abuse of using government power to enforce equality.

But you CAN reconcile them. You just choose not to. You recognize that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy because it's her own body yet you refuse to recognize that a man should have the right to forfeit his rights/responsibilities to a child if he's unable or unwilling to care for it.

We allow parents to adopt their children away, but if one of the parents doesn't want to adopt it away, the other remains on the hook for child support for unknown reasons. If both parents want to be rid of the financial burden they can, but if only one wants to keep the burden, the other is irrevocably tied to it? That doesn't sit well with me and completely undermines self-determination.

[Felya]

I'm ignoring arguments about the woman's body because I'm not questioning her bodily autonomy. I'm questioning the fact that the man is given no legal say in whether or not he becomes a father beyond the act of having sex. It's like the law treats men solely as sperm donors and financiers.

It only seems that way, because you are ignoring why. This is all a joke, because you are ignoring a major component.

Poor comparison. The farmer is responsible for growing the seed. If it doesn't grow, it's his fault. If it does grow, he obviously wants to reap it.

You mean the farmer can't physicaly grow the plant, but is responsible for giving the ground proper treatment? Like sharing the financial burden, so the child can grow properly? If you can see how the farmers treatment of the dirt effects the plant, without him being dirt. Can you give the same regard to women as farmers do to dirt?

[Laize]

Here's another good anecdote regarding why Men's Rights need to be taken seriously.

When I was 16 I was a bit of a fuck up, I'll admit it. I hung with the wrong crowd and generally behaved in a manner of which I am not proud. In the course of my shenanigans I met a girl or, depending on how you'd like to define terms, a woman. When I met her she was 25, 8 1/2 years my senior and already the mother of a 3 year old girl.

Being the obnoxious young buck that I was, I pursued her for a sexual relationship. At first, though she had no moral objection to partying with me and buying cigarettes and alcohol, she said that I was 'too young' to be a romantic or physical partner for her. This did not last long and before my 17th birthday we were involved in a sexual relationship.

It did not take long for me to figure out that she was a little left of center, psychologically, but I was a thickheaded teenager bent on sexual conquest. I continued with our sexual escapades despite the red flags thrown up left and right with her erratic behavior. This proved to be a fateful decision.
In the April of my 17th year the young lady became pregnant. She had been living with a mutual friend when we met, subsequently moved in with her parents but been kicked out, and a couple months before she conceived I asked my mother if she could move in with us. Tres trailer, I know.
It was when she moved in that things got really interesting. She became violent. She would rant about things that often made no sense or were completely fabricated, often punching, slapping, kicking and throwing objects when she got too worked up. It always seemed to happen at night, just when I was trying to go to sleep. If I tried to leave the bedroom and sleep on the couch she would follow me and carry on for unbelievably long periods of time without pause until she inevitably blew up and resorted to her fists. Or her feet. Or a nearby phone. She wasn't picky. Aside from being violent, she was a really shitty mom-to-be, smoking marijuana and cigarettes and drinking vodka on occasion.

I tolerated her abuse because she was pregnant with my child. On one solitary occasion, after she had punched me in the mouth, I finally called police. When officers arrived I asked that they remove her from the residence and take her to a hotel, for which I was glad to pay. They informed me that this was impossible. In cases of domestic violence they would be required by law to arrest her and press charges if I confirmed my allegation. Not wanting my unborn child to be in jail, I retracted my earlier statement and continued on tolerating her abusive and insane behavior. After my son was born it only got worse. She remained violent and would disappear for long stretches of time. Sometimes she was not at work when she said that was where she was going, sometimes she would even leave in her uniform only to have her boss call 45 minutes later asking where she was. She often came home drunk and high in the early hours of the morning, never before midnight. She began spending her free time with the meth dealers down the street. When I wasn't at work I was at home with my infant son and her 4 year old daughter. I wondered if I was just going to live this way forever until my son was about 3 months old. It was at this time that she punched me in the back of the head without any warning (something she had become fond of doing) and I spun around in shock. Preventing a flurry of further blows, I crossed her arms over her chest and held them there, finally bursting, "Sooner or later I'm going to turn around and hit you back simply because I don't know its you! Are you trying to make me hit you?!"
"YES" she answered, "That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to make you do!"

Well, I'm not a god damn woman beater. My father raised me to believe that a man doesn't lift his hand at a woman and that's the end of the discussion. I was not about to let this lunatic turn me into something I despised. Despite the fact that she had full physical and legal custody (automatically given to unwed mothers in my state), I threw her out on her ass and turned to my father for help financing an attorney. I sure as hell wasn't going to leave my son to chance with her.

While she bounced around, collecting welfare and getting kicked out of hotel after hotel for drug use and bizarre disturbances, I conferred with a lawyer. He told me that my best bet was to get anything and everything I could out of mediation because if it went before a judge I wasn't likely to get a damn thing except my paycheck garnished. I bluffed my ass off in mediation and managed to leave with joint legal and physical. I would pick him up on my way home from work and drop him off just before I went to bed. I would keep him for my days off and the preceding night.

We found a TINY apartment a few blocks from where she was shacking up with a colossal loser of a man-child. I mean, you couldn't walk straight into the living room/kitchen from outside. Going in the front door, you had to sidestep the refrigerator. Things were tight but I had my son and they were the happiest days of my life. I had long since stopped smoking weed, now I quit drinking and smoking and spent every free moment playing with and reading to my boy. Before he could speak 2 dozen words he had 3 dozen books memorized. I would read and he would turn the pages, knowing the order by heart.

Dropping him off was torture. As soon as we pulled up to his mother's apartment he begin to whimper, growing to a full blown wail by the time we reached her door. Five days a week I had to physically pry his arms from my neck as he howled and hand him to her state-paid unlicensed baby-sitter (she was rarely home). I remember choking back tears as a 40-something cholo who lived across the patio from her watched me drop off my anguished son and murmured, in a knowing tone, "Breaks your fucking heart, doesn't it?"

When my son was about 15 months old, his mother found a brand new loser. This one a 42 year old waiter at Denny's whom she met through the rave crowd she ran with. This guy had major issues and had always wanted a family, he was more than happy to watch her kids for her. One day I came to pick him up and discovered that her apartment was empty. After 3 days of searching, I found out from my grandmother that she had moved to a different city with my child and her new beau. My attorney told me that, if I was really lucky, I could get a judge to order visitation and for her to do half the driving. Evidently, my half of the custody didn't mean as much as hers.

For almost 5 years I worked as much as I could and took alternating weekends, or whatever she would give me, until I got the break I had been waiting for. Her 42 year old waiter had been convicted of beating her while the kids were upstairs listening, she had moved back in with her parents but was fighting with them constantly and wanted to move in with her hew boyfriend, some pot-headed 19 year old kid. She realized that without an older boyfriend or her parents she was actually going to have to gasp... be a parent! Well, that sure as shit wasn't going to happen. By this time I had a nice desk job in an upper middle class town and was managing some property on the side. Things were going fairly well on my end. I fed her an out, telling her that it he could have a much better school district if he came to live with me etc. An out was all she needed, she signed over full physical and legal custody faster than the back of her welfare check.
Fast forward a year, she hooks back up with the Denny's waiter and he gets her pregnant with her 3rd child by a 3rd father. He decides that he wants 'his family' whole and insists that she fight to get my son back. The courts, in their infinite wisdom and impartiality, gave her every weekend except the first of the month and half of the summer break. Not too terrible, right?
My son's half sister wasn't 7 months old before Mr Denny's discovers that his precious fiance is pimping herself across the web and to pretty much anyone filthy enough to stoop to her physical level. Shocking, right? She seemed like such an angel. So she moves back in with her parents, into their 2 bedroom trailer in a 55+ community, and resumes her partying ways while her parents do what they've always done and cram Southern Baptist nonsense into the kids' heads while she's out getting loaded and layed. Until my second big break.

It eventually comes to pass that she doesn't take our son to school on a Monday following her weekend. She says he is sick, I say I'll come get him. She says she isn't home, she'll take him to school Tuesday. In the interest of avoiding conflict, I write it down and let it go. I show up at school on Tuesday and her parents call me to say they have him. They couldn't bring him to school for some nebulous reason and his mom is nowhere to be found. My girlfriend discovers, after I was tipped off by Mr Denny's, that my son missed school because his mom took the car and got herself arrested for DUI, driving on a suspended license, possession of marijuana and FELONY POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE. Needless to say, I hire yet another lawyer and file motions for an emergency custody order granting her no visitation, which is signed and ordered.

Coming close to the conclusion, bear with me.

We had a custody hearing wednesday. My attorney suggested that we offer her 2 hours of visitation, every other week, supervised by my father, a retired senior law enforcement official, to demonstrate that we can be reasonable. The judge rejected my dad as the supervisor, basically because my son's mother doesn't like him. She (the judge) appointed her (mother) parents supervisors. Called it a "compromise". A compromise? She's a 35 year old, unemployed, homeless junkie who has 3 kids by 3 father, one of whom was a minor, recently married a total stranger she found on the internet (Oh, yeah, I left that part out) and is under indictment on felony drug charges. Why the fuck do I have to compromise?!

[Felya]

But you CAN reconcile them. You just choose not to. You recognize that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy because it's her own body yet you refuse to recognize that a man should have the right to forfeit his rights/responsibilities to a child if he's unable or unwilling to care for it.

Only if you ignore the fact that the woman feels physical trauma and the man does not, regardless if the choice is to abort or to keep. The woman has no choice but to have physical trauma. A man has as much right to forfeit his responsobility, as the woman has the right to not make a choice between either an abortion or birth.

[Laize]

It only seems that way, because you are ignoring why. This is all a joke, because you are ignoring a major component.

And that major component is? What? She's the one that carries the kid? That's fine and all. It's entirely her right to terminate. But because that's the case, it also means it's entirely her decision whether or not a child is born. If she had no right to terminate, I wouldn't be saying anything about how men should have the right to forfeit their obligations. But she does have that right, so men should have the right to forfeit obligations.

You mean the farmer can't physicaly grow the plant, but is responsible for giving the ground proper treatment? Like sharing the financial burden, so the child can grow properly? If you can see how the farmers treatment of the dirt effects the plant, without him being dirt. Can you give the same regard to women as farmers do to dirt?

I have a feeling your thought process got derailed while you were typing that.

The "reap what you sow" analogy only applies insofar as you're talking about a pregnancy. In the seed example, the man plants the seed and tends the garden then reaps what he sows.

In the pregnancy example all he does is plant the seed. Then the woman chooses whether to allow the child to be born. The man gets no say.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 09:21 AM ----------

Only if you ignore the fact that the woman feels physical trauma and the man does not, regardless if the choice is to abort or to keep. The woman has no choice but to have physical trauma. A man has as much right to forfeit his responsobility, as the woman has the right to not make a choice between either an abortion or birth.

You're going to have to explain the bolded part before I respond... because... "wut"? I'm not seeing what the hell you're trying to say.

The fact that the woman feels a "trauma" doesn't enter into the legalities of rights of the child. The entire point of this discussion is that men (and women, to be fair) have innate rights to a child that they should be allowed to absolve themselves of if they feel they're not ready to support a child. Women can already do this. They're called pro-choice. Men who want to do this are called deadbeat dads.

[Felya]

Here's another good anecdote regarding why Men's Rights need to be taken seriously.

Does OJ trial mean that men can murder their kids mothers and get away with it? An unjust result of our justice system, to be used as an anecdote is not to be taken seriously in the context of men's rights. It should be taken seriously as our court system making a mistake. Blame it on men not having rights, is as serious as blaming the OJ trial on women not having them.

[Laize]

Does OJ trial mean that men can murder their kids mothers and get away with it? An unjust result of our justice system, to be used as an anecdote is not to be taken seriously in the context of men's rights. It should be taken seriously as our court system making a mistake. Blame it on men not having rights, is as serious as blaming the OJ trial on women not having them.

That's hardly a fair anecdote. Do men routinely get away with murdering their wives? Absolutely not! Do men routinely get fucked over by family courts when it comes to their children, alimony, asset splitting and child support? Of course they do. That fact is absolutely undeniable.

[Felya]

And that major component is? What? She's the one that carries the kid? That's fine and all. It's entirely her right to terminate. But because that's the case, it also means it's entirely her decision whether or not a child is born. If she had no right to terminate, I wouldn't be saying anything about how men should have the right to forfeit their obligations. But she does have that right, so men should have the right to forfeit obligations.

She has no right to be pain and surgery free. The ultimate choice on pregnancy is not a right for a woman, but an obligation. The choice is go through medical treatment or go through a different medical treatment. She cannot forfeit her obligation to have to do something about the child inside her, so neither should the men.

If like a man, a woman could have a third option of simply making the fetus disappear, you would have a point. But her only choice is in what sort of damage is done to her, not if the damage is done.

I have a feeling your thought process got derailed while you were typing that.

No, you are simply ignoring the lack of choice a woman has in two options that both result in harming her body. She has no choice to make the baby disappear.

The "reap what you sow" analogy only applies insofar as you're talking about a pregnancy. In the seed example, the man plants the seed and tends the garden then reaps what he sows.

In the pregnancy example all he does is plant the seed. Then the woman chooses whether to allow the child to be born. The man gets no say.

No, the woman has no say either. The child is already being born. Her only choice is how the plant is ripped out of her, not if it is.

You're going to have to explain the bolded part before I respond... because... "wut"? I'm not seeing what the hell you're trying to say.

I am saying is that when the baby is conceived, the woman loses the option to not deal with the reprecussions. Regardless of what she chooses to do, it will be an effect on her body. If a woman makes the same choice as you suggest men should have, the right to do nothing, the baby is born. She lost her right to do nothing, when the baby was conceived. The choice of abortion or birth, versus a man's choice to do nothing or pay, is a joke... Abortion might be like doing nothing for a guy, but it is not for a woman.

The fact that the woman feels a "trauma" doesn't enter into the legalities of rights of the child. The entire point of this discussion is that men (and women, to be fair) have innate rights to a child that they should be allowed to absolve themselves of if they feel they're not ready to support a child. Women can already do this. They're called pro-choice. Men who want to do this are called deadbeat dads.

Men should have as much right to obsolve them selves over the responsobility of a child as a woman does in obsolving her self of having to make a choice of abortion or birth.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 09:46 AM ----------

That's hardly a fair anecdote. Do men routinely get away with murdering their wives? Absolutely not! Do men routinely get fucked over by family courts when it comes to their children, alimony, asset splitting and child support? Of course they do. That fact is absolutely undeniable.

That is only because the cases that reach courts are the ones where at least one party is not happy. That party is usually the one that is stuck with a kid, because prior to birth it's attached. There are people who come to mutually acceptable terms and never head to courts. Courts are already the extremes, because you do not go to court as a result of an ordinary reationship. If your extremes are valid, so are mine. If you can assume most custody cases are unjustly awarded to women, I can just as rightfully assume that men kill their wife. It sounds unreasonable, but I swear I have heard this joke before...

[Laize]

She has no right to be pain and surgery free. The ultimate choice on pregnancy is not a right for a woman, but an obligation. The choice is go through medical treatment or go through a different medical treatment. She cannot forfeit her obligation to have to do something about the child inside her, so neither should the men.

If like a man, a woman could have a third option of simply making the fetus disappear, you would have a point. But her only choice is in what sort of damage is done to her, not if the damage is done.

So you think that because biology puts gestation on the woman, men have no right to complain about her decision? That's a bullshit stance and you know it. Men aren't to blame for biology any more than women are. This is about legal obligations. It's her choice whether to bring a child to term. A man doesn't (and shouldn't) have a say in that. He SHOULD have a say in his obligations to said child.

No, you are simply ignoring the lack of choice a woman has in two options that both result in harming her body. She has no choice to make the baby disappear.

Abortion is a medical procedure, but all that means is there's a process to her choice to make the baby disappear. That doesn't mean the man shouldn't have a choice to make his obligation go away if he never wanted said obligation.

No, the woman has no say either. The child is already being born. Her only choice is how the plant is ripped out of her, not if it is.



I am saying is that when the baby is conceived, the woman loses the option to not deal with the reprecussions. Regardless of what she chooses to do, it will be an effect on her body. If a woman makes the same choice as you suggest men should have, the right to do nothing, the baby is born. She lost her right to do nothing, when the baby was conceived. The choice of abortion or birth, versus a man's choice to do nothing or pay, is a joke... Abortion might be like doing nothing for a guy, but it is not for a woman.



Men should have as much right to obsolve them selves over the responsobility of a child as a woman does in obsolving her self of having to make a choice of abortion or birth.

I'm getting the sense that because women have it physically harder when it comes to pregnancy that men should have no say in the legal obligations to the child... as sort of... a retribution for biology? I'm really not fully grasping what you're putting forward.