DodoForASK Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ They're normal as in they are natural. They naturally occur in nature and have forever. If you're saying they're not normal since it's an external factor or something that isn't the normal state of being, then pregnancy also wouldn't be normal, since it's caused by an external factor and is not the normal, baseline state of being.	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 08:46 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I know this isn't what you meant, but doesn't that line of reasoning lead to rejecting any medical intervention? It's "natural" to have heart attacks, strokes, erectile dysfunction, foreskin, poor vision, etc. Just because it's a natural "normally working biological function" doesn't mean we're obliged to follow it through or not intervene.	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 08:11 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ Nothing is sacred, killing is simply wrong when not for good reason This sounds similar to the pro-choice argument, though. Obviously you disagree on what a "good reason" entails, but if life isn't sacred than why is aborting to avoid permanent physical changes, 18+ years of being tied down, and potentially bringing a person into existence in a poor situation bad? Maybe I'm reading too much into "nothing is sacred," but if you really feel that way then why do you also feel so strongly for aborti…	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 05:40 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment, and I don't wanna assume and take something out of context. Especially if what's inconvenient?	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 05:24 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I’m just saying you are making a decision for someone. The kicker here is that you are also making the decision for someone to bring them into existence. Is that moral? Or ethically "positive"? If bringing children into existence is a net good, then doesn't that mean it's bad (or at least not-good) to not have as many kids as possible starting as early as possible?	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 05:23 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I'm sorry to copy/paste again, I don't want to seem lazy, but I did somewhat address this further down the thread: Instead of half-heartedly raising a kid, they abort. Suggesting that all unwanted kids go to an already overflowing foster care system (that will almost certainly be overflowing even more if abortions are banned) where they'll have a poor future isn't really a good alternative to half-heartedly raising them so that they have a poor future. I hate to say this, because I don't want to…	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 01:11 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ If you're hypothetically okay with letting the human race die out, then how do you reconcile that with thinking abortion is immoral? If human life is sacred, then isn't allowing that life to go extinct also wrong? I'm curious, because I don't think I've ever seen a pro-life anti-natalist before.	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 12:35 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I mentioned further down the thread: Adoption/foster kids are already stressing the system more than it can really handle, and they're not statistically likely to have good futures. The people who would get an abortion are not heartless people who think a born child shouldn't be provided for and given the best chance possible at a good future. Banning abortion means that the already overloaded foster system will receive even more children, and none of them are likely to have good futures, or to …	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 12:32 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ Wouldn't that depend on your job?...Do you think that coal miners down in a mine getting black lung really have it easier than the mother of their children? Yeah, signing the check is easy, but making a buck is awfully hard labor for some people. I understand and agree with you, just also want to point out that those people usually are stuck in those difficult jobs whether or not they have child support payments. Child support isn't the main cause or reason people with difficult jobs have diffic…	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 12:30 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ There's no marriage/divorce/ child support or spousal support or a justice system in nature but human beings have them. I understand that, the person I responded to implied banning abortion made sense because surgery was "unnatural." Appeals to nature are rarely sound for arguing legality/morality.	/r/MensRights	17/05/19 12:24 PM
2	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I don't really disagree with any of your points here; I just want to point out that courts have awarded custody to the father before and ordered the mother to pay child support in cases of rape or the mother being an unfit parent.	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 07:39 PM
2	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ They can also be raped, have their sperm stolen, or give sperm away as a gift (direct sperm donation) and get liable for child support. Women can also be raped, be lied to about condom usage ("stealthed"), and impregnated by accident if birth control fails. So my comment still applies. They face similar obstacles, but punishing women because men face certain struggles over a separate issue isn't how any rights movement has ever been successful.	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 07:07 PM
2	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ I don't think you're getting where I'm coming from. I am pro-choice (within reason), however what I am saying is that either it's acceptable to force both sexes to live with the consequences of sex or it's not acceptable for either to have their fate sealed at the moment of conception. One or the other. Right now in most places, women have choice while men do not. Sorry for assuming your position, thanks for the explanation. Roofing in july is harder than playing a DVD in your pajamas. Sorry. Th…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 05:20 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ Do you support abstinence for men until compulsory child support is abolished also? That would also solve the issue of paying on a child you didn't want.	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 04:56 PM
1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ Probably work to support the baby. In a case like Alabama, where she doesn't have a choice about it, she's just in the same situation that men have always been in. In other states where she does have the choice, it's irrelevant, because she chose to take on that burden, unlike the men who were not given that choice. That's the important part: Consent. If it's wrong to force men to pay child support, then why is it okay to force women to carry to term? Especially when it's much harder to care for…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 04:46 PM
2	I've been feeling quite upset over the whole controversy with Alabama and Georgia, was hoping I could get some feedback here I believe that everyone deserves to have kids if they want them though, and I just couldn't stand to see someone have that taken away from them with no say I understand losing kids you want is always hard and sad. As another point of view, it's well known that having two involved parents in a kids life is much better in every way for the child, and so many times on here you'll see the arguments for how it's unfair and wrong to force a father to be involved if he didn't want a kid. The difference…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 04:29 PM
0	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ 18 - 25 years of indentured servitude is a hell of a lot more physically straining than the average pregnancy I don't agree with this, but even if it's true, what do you think the mother is doing for those 18+ years? I'd say it's much easier to sign a check every month than to be the caregiver of a child for 18+ years, and that's the option I'd choose every time. while men are forced to pay (through taxes or otherwise) for women to exercise a "right" that men aren't even allowed to have AFAIK ta…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 04:11 PM
2	I've been feeling quite upset over the whole controversy with Alabama and Georgia, was hoping I could get some feedback here I'm saying the child support payments should be so much more ridiculously high that it dissuades any men from forcing to go through with pregnancies out of spite by lying that they want to be involved I understand your point, and I appreciate where you're coming from. Something to consider is that being pregnant and giving birth have permanent physical tolls on women that men don't have to experience. So it's hard to say that a man's "I want a kid" cancels out a woman's "I don't want a kid and I…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 03:59 PM
-1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ So if a woman has a condition that requires her to have a C-section to deliver, can she abort? Because then she would be forced to have surgery she doesn't want if she went to full term. Carrying a baby to term is natural, surgery is not. Nature is never a good argument for what is acceptable. Rape is natural in the animal kingdom, dying of a heart attack without medical intervention is natural, vaccines are unnatural, etc.	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 03:08 PM
-1	Unbelievable. Suggesting we take the rights away from boys, then saying if you're against doing that to boys that means you're FOR taking rights from women 🤦🏼‍♀️ If you don't want kids, learn to like anal or use better birth control. This doesn't make sense to me, we wouldn't tell men "if you don't want child support, learn to be gay or be better at using condoms." Just saying "learn to like anal" is so selfish and makes no sense. If men don't want kids but are still forced to be a father, they don't have to risk their lives, they don't get permanent physical changes, they don't suffer loss of wages or fall behind in the workforce, and they're not usuall…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 02:58 PM
1	I've been feeling quite upset over the whole controversy with Alabama and Georgia, was hoping I could get some feedback here To prevent lying and forcing women to go through with pregnancies by saying they plan to be involved with the child out of spite with their ex, when in fact men had no intention of doing so, it could be threatened that these men would have to pay a substantially larger amount of child support in this case, and see their kids on a quarterly basis. If you ignore the permanent physical toll and the risks pregnancy entails for women (and women alone, not the fathers), then this is still not an accur…	/r/MensRights	16/05/19 02:37 PM