I came across a thread in this sub that was discussing a man leaving the country because the woman he impregnated decided not to abort the child as he had desired. While all parties in the comments seemed to agree that men and women are clearly treated differently under the law in terms of parentage, there seemed to be two main groups that disagreed as to the solution for this disconnent:

(i) the "abortion/abandonment" group who state that since the mother can physically abort a child and thereby avoid parenthood, a father should be able to financinally/legally "abort"

(ii) the "responsibility" group that state sex opens both parents to the possibility of a child and both parents should be held responsible for supporting the child and not aborting/abandoning it.

It seems to me that this is really a fubdamental difference in how the term "rights" is understood and given that the sub is titled "Men's Rights" we should likely have an understanding amongst each other as to what those terms mean. The following questions are to stimulate the discussion.

1) Are rights "nautural", that is something inherent to each person regardless of age, race, status, etc and merely recognized by civil govenrments or are they actually privileges that are granted by the government and thereby subject to change/removal?

2) Are some natural and some privileges? If so, which are which?

3) Can one person's rights ever supercede over another individuals? If so, under what circumstances would this be moral?

If others have additional questions, add them. Hopefully this spawns some interesting dialogue.

As a closing note, this is not intended to be a discussion about abortion, it's about rights. Abortion is included in the discussion only because it is relevant to the context setting up this discussion on rights. Please avoid making all the discussion about the issue if abortion and focus the conversation on the deeper issues regarding the nature of rights.