TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Charlie Baker's petition to give men the right to give up all legal rights and responsibilities to a child if he does not consent to being a father.

Dai_Einon

June 9, 2015
234 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.change.org/p/charlie-baker-give-men-the-right-to-give-up-all-legal-rights-and-responsibilities-to-a-child-if-he-does-not-consent-to-being-a-father
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Charlie Baker's petition to give men the right to give up all legal rights and responsibilities to a child if he does not consent to being a father.
Author

Dai_Einon

Upvotes 234
Comments 95
Date June 9, 2015 12:00 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/393gr9/charlie_bakers_petition_to_give_men_the_right_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/charlie-bakers-petition-to-give-men-the-right-to.978158
https://theredarchive.com/post/978158

Comments

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Signed.

[–]HugeSaladFork 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Same problem as with all of these petitions. TYPOS! No one takes you seriously if you make typos like this.

Woman enjoy many choices regarding reproduction, namely birth control pills, and abortion. When abortion is not allowed or unwanted, woman still have the choice of being able to give the child up for adoption.

Fucking second sentence, and third. It's WOMEN! Woman is singular.

[–]-Fender- 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was I the only one for whom the right part of the screen, the place where we sign, was in French?

I don't know who Charlie Baker is, but I assumed that he was some French person who happened to have an English version of the description of his petition. If the original is written properly, then I don't really mind the mistakes.

Was I wrong and was it only because of some strange localization thing that Google Chrome did that I got the French writing?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]HugeSaladFork 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oxford comma is debatable, but I tend to not use it.

[–]9outof10experts 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'd be all for this if it was clear about the father deciding at the time of pregnancy or first knowledge. As it stands the petition is all-encompassing. I'm not so cool with the idea of someone playing Dad until they get bored or decide to walk out one day for whatever reason.

[–]shinarit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And you are OK with someone playing Mom until they get bored?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't be that guy... of course he isn't.

[–]shinarit 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I just wanted to point out that if we go for equality, leaving the Mom part and only allowing Dads what /u/9outof10experts said would not cut it.

[–]9outof10experts 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's fine. I was only commenting on the petition. If it reads that I'm making negative implications about fathers or proposing a double standard, that was not my intention.

[–]shinarit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you, but stripping away rights from women might be harder than giving them to men, even if morally it would be the better choice.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's already legal, actually.

[–]autowikibot 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Safe-haven law:


Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the parent. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire stations are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.


Interesting: Jennifer Farrell | Child abandonment | Infant

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]shinarit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was the point. If it's legal for Moms, why not for Dads?

[–]yumameda 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

96 upvotes, 63 sign?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This issue has been brought up several times over the years. It will never happen..

Vasectomy is the probably the only way out of child support

[–]DS_TheDrunkHeavy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And even then, there's still a chance.

[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

about 1 in 1000, from the stats I looked at yesterday

[–]Macismyname 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you talk to the child once you could be declared the father figure and have to pay up. Not actually being the father can not save you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's actually very rare and uncommon, usually only applied to men that allow a pregnant woman to move in with them, and raise it as their own for a few years

[–]chavelah 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's too bad he felt the need to add that part about preemptive custody arrangements. I can't sign that. While a rebuttal presumption of shared custody is an obvious goal for the father's rights movement, only a moron wants to sign a contract dictating how custody will be handled in the event of a specific breakup. What if you break up because the other parent becomes abusive or gets addicted to drugs or gets into a new relationship with a dangerous person? Children are not property. Their custody arrangements must reflect their best interests, which cannot be determined years before their parents decide to separate.

[–]td9red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree this part has some problems in the language that need to be worked out. However, I like the idea of some kind of contract between the couple consenting to parenthood. In addition to protecting men from surprise parenthood, this would also protect women from wasting their time in a relationship with a man who really doesn't want children. If he refuses to sign such a contract it should be clear to the woman that he does not want children and she should look for a partner who wants children.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Do women have this right?

[–]SporkTornado 38 points39 points40 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A woman can get an abortion. She can drop the baby in a safe haven box, and walk away. No questions asked.

[–]Tmomp 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

She can also put the child up for adoption.

She also automatically knows there may be a child. A man may never know.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]jimmywiddle 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats only if the father knows she is going to and is notified. If not it can happen without him even being there.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Really? Where? Not many places, would be my guess.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the case in NY - and most other US states that I'm aware of. If a woman breaks of contact with the father before he is aware that she is pregnant, then there is no requirement that he be informed that the child is being adopted.

[–]Klldarkness 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that's where you're wrong. In this case, custody goes like this:

Mother State Potential adoptee Father

Even if you are aware of the child, if the mother gives the child up, the father has to fight the state for custody. If the child has already been adopted, he has to fight the new family, AND the state, for custody.

These days, when it comes to fatherhood, men are counted only as supportive income.

In some cases, men have lost their cases for custody, and been forced to pay child support to the adopted family, for up to five years.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ahh, thanks.

[–]ICantReadThis 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Indeed they do. Even without abortion or adoption, legal parental surrender is 100% available to women.

In fact, I really wish more women knew they had this legal right.

[–]autowikibot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Safe-haven law:


Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the parent. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire stations are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.


Interesting: Jennifer Farrell | Child abandonment | Infant

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]Spoonwood 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

9 years. It took 9 years from the time that the first safe haven law got passed in Texas until it got passed in all 50 states. That seems pretty fast to me.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]shinarit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, at first I downvoted too, because it looks provocative. But then you think for a second, and he just asked a question, a pretty relevant one. So up he goes.

[–]webpage_down_bot -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mirror

[+]Syloson -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This idea, and the ones like it, are by far the worst ideas I ever see on this subreddit. This is definitely a case of sour grapes. Feminism made it so women don't have responsbilities? Men need some of that irresponsibility too! That way, we can all be equally on the road to societal collapse.

[–]Endless_Summer 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes, women having abortions has ruined society... The fuck are you even talking about?

[+]Syloson -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A society which consistently passes off the responsibility for raising "living" children is one that won't last very long. Abortion might have negative consequences but I wasn't talking about that.

[–]Endless_Summer 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There's absolutely no backing of your claim, based on evidence and common sense.

[–]Syloson -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So who is paying for these kids? Me? Someone has to, unless you want to leave them in a ditch somewhere. People who work have enough responsibility. How much more responsibility do you think I should have?

[–]Endless_Summer 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The mother. Women are strong and independent. If the father decides to opt out financially, and the mother feels she can't properly pay and care for the child, she doesn't have to keep it.

I'm failing to see what your problem is here.

[–]Syloson -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Total pipe dream. Unless you want to force an abortion on women. It will just cause more taxpayer funded single motherhood or thrust more foundlings on the state. Instead, if the state wanted to avoid abdicating reaponsibility, it could do what it is doing, namely, keeping the responsible parties responsible. And, in addition, fix important stuff, like equal custody, for people with bigger problems than trying to go bareback.

[–]Endless_Summer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're ignorance is astounding. There's no response to make to your complete lack of logic.

[–]Syloson 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well played. Always a good idea to attack your opponent rather than their arguments. It shows the purity of your dedication to logic and reason.

[–]jubbergun 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If society agrees, through government, that the impoverished children of women who decided to have children outside of a stable relationship without appropriate financial resources must be cared for then society as a whole can bear that burden. The true abdication of responsibility occurs when society decides to foist that expense onto some poor sod who has no say in whether or not he becomes a father, and in some cases onto some poor sod who can prove he isn't the father.

[+]condemned2bfree -17 points-16 points-15 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

This is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard ... but it's pretty darned close.

No Mother can "give up" her rights to child support. They aren't her rights to give up. They are the child's.

[–]PerniciousOne 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do mothers who give their children up for adoption not have to pay child support? Since it is for the child.

[–]ICantReadThis 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they can.

[–]autowikibot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Safe-haven law:


Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the parent. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire stations are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.


Interesting: Jennifer Farrell | Child abandonment | Infant

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]condemned2bfree -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

At that point she is no longer the child's parent. No rights or obligations.

[–]bad_news_everybody 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, yes. That's exactly what this petition is about, a man wishing to not be the child's parent, with no rights or obligations.

[–]condemned2bfree -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes but in your example above neither party would be financially responsible to raise the child, where it would like be adopted by a 2-parent family. Your petition would leave only one parent responsible.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Adoption in many jurisdictions does not require two parents. Single individuals may adopt.

[–]my_name_is_gato 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So where do the dropbox babies go to collect their check? Even if she is unfit and the state has to terminate her parental rights, she won't be required to pay support.

[–]chavelah -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women with children in the foster system are absolutely required to pay support.

When parental rights are terminated by the court for failure to address the issues that led to the child being placed in foster care, support obligations cease for parents of both sexes. Sometimes judges forgive outstanding child support debt at that time, and sometimes they do not. But that depends on the judge.

Foundlings (Safe Haven babies) never receive support from either biological parent, but are fast-tracked for adoption and are generally being supported by their real parents within days of entering the system.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Technically, yes. But, at least in my jurisdiction, it's at the discretion of the state and is rarely enforced. Most biological parents of foster children are not required to pay support. Noncustodial parents of single-parent-household children, on the other hand, are pursued to the ends of the earth.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In my jurisdiction, support is ALWAYS ordered on both biological parents (assuming the biological father has been indentified) when a child is in foster care. Do they always pay? Hell, no. But they are held to the same standard and suffer the same consequences as any other noncustodial parent who doesn't pay their court-ordered support. Their asses will land in jail. I believe that the entire system in my state is a bit harsh, but at least it doesn't chase down divorced dads who are trying their best while letting actual deadbeats go their merry way.

[–]hsm4ever 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

what about the right to live for the child?

[–]condemned2bfree -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure children have the right to live. But let me know if you heard something different.

[–]hsm4ever 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah, they have the right to live yet your right to kill them, aka abortion, triumph that right. "We care a lot about our children but if we don't want them they are not human and don't have rights" - a compassionate feminist

[–]Twitchypanda 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ever heard of abortion?

[–]condemned2bfree 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's called a fetus, not a child.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What do you call abortion? Not giving up their rights and responsibilities?

[–]condemned2bfree 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I call it a medical procedure by which a woman terminated a pregnancy. What do you call it?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's both, obviously. But you clearly aren't here for an intellectually honest argument, so kindly drop dead.

[+]DavidByron2 -28 points-27 points-26 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

This still doesn't represent fairness. A kid is brought into the world and the best offer for the father is not have to pay for someone else's decision, but they only get that right by giving up their natural rights as a parent. In addition they have no reproductive control. They still have a kid, but now they have no rights with respect to the kid.

My solution is that unless both parents agree to have the kid the kid goes into adoption automatically so neither parent has to pay for it, worry about it, have any rights about it or know anything about it. Both parents have identical rights and identical responsibilities, or as close as can be.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My solution is that unless both parents agree to have the kid the kid goes into adoption automatically

You've lost your motherfucking mind.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, that's you.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

you're boring

[–]MacaroniShits 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

That's a joke, right?

"Sorry, kid. I know you want to be with your mom, and your mom wants to be with you, but your dad doesn't want to be with you, so you don't get to be with anyone. Have fun in the foster care system!"

[+]DavidByron2 -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You believe women have the god given right to force men into parenthood, and I do not.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DavidByron2 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't know what a strawman is. Hint: it's your actual opinion I'm attacking here.

[–]MacaroniShits 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, unlike you, I am fully aware what a strawman is. Let me educate you:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

In other words, where you claimed that I "believe women have the god given right to force men into parenthood", despite me never saying anything remotely close to that. So, again, nice strawman.

Also, I'm not going to waste my time responding to two of your comment strings, so keep it to one.

[–]td9red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How is a man being forced into parenthood if he can surrender his rights?

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You've downgraded the concept of equality to merely financial responsibility but there's a lot of other reasons you might not want to be a parent.

[–]td9red 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But, under your scenario, he is still a parent. Even if the baby is forced into adoption, he would still be a parent. The only difference is that a mother who wanted to parent her child alone would be a parent without any rights to her child. Your plan is not about freeing men, its about hurting women.

[+]DavidByron2 -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You think newborn babies understand English?

I would imagine that lacking the right to unilaterally land a man with a baby, more women would seek to adopt under this system, wouldn't you?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]DavidByron2 -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

if the man doesn't want to have the child

If either parent -- equality. Ever heard of that?

then the child is taken away from the woman

From both of them -- equality. ever heard of that concept?

This doesn't increase the amount of children being adopted, but it most certainly throws a lot more children into the system.

Obviously that is not true.

Your system doesn't give rights to men

Obviously it does. It's like you don't comprehend basic English words isn't it?

you think the state should be able to waltz in and say ...we're going to be taking your child from you

That's what the state already does. But only to the men of course. Have you ever heard of this thing called equality?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DavidByron2 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Just because you say a word a lot doesn't make it mean anything

Not to you at least.

That is taking away rights

Correct. You don't or shouldn't have the right to force someone else to become a parent against their will. You disagree. You think people should be able to force men to become parents against their will.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well that's exactly what you believe.

[–]Sparker96 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even if the child is put up for adoption, the man has been forced to become a parent against his will. How does it change anything for the man if the child is with the woman or in the system?

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it's as close as you can get. If you are going to be forced to have a kid at least it can be a kid that you don't know anything about and that nobody else does either.

If the mother keeps the kid the it's completely different. That's your kid and you're going to feel responsible. You're going to be tied to the mother for the rest of your life because of it too.

I think that makes a huge difference. You can't see that?

[–]td9red -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your solution is not fairness. Reproduction is not fair to men and women. Women have far more responsibility when it comes to procreation, such as carrying and delivering a baby.

Men's road to parenthood --sex---------------> he's a parent

Women's road to parenthood--sex--pregnancy--possible death---body disfigurement--delivery------> she's a parent

Further, while I fully support abortion rights I would prefer that abortion be rare. Your position would lead to more abortions. Not many women are going to want to go forward with a pregnancy knowing they will not be able to keep their child. That's why babies are in high demand. Adoptive parents are going to other countries to get babies.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

such as carrying and delivering a baby

How is that a "responsibility"? a responsibility to whom? for what? It's a choice not a responsibility.

Women's road to parenthood

Or adopt.

Your position would lead to more abortions

I don't see why. Ever heard of contraception?

Not many women are going to want to go forward with a pregnancy knowing they will not be able to keep their child

yeah it's almost as if they ought to get the father to agree voluntarily and not by force.

[–]Syloson 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if she raped him that's a different matter. Then this petition makes some sense.

[–]td9red -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With fairness in mind I think women should carry the baby for 4.5 months and men the other 4.5 months. Equality!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter