It's not fair. | MensRights

[–]reg8392748 35 points36 points37 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]reg8392748 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Consider a related gender neutral legal situation. Assume parent signs a release form for a child to go to an amusement park which states the amusement park will not be legally liable for any injuries. The roller coaster breaks, child is hurtled to the ground and becomes a quadriplegic.

In most States, that release form is legally worthless and the child can still sue for monetary damages. In that lawsuit, the parents can't agree to settle the child's case for any sum of money without the permission of a judge.

The law and public policy is to protect the child's interests, which is seen as a higher value in this situation than the rights of the parents to make decisions which may financially harm the child.

So should the child who is a quadriplegic be prohibited from financial recovery because his parent signed a release form to get him into the amusement park? I would say no. The child's interests should be protected.

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The law makes an exception for sperm donors, as long as they use a doctor or licensed clinic. Frankly, the original reasoning was to allow infertile married couples to have children. So the presumption was that there would be a non-biological father already involved. It has now evolved into some (very few) single women choosing this as a reproductive avenue. However, the cost is so high that poor single women unable to support children will almost never have this option. So it is not really seen as a significant burden on the taxpayers. Recall that law is a balance of social policy and competing interests. If a lot of poor single women started having children through sperm banks that needed to be supported by taxpayers, you can reasonably expect the law to change. Note the case of "octo-mom" who had all those kids through artificial means and promptly needed welfare to support them. I will have to look it up, but her doctor was brutally criticized and may have lost his license, and laws restricting the number of fertilized eggs implanted may have been implemented.

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karissa362 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]REDDITCanSuckMyCOCK1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, I definitely do.

You think forcing someone to carry a child to term is the right way to go?

I am holding both to the same expectations, but in a framework that acknowledges the realities that the situation exists in.

Your argument doesn't really promote the cultivation of a willing partnership as much as it cultivates a reality where there is literally nothing at stake for men. Honestly, it's ridiculous to read all these reasons that use "fairness" and "equality" to promote a method of abandonment from responsibility.

The choice was made to take part in an activity that creates life. Due to the realities of our human bodies, options are different for each party.

If there were some way to prove that the parties involved in the act knew that there was no interest in having a child prior to having sex, and went on with the act fully knowing that the man would not be interested in raising the possible child then I would agree that he shouldn't be responsible.

It doesn't make sense, at least to me, to give the non child bearing party a free pass from responsibility when they helped create a situation where that responsibility is known to exist.

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, these arguments tend to blend together for me sometimes.

I think that since the biological process takes place in a woman's body, it inherently provides her with more options. That makes all the difference in my understanding of how the responsibilities get laid out. If it took place outside of both parties, then they should have the same exact options. But with how the process occurs currently, then I can't not consider the roles different.

If there was an agreement to keep the child, and the pregnant party changes their mind within the window of time where it is legal to have an abortion, I think that she should still be able to have said abortion no matter the agreement. I would hope she sticks to it but if she doesn't, then I don't think it would be right to stop that. Maybe try to reason with her but I don't agree with removing the option.

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Frittern 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sclift 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[+]phatphace -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 34 points35 points36 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

What exactly do you plan on doing? Force women to have abortions?

No.

Cheapen the role of fatherhood by saying he can impregnate a woman

Notice how you make the man the actor here and the woman the passive object acted upon.

Who, in the post Roe v Wade world, has the ultimate say in whether a fetus becomes a child?

then run away placing the entirety of the burden on her? Isn't that unfair?

Isn't he abandoning a zygote which is part of her body and her choice?

I mean, you'd be hard bent to find someone in favour of refusing paternity tests when a father is unsure if a child is his

Actually it's quite easy. That's the law in some countries. And feminists tend to support these bans.

, but the initial points indicate how far right wing this sub is on reproduction rights.

How so? The "man up and accept your responsibilities" mantra is pretty strong on the right. Think of a shotgun wedding. Are you imagining a bunch of hippies on the west coast?

It's about bodily autonomy.

If she wants a kid she can talk to him like an adult and find a willing partner who will assume shared responsibility. If she doesn't feel like doing that she can have an abortion or accept the consequences of her actions, like an adult.

Imagine if men could easily and unilaterally adopt.

How much sympathy would a man get if he presented this kid he adopted on his way home to his girlfriend and declared as a fait accompli that they would be sharing the burden for 18 years even though she was adamantly against kids and only consented to sex?

She had sex with him. He wants a kid. The kid exists now and needs support. What is she, a deadbeat?

Woman up and raise this kid you never consented to.

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

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]phatphace -23 points-22 points-21 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Notice how you make the man the actor here and the woman the passive object acted upon.

Wow, so you actually acknowledge the paternalistic constructs of language? To be fair, I don't know a neutral phrase to describe the means by which pregnancy is caused.

And feminists tend to support these bans.

Go on. Prove it.

The "man up and accept your responsibilities" mantra is pretty strong on the right.

Yes. So is the, "She should have just closed her legs," mantra. Further, so is the demonisation of single mothers as sluts, whores, the cause of society's problems etc.

If she wants a kid she can talk to him like an adult and find a willing partner who will assume shared responsibility.

This might be a revelation to you, but not all pregnancies are intentional, and not all women are secretly plotting to 'spermjack' men.

How much sympathy would a man get if he presented this kid he adopted on his way home to his girlfriend and declared as a fait accompli that they would be sharing the burden for 18 years even though she was adamantly against kids and only consented to sex?

This is about the shittiest MRA analogy I've encountered to date.

As I've stated, pregnancies happen unintentionally. You can't accidentally adopt a child.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Wow, so you actually acknowledge the paternalistic constructs of language? To be fair, I don't know a neutral phrase to describe the means by which pregnancy is caused.

Er, no that's not a problem with the language. Just with your word choice.

He got her pregnant.

She got pregnant.

Same language. Same idea. Very different implications.

Go on. Prove it.

Um, ok. The ban in France was supported by feminists.

Yes. So is the, "She should have just closed her legs," mantra.

So it seems the right treats men and women equally shitty on this. While the left only treats men shittily.

Which would make this concept neither left nor right. So how can you claim it's right wing when you just acknowledged it isn't?

Further, so is the demonisation of single mothers as sluts, whores, the cause of society's problems etc.

That isn't happening here. Nice strawman though.

This might be a revelation to you, but not all pregnancies are intentional, and not all women are secretly plotting to 'spermjack' men.

So?

How does that change anything I said?

She gets pregnant on purpose, if she wants a partner she should talk to him before things progress.

She gets pregnant by accident, literally the exact same scenario should follow.

This is about the shittiest MRA analogy I've encountered to date.

"lalalalala can't hear you!"

Please attempt addressing that. Remember, the only thing preventing that from happening are laws which could be changed.

As I've stated, pregnancies happen unintentionally. You can't accidentally adopt a child.

And pregnancies happen intentionally too.

Is it your belief that men are only forced in to parenthood for deliberate pregnancies?

And even when accidental she still has the choice not to be a parent. He doesn't.

Can you acknowledge this fact?

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

The ban in France was supported by feminists.

Great source, random internet person!

While the left only treats men shittily.

If a woman wants to hand the man from whom she got pregnant (Does that meet your lingual standards?) their child that he wanted and run off, as countless fathers do, is she absolved from having to pay child support?

Also, is that an admission to my initial claim this sub has right-wing views on reproductive rights?

That isn't happening here. Nice strawman though.

Never said it was, just that this sub tends to have less than savoury views on single mothers which confirms my suspicion of a right-wing slant.

And even when accidental she still has the choice not to be a parent. He doesn't.

Can you acknowledge this fact?

Yes.

My major issue is coming at this issue with an axe rather than scalpel. If a man wants the woman to keep the child, how much say does he have? At what point does a man's wishes infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy?

What about men who get cold feet around the time a baby is born and opt for legal parent surrender? What if he bails on a relationship many years after the birth and wants no financial responsibility?

Abortion isn't as affordable or accessible it should be, nor is contraception nor decent sex education. The maladjustive, often abusive hell that are foster homes isn't something most people want to inflict on something they've carried for nine months if unable to find adoptive parents.

Its an extremely complex issue exacerbated by the inherent unfairness of biology - these decisions rest on the mother's shoulders while the man throws his hands up and exclaim, "Not my problem!"

To quote Roe v. Wade:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

This isn't anti-male, its pro-child who never asked to be born in a country where welfare is the devil.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great source, random internet person!

I thought you were trolling with that. Are you honestly ignorant of the ban on paternity testing in France?

If a woman wants to hand the man from whom she got pregnant (Does that meet your lingual standards?) their child that he wanted and run off, as countless fathers do, is she absolved from having to pay child support?

What? Can you rephrase this in english.

Also, is that an admission to my initial claim this sub has right-wing views on reproductive rights?

No?

Are you suffering from a learning disability?

The right wing wants to force both mothers and fathers to be parents for the "sin" of having sex.

The MRM wants neither.

How can you take "wants to force men to be parents" to mean "doesn't want to force men to be parents"?

They are quite literally the exact opposite sentiment.

That's like saying the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd are on the same side.

Never said it was, just that this sub tends to have less than savoury views on single mothers which confirms my suspicion of a right-wing slant.

Great source, random internet person!

Yes.

Huzzah! I think this is the first time you've said one accurate thing. Don't blow it in the followup . . .

My major issue is coming at this issue with an axe rather than scalpel. If a man wants the woman to keep the child, how much say does he have? At what point does a man's wishes infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy?

. . . damn. Well you kept it going as long as you could. All that has been addressed.

At no point has anyone said that the ultimate decision to abort or carry to term isn't 100% the woman's.

Proponents of forced fatherhood such as yourself always seem to have this reading comprehension issue such that no matter how many times it is refuted you still come back with "forced abortions".

"Er . . .so like you guys want to force women to have abortions?"

No, that is the opposite of what we want. Women are and ought to be free to have abortions as they wish.

"So you're saying you want forced abortions?

I'm saying the opposite. The literal exact opposite. Forced abortions are abhorrent.

"Aha! Gotcha! You just said you wanted forced abortions!"

Sigh . . .

What about men who get cold feet around the time a baby is born and opt for legal parent surrender?

I would say that consent is not assumed (surely you can agree with that concept) so it's not a matter of getting "cold feet". He either opts in and can be a parent or he doesn't. If he doesn't during the pregnancy he can't come back and demand his rights later. So if he has opted in during the pregnancy he then has assumed legal obligations and cannot back out.

This is another one of those reading disability things where you will continue to come back with "aha, you're saying the father can bail at any point even if he's raised the kid for half it's life!" things.

What if he bails on a relationship many years after the birth and wants no financial responsibility?

See?

Abortion isn't as affordable or accessible it should be

Cheaper and more accessible for a woman than a man. Surely you'd agree?

And if you want to fight to make it cheaper and easier you have my, and likely most MRAs, support.

, nor is contraception nor decent sex education.

So men can't have rights because women don't have it perfect?

The maladjustive, often abusive hell that are foster homes isn't something most people want to inflict on something they've carried for nine months if unable to find adoptive parents.

So only have kids you intend to keep.

What a nightmare world that would be eh? One where both parents sit down like adults and discuss the feasibilty of having a child and only do so when it can be brought in to a loving and supportive home with two parents capable and willing to support it.

Yeesh.

Literal hell on earth.

You realize your system of forced nonconsensual parenthood means more kids going in to the system or being raised in one parent homes right?

Its an extremely complex issue exacerbated by the inherent unfairness of biology - these decisions rest on the mother's shoulders while the man throws his hands up and exclaim, "Not my problem!"

So like those with the power to make a decision bear the consequences of that decision?

How awful!

To quote Roe v. Wade:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

So presumably you oppose the right women have to abandon their kid after it's born? Safe havens and adoption . . . nope. That is a child she chose to create. It needs support. Take her paycheck every month for 18 years or send her to jail.

Right? You support that yes?

This isn't anti-male, its pro-child who never asked to be born in a country where welfare is the devil.

Funny how "best interests of the child" only apply when it involves stripping men of their rights.

Divorce is bad for kids.

So are single parents.

Why do women have the right to do that to kids? Shouldn't we be "pro-child"?

[–]phatphace0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So only have kids you intend to keep.

What a nightmare world that would be eh? One where both parents sit down like adults and discuss the feasibilty of having a child and only do so when it can be brought in to a loving and supportive home with two parents capable and willing to support it.

This seems to contradict this statement:

I'm saying the opposite. The literal exact opposite. Forced abortions are abhorrent.

For a whole host of reasons, including religious belief, women may not have abortions. A lot of women are against them. Once again, not all children are intentional.

In fact, in most of these parental disputes (because you're really clinging to the idea women are these monsters poking holes in their partner's condoms or 'forgetting' to take the pill), the issue is an accidental child (see: teen mums and the thousands of fathers who run off and aren't held responsible). Like, I know its easy to argue your case by ignoring major contextual factors, but it gets pretty annoying having to constantly reel you back in.

He either opts in and can be a parent or he doesn't.

How does this system of 'opting-in' work?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This seems to contradict this statement:

That's because you're an idiot and you aren't reading what I write.

You literally see the two options as getting pregnant with no input from your partner or forced abortions. Nothing in between.

Obviously that's absurd. So I won't address this any more.

For a whole host of reasons, including religious belief, women may not have abortions. A lot of women are against them. Once again, not all children are intentional.

Still her choice. Given that its her say if she chooses not to get an abortion for any reason she's choosing to have a kid.

Or as you would tell men: don't have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. Maybe he lied to you about being sterile. Oh well, don't have sex with someone you apparently can't trust.

Now woman up and raise that kid!

(sucks when it goes the other way...)

In fact, in most of these parental disputes (because you're really clinging to the idea women are these monsters poking holes in their partner's condoms or 'forgetting' to take the pill)

Straw man. We'll ignore this.

the issue is an accidental child (see: teen mums and the thousands of fathers who run off and aren't held responsible).

So it becomes a child immediately? There isn't a stage where it's just some cluster of cells that she can discard?

I guess abortions are murder then.

Like, I know its easy to argue your case by ignoring major contextual factors, but it gets pretty annoying having to constantly reel you back in.

You've presented nothing but straw and misunderstanding.

How does this system of 'opting-in' work?

Declaring in a way that can be proven later that you assume parental rights and responsibilities. For women that declaration is obvious.

For men it would need to be a contact.

[–]phatphace0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You literally see the two options as getting pregnant with no input from your partner or forced abortions. Nothing in between.

Not really. I see the two options as accidental pregnancy or the mother getting herself pregnant from a man without his consent, for which there are laws protecting men and the incident rate is staggeringly low.

With no financial recourse from the state or the father, this is forcing an abortion on the mother. Otherwise, she has the child and lives in debt or subjects them to oftentime abusive and neglectful care of a foster home - not exactly 'pro-child' as you try to spin the situation.

Not to say this isn't currently happening, also, as the 'financial abortion' of legging it is still commonplace for men and has been throughout history.

Maybe he lied to you about being sterile. Oh well, don't have sex with someone you apparently can't trust.

Now woman up and raise that kid!

How am I strawmanning you when every analogy you give indicates a coercive, one-sided cause of pregnancy rather than accidental?

Also, the mindset of, "don't have sex with someone you apparently can't trust. Now woman up and raise that kid!" is the norm, so its not much of a mindbender to see it 'the other way'. Many women have men's word and trust them to stick around only to have a rude awakening and be told, "You should have kept your legs closed!"

So it becomes a child immediately? There isn't a stage where it's just some cluster of cells that she can discard?

No, but we do have to question why there are still so many fatherless teen mothers when abortion is becoming more available. These are the complexities of the issue, involving class, education, accessibility etc. which these conversations don't address.

What recourse do mothers have when they are teens and can't gain parental consent? When there is no access to abortion, or are heavily stigmatised, or traumatic for the mother?

Further, why not campaign for state welfare to single parents indiscriminate of gender, benefiting everyone? As I put in not very plain english earlier, there's no doubt mothers who have a child, hand it to the father and aren't heard from again.

Declaring in a way that can be proven later that you assume parental rights and responsibilities. For women that declaration is obvious.

What should happen to men who just run off and don't do this?

[–]Shakespeares_Ghost-12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]JohnnyNumbskull 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Phatphaec your bias is showing.....

The parternalistic constructs of language huh? Yep language forced you to create a phrase where all action is taken away from one party and given to another... This is classic propaganda slight-of-hand and isn't just the patriarchy trying to put women down through a language developed as a collective utterances of 7 billion people....

Go on. Prove it - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/

The demonization of single mothers is actually a religious right thing, not a conservative in general thing. And whatever their slogans... we all know they are batshit crazy so why are you even taking them into account? In science when you have extreme outliers I believe you are meant to disregard them as error....

A pregnancy might not be intentional but its doesn't mean they cannot act like adults when the reality is found out. You are putting the spermjacking thing into this subject... I don't really know why... but the fact of the matter is that whatever the woman's intentions, the two adults in a real situation that will have life changing repercussions for all involved... if this is not a time to talk open and honestly, I don't know what is...

And finally you should here some of the analogies that feminists come up with to legitimize their bullshit attitudes... just see all the fake rape reports... the fake sexual harassment reports... o and if you didn't go read that article earlier, now would be a good time to do so because it lists some more.

All in all no one is saying this is a perfect world... Very far from it, but protected class status at the expense of others is not equality... to be honest it is a bit patronizing, I feel, to women who society thinks aren't capable of competing or living like the rest of us so thus need a step up or a safety net if things fall through.. so I will close in saying this... Check your privilege bro...

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

This might be a revelation to you, but not all pregnancies are intentional, and not all women are secretly plotting to 'spermjack' men.

So... you're saying that because it's rare, we shouldn't bother to address the issue?

This is about the shittiest MRA analogy I've encountered to date. As I've stated, pregnancies happen unintentionally. You can't accidentally adopt a child.

That's irrelevant. The choice on what to do about the accidental pregnancy happens intentionally. Every woman who has had a child after an accidental pregnancy, has that child by choice. Her choices were to have the child or to have an abortion, and she chose the first one.

You're acting like everything just happens to a woman, and that she has no choice or control over anything. You phrase it like someone makes her pregnant and the child just pops out. She CHOSE to have sex just like the man did, and she CHOSE to have the child (while the man had no choice). You avoid placing any responsibility at all on the woman.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If LPS is handled like a pre-nup, a voluntary contract between two people that states in the event of an accidental pregnancy then 100% of the rights and responsibilities belong to her, then there is no reason for the public to object. We're not talking about letting men just say "fuck this, I'm outta here" after the child is born and just not have to pay child support if they don't feel like it.

But it simply is not co-opting or taking the choice away from a woman by refusing to agree to help her pay for something that she wants. If you want a new iPad but I refuse to help you out by paying half the price for you, I'm not robbing you of your opportunity to buy an iPad. If you want something, you have to pay for it yourself, and you aren't entitled to someone else's money to help pay for it.

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice try, but more than two people are involved.

No there's not. There is no child. There is no embryo or fetus. There is nothing at all.

For fuck's sake, you can't write laws to protect the rights of nonexistent potential children! What's next, a couple isn't allowed to break up because they might have one day had beautiful kids together? And this is getting off topic, but if there were laws to protect "potential children", an abortion ban would be one of the first things on that list.

just because they would prefer to drive a nicer car or some other kind of foolishness.

WTF do cars have to do with this? Who in the world is driving nice cars and how in the world does that affect reproductive rights?

What penalty is there under your system to prevent men from having 20 children and supporting none of them? Right, zero. Nope, you will never convince voters and taxpayers to go along with that.

Because men just have children, just like that. Men just make these children all by themselves, and pop them out into society.

And did you completely forget what we're discussing? We're talking about men who DON'T want to have children. Men who DON'T want to become a father. Men who DON'T want to reproduce and put more kids out into the world.

It's the WOMEN who are choosing, all by themselves, to have a child and raise it by themselves. It's solely her choice, because it's her body. And she is choosing to have the child by herself, knowing she's on her own, without anyone else's help.

BTW good job assuming that no women are capable of affording to raise a child on their own, and that no women who can't afford to raise a child would ever be smart enough to choose abortion.

Your bias in this discussion is just ridiculous, you see men as the only actors, and men as the only ones responsible for anything. A man states that he never wants to become a parent, and is responsible enough to use an LPS contract (to which the woman agrees). A condom breaks and there's an accidental pregnancy, the man says again that he doesn't want a child, the man encourages her to choose abortion, but she refuses and insists on having the child by herself, knowing that no one will financially support her.

And how did you frame this? "Men just going around having children". You're unable to put ANY agency or responsibility on the woman.

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For fuck's sake, you can't write laws to protect the rights of nonexistent potential children!

Of course you can. Any food made with flour that you eat today in the U.S. by law has an increased amount of folic acid specifically to prevent neurological deformities in fetuses who may not be conceived yet. The rubella shot that the majority of Americans must have to attend public school is not to protect them from rubella. Rubella (also known as German measles) is a benign mild 3 day illness. Except it causes severe birth defects if a pregnant woman gets it, so everyone including men and boys is vaccinated. Try writing up a contract agreeing to the adoption of your first born (not yet conceived) biological child. Even in the context of planned surrogate mothers few States will enforce it, which is why the vast majority of surrogate mothers today are impregnated only with donor eggs. Lawyers write Wills that protect the rights of non-existent potential children all the time.

We also have laws that protect the rights of fetuses. Abortion laws generally prohibit abortion after a certain period of pregnancy (except if needed to preserve the health of the mother) specifically to protect the rights of potentially viable fetuses. The murder of a pregnant woman will often result in two charges of murder, one for her and one for the fetus. Medical malpractice which causes harm or death to a fetus is sufficient cause for a lawsuit even if the mother is uninjured.

We're talking about men who DON'T want to have children. Men who DON'T want to become a father. Men who DON'T want to reproduce and put more kids out into the world.

Do you honestly think that every man who wants children also wants to potentially be liable for child support? In what magical kingdom? I haven't seen any proposal for paternal surrender that prevents an expecting couple from making a back door deal. He signs the form, she collects public benefits, and the happy couple live together raising their child with increased household income courtesy of the taxpayers. This is one of the primary reasons the federal government forced changes to welfare eligibility laws requiring mothers to identify fathers.

You're unable to put ANY agency or responsibility on the woman.

On the contrary, my position is that men have agency and responsibility, just like women do. You are the one attempting to remove responsibility from men.

[–]futureruins5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Current law says a contract like this is invalid, for pretty much no reason.

The reason is that it is in the best interests of the child to have support and ideally a relationship with both parents. It is in the best interests of the taxpayers for parents to support their own children. It is in the best interests of fathers, (even though I know you don't see this), to protect them from an irreversible decision to give up all parental rights before their baby is even born.

The major problem with the paternal surrender debates is the perspective that this is solely a men's rights vs. women's rights issue. It is vastly more complicated than that. Laws and social policy seek to balance many competing interests. That it will sometimes be unfair is part of the price of living in a civilized society.

Is it fair that I pay taxes to maintain roads I never use? Medical research I will never need? Schools if I never plan to have children? Prisons to hold people for marijuana possession when I object to those laws? Subsidies to tobacco companies? The list goes on and on. Balancing competing interests and accepting a certain level of individual unfairness is the price of living in a civilized society.

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The reason is that it is in the best interests of the child to have support and ideally a relationship with both parents.

And this is why we ban single people from having children by themselves, or from adopting. Oh wait, we don't do that... we allow those people to choose for themselves, instead of using the law to only allow children to be cared for by two-parent households.

It is in the best interests of fathers, (even though I know you don't see this), to protect them from an irreversible decision to give up all parental rights before their baby is even born.

Which is why we ban women from giving up their children for adoption. Oh wait, we don't do that... we allow those women to choose for themselves, instead of deciding for them that it's in their best interest to be forced to raise their child themselves.

Is it fair that I pay taxes to maintain roads I never use? Medical research I will never need? Schools if I never plan to have children? Prisons to hold people for marijuana possession when I object to those laws? Subsidies to tobacco companies? The list goes on and on. Balancing competing interests and accepting a certain level of individual unfairness is the price of living in a civilized society.

I couldn't agree more. And how do we pay for those things? I can tell you what we don't do - we don't assign the expenses for those things to single individuals, and force them to cover the cost themselves whether they want to or not, while other people go without paying anything.

If there's a financial need created, then it should be paid for through taxes just like everything else (including welfare, food stamps, etc.) If a homeless person needs financial help, we don't just find an employed person and force them to pay for the homeless guy's needs for the next 18 years, do we?

BTW, you seem to be assuming that no women can afford to raise a child and that only men are capable of that, and that lots of women will choose to have a child knowing that she can't afford it. Most women in a LPS type of situation would be choosing abortion anyway since the pregnancy was accidental and unwanted (by him at least)... and even more will choose abortion when the option to force someone else to help her pay (for a decision that she and only she wants) is not available to her.

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And this is why we ban single people from having children by themselves,

Irrelevant since both parents are still responsible for child support.

or from adopting.

Good luck to any single person hoping to adopt in the U.S. when they are flatly unable to support a child alone. Do you have any idea what adoption even costs? (Don't get me wrong. An individual competent and willing to handle 24/7 care for a seriously handicapped child can adopt and be subsidized for same by the government. This involves other social issues, including getting these kids out of foster care. Once again, there is a competing interests analysis in the law. Healthy infants on the other hand are completely out of reach for poor people unable to support them.)

It is in the best interests of fathers, (even though I know you don't see this), to protect them from an irreversible decision to give up all parental rights before their baby is even born. Which is why we ban women from giving up their children for adoption. Oh wait, we don't do that...

Actually we do. It is legally impossible for anyone in the U.S. to give up all parental rights before a child is born. I don't have a cite right now, but something like 50 percent of women planning on adoption change their mind after the baby is born. Fathers deserve the same protection.

I couldn't agree more. And how do we pay for those things? I can tell you what we don't do - we don't assign the expenses for those things to single individuals, and force them to cover the cost themselves whether they want to or not, while other people go without paying anything.

That may be. However there is at least an argument that these things create a shared benefit. Who is most responsible for creating a child and most likely to benefit? The parents. Not the taxpayers as a whole. Why should the taxpayers support the children of unwilling fathers and not the children of everybody else? What is so special about him? Why am I responsible for his choices? Why isn't he equally responsible for my choices? Unless we financially support everybody's children, there is no reason to give him some special status.

... and even more will choose abortion when the option to force someone else to help her pay (for a decision that she and only she wants) is not available to her.

Right, the ugly under-belly of paternal surrender. Men wanting to control women's bodies. The only appropriate response to this is go fuck yourself. (Instead of someone else.)

[–]chocoboat1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Irrelevant since both parents are still responsible for child support.

You're missing the point. The government and our legal system do not place a higher value on ensuring that every child has two parents supporting them than on personal freedom. So it makes no sense to argue that in this one specific case, suddenly it's super important and children HAVE TO have two parents no matter what.

Actually we do. It is legally impossible for anyone in the U.S. to give up all parental rights before a child is born. I don't have a cite right now, but something like 50 percent of women planning on adoption change their mind after the baby is born. Fathers deserve the same protection.

But that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to give up their parental rights at all! Fair point though, maybe we can protect fathers from an impulsive wrong decision to use LPS by giving them a short window of time after the child is born to reverse his decision, just as a woman giving up a child for adoption has.

But that doesn't mean that LPS shouldn't exist.

Who is most responsible for creating a child and most likely to benefit? The parents.

A person who is forced into legal parenthood against his will is NOT benefitting from it. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to say. That argument is no different from saying "we should ban abortion, because the mother will benefit from having a child".

Not the taxpayers as a whole. Why should the taxpayers support the children of unwilling fathers and not the children of everybody else?

I'll never understand why some people suddenly take up the Tea Party's economic viewpoint when it comes to the issue of unwanted children. All of a sudden it's super important that no taxpayer ever has to pay for something that doesn't benefit him or her directly, and it's morally wrong to force taxpayers to contribute towards a cause they don't personally support.

But if we're not talking about unwanted children, hey, "the price of living in a civilized society". We need that medical research and road maintenance and schools and prisons!

I'm a borderline socialist so I agree with all of that. But it makes no sense to decide that on the single issue of a child who needs some financial support, suddenly we should force all those costs onto a single unwilling individual who never chose to have a child in the first place.

How would you like it if the government forced you to personally contribute support checks to a person in financial need against your will?

The only reason to force him individually to contribute is "he had sex, so he's responsible for having a child". Is that a position that you agree with? If so, then we'd have to ban abortion because a woman has to be held responsible for the result of her choice to have sex. Sex is consent to parenthood, right?

Sorry, that's not a viewpoint I can ever agree with.

Right, the ugly under-belly of paternal surrender. Men wanting to control women's bodies.

Men can not, should not, and will not ever have the power to control women's bodies. And LPS would not give them that power.

If you think "the government won't let me force someone into parenthood against his will and force him to send me money to pay for a decision that only I chose to make" is controlling women's bodies, then holy shit, the sense of entitlement is just incredible. Someone who thinks that way believes that women deserve to have the power to control men and make men partially responsible for the woman's decisions, and that a crime has occurred if women have that power taken from them.

[–]Karissa360 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He is responsible because it is his biological child.

And that's why if an adoptive parent needs financial assistance, they make the biological mother pay child support. Oh wait, no, they don't do that.

It's one argument after another that simply never applies to any other situation in life and is completely illogical. "For this one particular situation, children HAVE TO have two parents supporting them." "For this one particular situation, being a biological parent = you're responsible for the child." Nevermind that it isn't true for any other situations at all... if it can be used to justify forcing a man into parenthood, suddenly it matters!

In fact, there are some excellent arguments that society benefits most if these worthless parents are discouraged from propagating any further and financial penalties are a good way to do that.

While this might be true, we're simultaneously ENcouraging worthless moms to have more and more children by providing financial incentives. Maybe there would be less unwanted children if women didn't have a guarantee that someone else would help them pay for children they can't afford to raise by themselves?

Anyway, let's not pretend that forcing people into parenthood against their will is some kind of valid way to prevent bad parents from having kids they can't afford.

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Not in this case. At least that's what I think. The two are engaging in an act (sex) that has an outcome that's directly related to it (childbirth).

If the terms are agreed upon prior to the act and can be proven to have been made then they both should abide by those terms. Otherwise the terms are in line with their actions and their outcomes.

and due to the way process happens, consent from both parties is given during the act, then since the seed is planted in the woman and carried inside her body, she has the choice of continuing or ending the process up to a certain point.

It is my understanding that if the process took place outside of both parties, then sure, they both could walk away at any time up to a certain point. But since you cannot force a person to have an abortion against their will, the partner has to stick with it.

I think the same could argument could possibly be made when a couple chooses to be artificially inseminated, the other non pregnant party shouldn't be able to walk away once the process has begun.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ne_pas_couvrir2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The roles in the process of child birth are different. If they were the same, then I would agree with you whole heartedly.

here is my previous post where I expanded on it

Not in this case. At least that's what I think. The two are engaging in an act (sex) that has an outcome that's directly related to it (childbirth). If the terms are agreed upon prior to the act and can be proven to have been made then they both should abide by those terms. Otherwise the terms are in line with their actions and their outcomes. and due to the way process happens, consent from both parties is given during the act, then since the seed is planted in the woman and carried inside her body, she has the choice of continuing or ending the process up to a certain point. It is my understanding that if the process took place outside of both parties, then sure, they both could walk away at any time up to a certain point. But since you cannot force a person to have an abortion against their will, the partner has to stick with it. I think the same could argument could possibly be made when a couple chooses to be artificially inseminated, the other non pregnant party shouldn't be able to walk away once the process has begun.

[–]Ne_pas_couvrir3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ne_pas_couvrir2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ne_pas_couvrir2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]el_nikon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Bortasz[S] 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

[–]V526 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyclopeanJuiceVendor 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]k9centipede 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

here's the thing though--most of these choices have to do with whether or not the individual wants to have or care for a child. the difference between men and women wanting to have and care for a child is the toll it takes on their body: there's no physical effect to a man when he fathers a child. when a woman mothers a child, be it through experiencing pregnancy, going through birth (and its many, potentially life-threatening complications--even in medically advanced nations) and recovery (removal of episiotomy stitches, vaginal tearing, etc) , as well as the toll breastfeeding and such can take on the breast and nipples (not so severe, but many women experience intense discomfort), she is putting her body through a lot of trauma.

it's one thing if a woman decides to abort, or give a child up for adoption, when she and the father of her potential child have planned and made communal choices about the child. it's another entirely when the pregnancy is unplanned--if the pregnancy was never meant to happen, i see no reason why a woman should be judged for making any choices about her own body's experience that don't take a man's feelings and beliefs into account. he didn't consent, necessarily, to fathering the child--he made no choice about it. why should he suddenly have a choice, when the physical effects of pregnancy have absolutely nothing to do with his lived experience?

[–]Karissa36 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's not fair. It's not fair, that even within the context of a married and planned pregnancy, I spend 3 months vomiting 4 or more times per day. While still working and trying very hard not to lapse into a nap. It's not fair that I have to see a doctor on average more than twice a month for exams and ultrasounds and blood tests and whatever, (and pay for it), which requires me to lose time from work for 10 plus months. It's not fair that I am the one with a changing body and all of the various ailments, from minor to life threatening, from pregnancy, delivery and post-partum. It's not fair that the only one suffering severe pain and continuing issues during and from delivery is me. It's not fair that only one of us can feed our child in the best possible manner. So who gets up every 2 to 3 hours every night? For up to a year? Right. Me. It's not fair.

Get back to me when biology is fair. Until then, STFU. Men got the best of this biological deal by far. Whining because you just couldn't be bothered to slap a rubber on it is juvenile to the extreme max.

[–]RememberWind 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]NWOslave -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]Nasjere 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carebeary9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	It's not fair.
Author	Bortasz
Upvotes	303
Comments	112
Date	March 6, 2015 6:17 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2y42j7/its_not_fair/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/its-not-fair.986609 https://theredarchive.com/post/986609

Comments