The way this guy says explains it is perfect

[–]TruthGetsBanned 201 points202 points203 points 7 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ashenox 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]family-love-michael 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]family-love-michael 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ashenox 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A good example I have is a personal one. My girlfriend was part of a group of women who would meet once a month with more frequent meetings around the time of elections. They would discuss topics pertaining to women's rights and family issues. When elections rolled around they would discuss the espoused views of the politicians and figure out the best candidate for a Woman to vote for. The past 3 years have been nothing but a slow radicalization of the group due to an influx of younger women with extremist views. The more moderate Women were essentially chased out by being positioned as for something horrible because they didn't completely follow the "Men are evil" thought path the new girls were pushing on the group.

Finally as of a month ago my GF left the group as even mentioning working with Men to achieve a goal was shouted down as sexist and harmful to female Independence and strength. Now her and a few of the Women from the group meet on Wednesdays to talk and hangout, but they're slowly becoming less politically active.

[–]UnexplainedShadowban 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TruthGetsBanned -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (45 children) | Copy Link

No. Stop this. This sub is about men's rights, it is true. It is not about ignoring women's rights or avoiding the fact both sexes are disadvantaged in some ways. We don't need an "it just us in this" mentality. We need each other's support. If we take time to sympathize with women, I'm sure the level headed among them will sympathize with us and be open to hearing our ideas. Let us not build walls, it keeps our ideas in just as much as it keeps women out. Let us build bridges and have an open discourse.

[+]TruthGetsBanned -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]TruthGetsBanned -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

So then you clearly have numbers to back up your claim most women are man haters. Please show your work.

[–]TruthGetsBanned -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

"I don't have any data to backup my claim and I am willfully blind to this fact" - TruthGetsBanned, a self righteous fool

[–]TruthGetsBanned0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0071 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0071 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0072 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0071 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0071 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0071 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jex1171 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

"Jackie took my toy and isn't giving it back, so I'm gunna take her toy and not give it back". Grow up and be the better person in these tough situations. This sub does NOT focus on women's issues, but they get mentioned occasionally and we should attempt to sympathize. If we were brigaded with "but women have it worse X, Y, and Z ways", then sure, we should focus back on men's rights. As things stand now, that is not the case.

Sympathizing is not being the bigger man in this case. It is the human thing to do and we should do it without expectation of return. We must hold ourselves to a greater standard of conduct than a simple minded attitude of retaliation.

[–]TruthGetsBanned -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

Please point out where I insulted you.

It is sad you are fine with hate. I will rise above it and I can only hope other men will join me.

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]ArrowOfTruth0071 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

No, you did not point out where I insulted you. You just said that I did, and once again you're not proving evidence, even when it would be as simple as quoting me. This is because you cannot provide proof because your claims are not true.

I did not lie about your emotions. "I am done giving love for hate. Time to fight fire with fire". Clearly you meant fight hate with hate. Clearly this means you are fine with hate. I did not lie.

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0072 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is my first post to you. Quote the text that shows an insult:

"Jackie took my toy and isn't giving it back, so I'm gunna take her toy and not give it back". Grow up and be the better person in these tough situations. This sub does NOT focus on women's issues, but they get mentioned occasionally and we should attempt to sympathize. If we were brigaded with "but women have it worse X, Y, and Z ways", then sure, we should focus back on men's rights. As things stand now, that is not the case.

Sympathizing is not being the bigger man in this case. It is the human thing to do and we should do it without expectation of return. We must hold ourselves to a greater standard of conduct than a simple minded attitude of retaliation.

So you mean by being done with love and fighting hate with hate...that you really wanna fight them with love??? You say I don't understand your logic. You have an opportunity to explain your logic here.

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0072 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0073 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0072 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0073 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0072 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArrowOfTruth0070 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazerkings70 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazerkings70 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bat_in_the_stacks 428 points429 points430 points 7 years ago (245 children) | Copy Link

[+]Zambamboozled1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (32 children) | Copy Link

Men get fucked over too with these laws. If the woman can't choose you'll be damn sure the man can't either.

[–]dukunt 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Jimmy2e1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link

If the woman can't choose you'll be damn sure the man can't either.

Pretty sure men already can't and nothing will change about this either way.

[+]Zambamboozled1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Less so if this law passes. The best way to move forward is to build up ramps, not tear down stairs.

[+]vicious_armbar1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, maybe not. If more women are forced to pay child support instead of just receive it they'd be more sympathetic to the idea of child support reform. The only reason we've seen alimony reform is because some women have been forced to pay alimony.

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

[–]Castigale 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]brickstick -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights10 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brownhorse 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]meltedcheeser -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]suddenlysnowedinn 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]mrmensplights1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I find it fascinating you can can so easily apply the 'personal responsibility' to men while completely ignoring it when it comes to women. Isn't "You have a choice - keep it in your pants." is an argument pro-life people use against women context of the abortion debate?

[–]meltedcheeser -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you referring to birth control? Because in 2017 the GOP decided to legally allow insurance companies to deny 62 million women coverage for birth control.

Sure, women can be gatekeepers of sex: if they’re close to fertility week, put stipulations on sex like “you need to pull out, wear a condom, or not have penetrative sex with me”

But if the condom falls off, both partners who were being responsible, are fucked.

If he decides to not pull out, both partners are fucked.

If he decides “we can’t have sex” isn’t fun and decides to rape her, they’re both fucked.

Don’t know why you’re putting the responsibility to not get pregnant on a women... when it definitely takes a man to contribute.

Women can only get pregnant during ovulation. 12-24 hours of a month. That’s 12-24 days of the entire year. A man can impregnate a woman 365 days a year. It’s insane to argue that it’s on the woman. Abortion is a nongendered issue.

[–]girlwriteswhat9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you referring to birth control? Because in 2017 the GOP decided to legally allow insurance companies to deny 62 million women coverage for birth control.

So? They didn't decide to legally bar women from obtaining that birth control with their own money, did they? Is receiving free shit a constitutional right now? Is forcing one private entity to pay for something they object to on grounds of religious freedom (which IS in the constitution) for the benefit of other parties a constitutional right now?

Sure, women can be gatekeepers of sex: if they’re close to fertility week, put stipulations on sex like “you need to pull out, wear a condom, or not have penetrative sex with me”

So basically, what you're saying is that if women can't get birth control for free, then they have no access to birth control.

Hmm.... I seem to recall paying full price for all of my birth control right up until I finally had a tubal (the pill, condoms, sponges), even here in Canada where health care is allegedly universal and free. I had no idea the pharmacist was violating my constitutional right to free shit.

Hey, what do you think about the fact that Obamacare covered tubal ligation but not vasectomy? Weird, huh? Especially since the former is more invasive and expensive than the latter, and especially since we're so concerned about "men impregnating women" as if the woman wasn't even in the room at the time the Knock-up Fairy came calling.

But if the condom falls off, both partners who were being responsible, are fucked.

No they're not. She can take the morning after pill. As a mother of three, I can guarantee you that even if she isn't getting for free, it's a lot less expensive and inconvenient than prenatal care, childbirth, time off work, and raising the kid to age 18. It's certainly a lot less expensive than 18 years of child support.

She can have an abortion. Again, even if not free, it's a lot less expensive than 18 years of child support and a lot less money and bother than raising a kid.

She can even give birth and legally (and anonymously) abandon the baby via a safe haven site. Sure, it's a lot more time, effort and inconvenience than strangling the baby with some thong panties and tossing it into the neighbor's yard, but still less time, effort and inconvenience than keeping the baby or paying 18 years of child support.

If he decides to not pull out, both partners are fucked.

That's a crime in an increasing number of jurisdictions.

If he decides “we can’t have sex” isn’t fun and decides to rape her, they’re both fucked.

Again, that's a crime.

What if he offers to pay for Plan B or an abortion and she refuses? Who's fucked then?

Don’t know why you’re putting the responsibility to not get pregnant on a women... when it definitely takes a man to contribute.

Because it's her body. Because it's her choice. Because she has the widest range of options for preventing pregnancy.

Also, because most of her contraceptive options are not independently verifiable by the man--she can lie and say she's on the pill when she's not, and he has no way to verify that. She can lie and say she has an IUD when she doesn't, and he has no way to verify that. She can lie and say she's on Norplant, and he has no way to verify that. She can lie and say her tubes are tied, and he has no way to verify that.

On the other hand, he has the three options you mentioned.

If pulling out fails, she decides his future and hers.

If the condom fails (or she poked holes in it), she decides his future and hers.

If his vasectomy (that he had to pay for, because Obamacare wouldn't cover it) fails, she decides his future and hers.

You do realize there was a case in the US of a man who refused to have vaginal sex with the woman he was dating because he absolutely didn't want a kid until he was married. She retrieved his semen from oral sex and impregnated herself with it later. These were findings of fact before the court. He was still held liable for child support. What do you say to that, other than "it definitely takes a man to contribute"?

Women can only get pregnant during ovulation. 12-24 hours of a month. That’s 12-24 days of the entire year. A man can impregnate a woman 365 days a year. It’s insane to argue that it’s on the woman.

That's the dumbest argument I've yet heard. You're arguing that the person for whom it is easiest to prevent pregnancy should have less responsibility than the person for whom it is virtually impossible to prevent pregnancy.

Literally all she has to do is avoid having unprotected sex for 12-24 hours a month to avoid a pregnancy she has the unilateral option to terminate. He has to undertake heroic measures, including being a human lie detector, 24/7, 365 in order to avoid being enslaved for 18 years.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where in the constitution it says "women have a right to abortion and free birth control."

[–]meltedcheeser-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Strangling the baby with some thong panties and tossing it into the neighbors yard.

Like I said, you are too polemic to even have a remotely sane conversation. This is beyond offensive and plainly, idiotic.

You do realize Canada and the USA don’t share a constitution, right? Otherwise you’d realize that no, your Canadian pharmacy has nothing to do with protected rights of citizens of the United States.

We get it: you think women are the sole provider of sperm and are solely responsible for reproduction.

Your argument is absolutely anti-men’s rights, as you’ve just negated half the population from the process of reproduction. Women are the gatekeepers of reproduction and men are bystanders. GTFO.

This is a waste of time — it’s like trying to talk with an antivaxxer who uses anecdotal evidence that has no basis in science to prove that the entire world is out to get them.

[–]girlwriteswhat7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like I said, you are too polemic to even have a remotely sane conversation. This is beyond offensive and plainly, idiotic.

Citing an actual case of infanticide is idiotic? Keep in mind, the woman who did this had access to anonymous, legal safe haven abandonment. Apparently the latter was less convenient than the former.

You do realize Canada and the USA don’t share a constitution, right?

Oh, I'm aware. Ours is much more wishy-washy than yours. Please show me where in your US constitution women have the constitutionally guaranteed right to get free stuff paid for by private entities who have the constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom.

We get it: you think women are the sole provider of sperm and are solely responsible for reproduction.

Sorry, what?

Your argument is absolutely anti-men’s rights, as you’ve just negated half the population from the process of reproduction.

Uh, no. I haven't negated that. I've pointed out that half the population is being held 100% responsible for the process of reproduction, when they have zero say in the matter.

Every single pro-life argument has been leveraged against men when it comes to mandatory child support on pain of prison.

Women are the gatekeepers of reproduction and men are bystanders. GTFO.

Women should have the unilateral right to carry a pregnancy to term and rope a man into legally enforced paternal responsibilities, but they should also have the right to terminate a pregnancy on a whim if they don't want a baby, and the government should pay for it.

Also, women aren't the gatekeepers of reproduction.

That's you.

it’s like trying to talk with an antivaxxer who uses anecdotal evidence that has no basis in science to prove that the entire world is out to get them.

Well, given that my daughter had a grapefruit sized swelling at the injection site for days and lost the use of her right arm and hand for more than a week after a routine vaccination when she was 14, and I haven't spoken out against vaccines, that seems a little... silly.

But you keep on keeping on. This is fun.

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]meltedcheeser -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Jimmy2e1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Funny, I don't remember anything in the constitution about abortion.

[–]meltedcheeser -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jimmy2e4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]rooolng1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd like to see a male financial abortion - give the man a choice to pay or forever forgo parental access. The women can then make her own choice - which would be a family decision regardless taking into account financials and whatnot.

[–]jonnytechno 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No, in fact, this is the perfect time to have this conversation because never has a man's choice & consequent role in birth been more applicable. Birth is a result of the action of BOTH a man and a woman, so we need equal consideration granted, men cannot have physical abortions but an adequate concession would be parental emancipation (an abortion of responsibility to said child)

Isn't that how politics works? Bills are proposed & concessions are deliberated on?

Politics wise though I'm on the fence regarding pro life pro choice... Abortion is overused imo

https://i.redd.it/05ttdhr8eez21.jpg

but it should always be an option for rape victims but as we determine rights of a feutus / mother we can also consider the father..... That's true equality

Edit: I believe its important for me to state that I don't even believe this issue has been raised out if legitimate concern fur reproductive rights or abortion. I believe this is a ploy to increase the birth rate. Casual sex has grown immensely in the last decade which has resulted in a lot of safer sex (among a smaller amount of previous numbers) and less commitment also contributing to a declining relationship figures and an already dwindling marriage rate & increasing divorce statistics

Rather than incentivise marriage or procreation these measures are used to manipulate people into having children and increasing population numbers

[–]boxsterguy 89 points90 points91 points 7 years ago (123 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillAlphaBigCock 141 points142 points143 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]BattlestarFaptastula 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

It's a fair point, though it reminds me of saying something like 'why feed homeless kids when some kids are starved by their own parents?'. Yes it's hypocritical but that's not constructive.

Northern Irish protestors have been doing this in a bit of a better way, taking the fact that everyone is freaking out about this new alabama law and going 'yes, that's awful and I want to support those people, but we have never had the right to abort and maybe people should pay attention if they care this much' rather than 'pfft alabama women complaining about abortions being made illegal is so hypocritical and self absorbed, its always been illegal for us!'

The fact men can be raped and forced to pay child support is utterly disgusting. The fact that women can be raped and forced to have a child is disgusting too. But their causes are different and that cant be treated in the same way. Men need their own forms of support to help with these issues, particularly as if it was done on a mixed gender basis it would be hugely biased towards womens issues as they are statistically more commonly reported.

I don't know why I am rambling. But essentially fostering hate and taking the piss of other groups doesn't create any change or any positive awareness.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geniice -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We should allow abortions nationwide but revamp child support only for children with established relationships and agreed upon circumstances.

I can see a lot of lawyers getting very rich arguing over "established relationships" and "agreed upon circumstances".

Forcing men into indentured wage garnishment based on the decision of another person to birth a child is only to take the burden off of the state.

Well not entirely. Politicaly its a mix of that (and do you really want to go into an election arguing that taxes should be raised or other services cut in order to increase funding the children of single mothers?) but also a non trivial voting block that really doesn't like men who have multiple children with different mothers and views child support as a way of disincentivising such behaviour (in fairness they don't tend to like the mothers either).

[–]agiganticpanda 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Shockblocked -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExsolutionLamellae 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]rageth 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Shockblocked -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExsolutionLamellae 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker43 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackhole885 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackhole8851 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElectraUnderTheSea 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jonnytechno 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BattlestarFaptastula 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree 100% with the base statement. The reason the solutions cant be the same is because men are often discriminated against in that kind of situation, and their problems are treated as their fault for having sex rather than the systems fault for extorting them.

To simplify the solution to that extent means that the details of each individual persons circumstances don't matter. It could easily be twisted to say 'women who are forced to have babies are not forced into a parental role as they can give up the baby for adoption' or 'men paying child support isn't a forced parental role as they don't have to see the child, it is purely financial and is to help the mother not the child' (obviously both of those statements are hugely flawed). The best thing that we can do is provide tailored support for all humans, and not treat all their problems as identical.

[–]C4H8N8O8 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]DiogenesOfNike1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Is it ultra right to support abortion, but see that something must be done for forced fatherhood?

[+]boxsterguy -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geniice -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DiogenesOfNike3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]v573v 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]geniice 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

''Muslim views on abortion are shaped by the Hadith as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. The Quran does not directly address intentional abortion, leaving greater discretion to the laws of individual countries. In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation,[1] and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible. Many Islamic[citation needed] thinkers recognize exceptions to this rule for certain circumstances. American academic, Azizah Y. al-Hibri, notes that "the majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited."[2] According to Sherman Jackson, "while abortion, even during the first trimester, is forbidden according to a minority of jurists, it is not held to be an offense for which there are criminal or even civil sanctions."[3] There are four different Sunni school of thoughts – Hanafites, Shafites, Hanbalites, and Malikites – and they have their own reservations on when abortions can happen in Islam. ''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

[–]Shockblocked -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Ultra-conservatives are trying to relabel "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion". It insn't working. Nobody is pro-abortion. But sometimes it is necessary. They do themselves a disservice by coming up with this label because it makes them look ignorant.

[–]BilboBagginhole 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]suddenlysnowedinn 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]boxsterguy -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Is that like when the white nationalists paraded around with tiki torches chanting "jews will not replace us"? Should I assume all nationalists are white nationalists and racist? Don't take fringe behavior and apply it to an entire group of people.

[–]BilboBagginhole 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FRedington -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notacrackheadofficer 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Buddhism cultures are very different in different places. The Tibetan fancy pageantry would be deeply frowned upon in many other places, as an example.
''Northern Buddhism

Abortion is generally regarded very negatively among ethnic Tibetan Buddhists.[3] Prior to the emergence of the Tibetan diaspora in the 1950s, Tibetans do not seem to have been familiar with abortion for reasons of medical necessity, and, facing little population pressure, saw little reason to engage in what they saw as the destruction of innocent life.[3] Though no systematic information is available, abortion appears to be very rare among exiled Tibetans living in areas where abortion is legal.[3] Tibetan Buddhists believe that a person who has had an abortion should be treated compassionately, and guided to atone for the negative act through appropriate good deeds and religious practices; these acts are aimed at improving the karmic outcome for both the mother and the aborted fetus, but authorities warn that they will not be effective if one has undertaken an abortion while planning to 'negate' it by atoning for it later.[3] The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."
''Southern Buddhism

Laws and views on abortion vary greatly in Theravada Buddhist nations. Attitudes and laws in Thailand are generally more favourable towards abortion than in Sri Lanka.''

''East Asia

Buddhists in Japan are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortion

''Buddhism and abortion

There is no single Buddhist view on abortion:

Most Western and Japanese Buddhists come away believing in the permissibility of abortion, while many other Buddhists believe abortion to be murder.

James Hughes''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml

[–]Jex117 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]boxsterguy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheConflictPigeon 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yogurt_Ph1r3 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diesel-66 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

You mean pro-choice. Nobody is pro-abortion.

[–]Diesel-66 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Fake news.

[–]Diesel-66 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sanger was a huge eugenics supporter.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The only people that talk about Sanger are crazy pro-lifers.

[–]suddenlysnowedinn 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link

"ultra right" rofl

[–]IdiotKnight 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jschubes07 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExsolutionLamellae 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]boxsterguy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bat_in_the_stacks -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bat_in_the_stacks -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]boxsterguy -63 points-62 points-61 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime16 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]functionalghost 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nayr7471 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (25 children) | Copy Link

Something went very wrong in your head if you think protein makes you hate Nazis..

[–]FukTheRedditAdmins 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nayr7471 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (23 children) | Copy Link

Estrogen is a hormone produced by animals not plants. Cow's milk is a good source of estrogen. Soy milk is not.

[–]FukTheRedditAdmins 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nayr7471 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

If you read your own summary you'll see it doesn't say that plants contain estrogen because, again, it's only produced in animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, etc.

Regardless, soy has no effect on hormones in humans. "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis"

[–]FukTheRedditAdmins3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BulldogOatmeal 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BulldogOatmeal 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dworgi -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BulldogOatmeal 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BulldogOatmeal 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker43 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarlosRanger -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyOddParents 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyOddParents 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lesbefriendly 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itsthevoiceman -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]krypt_o -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theanchorman05 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dexfagcasul 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]snuffop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomgamerguy1997 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bat_in_the_stacks 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]illCodeYouABrain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomgamerguy1997 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]illCodeYouABrain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomgamerguy1997 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]illCodeYouABrain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

OK if you want to talk, lets' talk. I got nothing better to do right now. And I'm always ready to talk to someone who is willing to listen.

Let's examine your statement:

abortion though is murder so it should be banned

Abortion = murder. Although many people would disagree with you on that, that's not the stupid part. Different cultures define murder differently. So it's just semantics.

The stupid part (in my opinion) is the part where you say it should be banned specifically because it is murder. I guess you fail to notice that murder (even of grown conscious adults) is not strictly banned in our society. There are circumstances where one person can easily murder another person and suffer no legal or social consequences. Examples: self defense, military and police operations.

So now that we've established that murder is NOT something that is accepted as universally wrong in our society and depends on surrounding circumstances, it is just a matter of categorizing these surrounding circumstances into those that justify "murder" and those that don't.

For example, if a woman was brutally raped and is going through an extensive physical and psychological trauma, bearing a child of her rapist might just constitute sufficient justification for abortion. Others might argue that even just the woman's desire to abort is already sufficient justification.

Today we are at a negotiating stage, where society is trying to draw these lines. They are mostly arbitrary and based not on logic but on human feelings. Like in your case, I don't know why you feel the way you do regarding abortions. Why do you care?

[–]randomgamerguy1997 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]illCodeYouABrain -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because a fetus is a life, and if left alone will become a person. Please don't act like there's no logic to it.

I could ask you, "why is smothering a newborn baby you don't want wrong?" A few years ago, a couple of academics had a paper published in a journal of medical ethics arguing just this point. They argued that personhood is dependent on the development of the concept of permanence and tomorrow.

They described a scenario in which a person has, unbeknownst to them, a winning lottery ticket in their pocket. Before they discover that the ticket is a winner, they lose the ticket. From that person's perspective, they have lost nothing because they were unaware of the fact that they had it in the first place.

They argue that this concept can be ascribed to babies under 18 months of age. They don't have the cognitive capacity to understand that there is a future and that their own existence will continue into that future. Therefore, it is not an ethical wrong to deprive them of something they have no capacity to understand.

Meanwhile, the mother, as a fully developed adult, has the capacity to understand that the child she surrendered to the state or adopted out is still out there. She can comprehend the permanence of the child's existence, and if she finds that permanence distressing, she should have the right to terminate the child's life in order to spare herself that distress.

The mother is a person in this paradigm, while the child is not. The mother is aware of what she is losing, while the child has no conceptualization of it. The child is like that lottery player who had no clue they were a winner when they lost their ticket.

Now. Argue against this without feeling. Think, don't feel. And certainly don't bring in any emotional rhetoric, because that will disqualify you.

[–]illCodeYouABrain1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Holy shit! Now you have to agree, this is a bit unfair. It is hard for me to stay emotionless considering your nametag. It is like asking a teenage girl to stay cool when she has just met Justin Bieber. However, the only emotion I am feeling right now is excitement. I hope that this does not immediately disqualify me from having this conversation.

As far as abortions go, I assure you I have very little emotional investment in the subject. I actually do not hold a fixed position for or against the practice. I’d say I am situated more toward pro-choice, but it’s definitely not black and white as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in reasoning behind both sides, then their actual positions. One more disclaimer: English is not my first language, and my command of vocabulary and grammar is nowhere near to that of yours. So I would appreciate it if you could cut me some slack in that regard. Of course, the choice of accommodating or not accommodating this request is entirely yours.

Now the response:

Because a fetus is a life, and if left alone will become a person.

I respectfully but categorically disagree with this statement. Fetus will most definitely not become a person if left alone. Even a newborn would have very slim chances of surviving to conscious personhood by itself. But fetus especially requires a series of targeted biochemical processes that can only be delivered by a grown female organism. Even at present level of our technological advancement the woman has to take the risk and loss of resources associated with pregnancy. I believe she has to be in the position (at least partially) to have a say in the matter. Additionally let me take this logic a bit further. Fetus is not a person. To become a person it needs to go through a series of complex biological transformations, some possible only inside a woman’s womb. Before the fertilized egg can become fetus, it too needs to go through a series of complex biological transformations. Egg fertilization is itself a complex (although arguably less complex) biological transformation. So logically if you argue we can’t kill a fetus because it has a chance of becoming a person, then we also can’t kill a fertilized egg cell, because it can become a fetus, which can become a person. Therefore we can’t kill an unfertilized egg and a sperm cell, following the same reasoning. Hence my sarcastic comment about anal sex being a form of genocide.

I could ask you, "why is smothering a newborn baby you don't want wrong?"

Well, the short answer is I don’t think it is objectively wrong. It feels wrong to us due and only due to biological pressure informed by evolution. We as species wouldn’t have gotten this far if we were known for smothering our own children. However it is not true for many other species. Killing your own offsprings can be a viable survival strategy in some circumstances. But I will spare you the lecture on evolution, as I know you are very well informed in that subject, much more so than myslef.

Subjectively it is wrong (in general) to smoother babies absent some extreme circumstances. If you were transported back to 1889 wouldn’t you be at least tempted to smother baby Hitler? But that is my entire point. Subjectivity is malleable. It is not set in stone. It evolves as we evolve. And I believe under some circumstances (albeit unlikely) our society could come to a point where smothering babies is normalized.

This paper you mentioned, I am not familiar with it. I will have to look it up. Sounds very interesting. However judging by only what you’ve wrote I am a bit confused when you ask me to argue “against” your presented point. Because I would agree with the author’s logic that in principle killing a child under 18 month of age holds no negative consequences for the child itself. It is the adult people around that child who get affected. We are still stuck in this reality, where our actions and desires are primarily informed by our biology. But I don’t have to tell you that, you know that better than anyone. Biology evolves in tandem with efficiency of resource distribution. So hypothetically if we ever come to a point where killing babies adds to the efficiency of resource distribution, that’s exactly what we will be doing! It will be normalized. Just like abortions are being normalized right now.

Let me give you one interesting example I read in one book some time ago. You may be familiar with this story, but if not, here it is. I forget which Amazon hunter-gatherer tribe was involved, but it is in present time. So they roam around the jungle, and obviously survival is a struggle. Technology is primitive and resources are scarce. Their condition led to an interesting social adaptation. In their society it is socially acceptable to murder menopausal women. The logic is straight forward. Women take away more resources than they contribute. This is compensated by the woman’s ability to produce next generation of producers. When the woman loses her ability to reproduce, she becomes nothing but a drain on already scarce tribal resources. So a man is assigned a job to surprise her by whacking her on the head with a club. This is done in humane way. It’s not an execution. The woman is not supposed to suspect when this will happen. However they do know that this is their fate. This seems utterly horrible to us, but in their view this is normal. They view it kind of like many in our society view assisted suicide. Interesting huh?

Anyway, if I haven’t bored you to death with my rant, I would like to say something else. I’ve been following your work for a long time. I hold deep respect for your intellect and dedication. I do not agree with you on everything, but as the wife of one famous physicist once said: if both of us agreed on everything, one of us would be redundant… If you ever find yourself around Washington DC, if you wish please do drop me a private message. I will treat you to the best sushi in DC metropolitan area. Having a nice dinner and mindful conversation with you has been a fantasy of mine for a long time.

Cheers,

Alex

[–]girlwriteswhat6 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Holy shit! Now you have to agree, this is a bit unfair. It is hard for me to stay emotionless considering your nametag. It is like asking a teenage girl to stay cool when she has just met Justin Bieber. However, the only emotion I am feeling right now is excitement.

I'm just a person.

I respectfully but categorically disagree with this statement. Fetus will most definitely not become a person if left alone. Even a newborn would have very slim chances of surviving to conscious personhood by itself.

So why doesn't the law allow parents to actively kill their newborns? Hell, why doesn't the law allow parents to stick their newborns in a room and close the door and walk away and leave them to starve?

But fetus especially requires a series of targeted biochemical processes that can only be delivered by a grown female organism.

Sure. At least it does prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Even at present level of our technological advancement the woman has to take the risk and loss of resources associated with pregnancy.

The risks are currently very low--around 24 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, most from avoidable causes such as obesity. Driving is more dangerous. Perhaps we should ban cars for the sake of pedestrians who'd rather keep their eyes on their phones than the traffic?

As for resource loss associated with pregnancy, becoming pregnant is a choice because having sex is a choice.

I believe she has to be in the position (at least partially) to have a say in the matter. Additionally let me take this logic a bit further.

She did have a say. She could have said, "not tonight, honey, I have a headache."

Fetus is not a person. To become a person it needs to go through a series of complex biological transformations, some possible only inside a woman’s womb.

This doesn't refute my point that if left alone, the fetus will become a person.

Before the fertilized egg can become fetus, it too needs to go through a series of complex biological transformations.

Sure. It needs to implant in the endometrium. If it does, it has successfully gone from zygote to blastocyst to fetus. None of this refutes the suggestion that if left alone to do what it does, it will become a person.

Well, the short answer is I don’t think it is objectively wrong. It feels wrong to us due and only due to biological pressure informed by evolution.

Where do you draw the line? At 4 years old? At 8 years old? Kids are still pretty resource-heavy at that point, and they've certainly not become "person enough" to vote or drive a car. Their brains aren't mature. And they're still very dependent on their parents, especially in this day and age.

If you were transported back to 1889 wouldn’t you be at least tempted to smother baby Hitler?

No. Perhaps because my dad grew up in the Nazi occupation of Denmark and wouldn't have moved to Canada, married my mother and produced me if not for that. Also, because there's no reason baby Hitler was destined to grow up to be Hitler Hitler.

Because I would agree with the author’s logic that in principle killing a child under 18 month of age holds no negative consequences for the child itself.

It's a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.

You're arguing that because someone is incapable of conceptualizing they've been harmed, they have not been harmed. That because the person doesn't know the value of what they've lost they haven't suffered a loss. That because the future hasn't happened yet, it's impossible to take the future away from someone. This is objectively absurd.

More than this, if you had a winning lottery ticket in your pocket and didn't know it, and someone else did know it and stole it from you, that person would be guilty of a crime. He's taking something from you that he has no right to take, regardless of whether or not you can conceptualize the magnitude of your loss.

So hypothetically if we ever come to a point where killing babies adds to the efficiency of resource distribution, that’s exactly what we will be doing! It will be normalized. Just like abortions are being normalized right now.

Sure, and killing anyone is just fine, as long as it's expedient, right? I mean, seriously. Even if a guy's been falsely accused of something, we should celebrate his lynching because it makes the community feel unified against crime and it promotes social cohesion. In the evolutionary sense, the community has gained more than it has lost.

This seems utterly horrible to us, but in their view this is normal. They view it kind of like many in our society view assisted suicide. Interesting huh?

Sure. I'd love to live there, given that I'm post menopausal and apparently of no use.

I’ve been following your work for a long time. I hold deep respect for your intellect and dedication.

Can't imagine why. After all, I'm post menopausal. Interesting, huh?

I will treat you to the best sushi in DC metropolitan area. Having a nice dinner and mindful conversation with you has been a fantasy of mine for a long time.

I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, my only value to anyone is my ability to reproduce, so I can't imagine why anyone would waste the price of a meal on me.

On the other hand, I should have been allowed to abort every fetus I ever conceived, because my ability to reproduce has nothing to do with my value to society. In fact, women who choose to never carry a child to term should be bonked over the head and killed. Not executed, mind you. Just killed by surprise because they're not performing their one vital function in society. Interesting, huh?

Meanwhile, infanticide by mom should be perfectly legal because "muh precious resources". Interesting, huh?

Why, it's almost as if you're arguing that infanticide is okay because babies consume the resources of the mother, and that homicide of non-reproductive women is okay because they consume the resources of the community. While at the same time, you're offering your resources to a post-menopausal woman who should, by your reckoning, be considered to be contributing nothing whatsoever to society.

Hey. You ever wonder how you got here? If your parents had had sex in a different position the night you were conceived, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you. If your grandmother hadn't taken the bus to work every day that was driven by your grandfather, and if he hadn't persisted in hitting on her, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you. If your great great great great great grandmother's husband hadn't been killed in war, and if she hadn't remarried and given birth to your great great great great grandfather, you wouldn't be here. Someone else might be, but it wouldn't be you. If some amoeba 3.5 billion years ago had put out a pseudopod and exchanged DNA with a different amoeba than the one it actually did, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you.

You are the product of an uninterrupted chain of successful survival and reproduction that goes all the way back to the very first prokaryotic cells that emerged in a puddle of ooze in what is now Australia. You won the cosmic lottery, against astronomical odds. Seriously, if any one of your millions of forebears had done a single thing differently than what they did, you wouldn't be here.

That ticket was in your pocket, and no one stole it from you.

[–]illCodeYouABrain1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Alright, in the words of Jordan Peterson – let’s unpack that.

I'm just a person.

Everything is relative. To you I might be just another irrelevant angry half-witted internet troll, but to my 10 year old daughter I am the greatest man who has ever walked this earth. Same with you, to some you may be a dumb victim of patriarchy internalizing her own oppression, but to others you are like Jesus lord savior and all the hope they have in their lives.

So why doesn't the law allow parents to actively kill their newborns? Hell, why doesn't the law allow parents to stick their newborns in a room and close the door and walk away and leave them to starve?

Because we are not there yet. My whole point is that under certain conditions we can end up with laws that allow parents to “actively kill their newborns”. The same way as abortion even today in many societies is a crime, and they cannot see themselves ever legalizing it. I think we are actually closer to this that many believe. There is definite talk out there of forgiving scared teenagers who leave their newborns in dumpsters.

Sure. At least it does prior to 24 weeks gestation.

OK, I am not going to argue against this as I am not knowledgeable enough in the field. I’ll trust you on this. But even assuming 24 weeks old fetus can survive on its own, is this the line you draw? Human being who can survive on their own deserve the right to live, but who can’t is theoretically not? That is absolutely fine. If this is where you draw the line, that’s where you draw the line. You just have to admit that this line is just as arbitrary as any line that is drawn by pro-life or pro-choice people.

The risks are currently very low--around 24 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, most from avoidable causes such as obesity. Driving is more dangerous. Perhaps we should ban cars for the sake of pedestrians who'd rather keep their eyes on their phones than the traffic?

This is a bit of a false equivalency. But yes I agree, if someone out there feels strongly about this issue, and have the smarts to mobilize 30% of population behind this cause, we will ban cars for the sake of pedestrians who’d rather keep their eyes on their phones. Just because it sounds absurd now, it does not it will be considered absurd in the future.

As for resource loss associated with pregnancy, becoming pregnant is a choice because having sex is a choice.

She did have a say. She could have said, "not tonight, honey, I have a headache."

This is exactly the logic feminists use to justify forcing men to pay child support. “If you didn’t want to be a slave for 18 years, you should have kept it in your pants”. This is one of the major points your movement argues against, doesn’t it?

This doesn't refute my point that if left alone, the fetus will become a person.

I guess it does not. But your statement does not refute my point that if society decides that fetus is not a person, that fetus is not a person.

Where do you draw the line? At 4 years old? At 8 years old?

It’s not about where I draw the line. It’s about where the society draws the line. And it will draw the line where it feels like the line should be given the current circumstances. Circumstances change, the line shifts. With abortions we are witnessing this shift as we speak.

No. Perhaps because my dad grew up in the Nazi occupation of Denmark and wouldn't have moved to Canada, married my mother and produced me if not for that. Also, because there's no reason baby Hitler was destined to grow up to be Hitler Hitler.

There are ways to deal with the grandfather paradox. “Many worlds” theory is one of those.

It's a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.

Yeah, a powerful emotional piece. But the fact of life we do kill men all the time. We do it without remorse and with complete feeling of righteousness on many occasions.

Look at our entertainment even. Everyone agrees it’s highly entertaining watching murder, even though fictional, on the big screen while eating pop corn. I don’t see people repulsed by it? It’s normalized whether we like it or not. That is what our society decided for now. I myself actually kind of hate action movies, but I certainly would not be actively protesting them. The best I can do is vote with my wallet, and so far my wallet seems to be losing. And that is absolutely fine.

You're arguing that because someone is incapable of conceptualizing they've been harmed, they have not been harmed. That because the person doesn't know the value of what they've lost they haven't suffered a loss. That because the future hasn't happened yet, it's impossible to take the future away from someone. This is objectively absurd.

I have to admit I fail to see how this is “objectively absurd”. But I have general issue with anything being objectively true or false. I agree with Einstein here, we can only measure something in relation to something else. Nothing ever stands on its own.

Sure, and killing anyone is just fine, as long as it's expedient, right? I mean, seriously. Even if a guy's been falsely accused of something, we should celebrate his lynching because it makes the community feel unified against crime and it promotes social cohesion. In the evolutionary sense, the community has gained more than it has lost.

Once again, it’s not that I think that we SHOULD celebrate lynching. I think that given certain conditions we WILL celebrate lynching. Lynching is something that was normal in its time. The times have changed. Now it’s not normal. Times may change again that it might be normal again.

Sure. I'd love to live there, given that I'm post menopausal and apparently of no use.

You would be of no use in their society under their conditions. Thankfully, you are not subject to that, as our society moved away from the notion that women are just uteri.

Can't imagine why. After all, I'm post menopausal. Interesting, huh?

OK this treads dangerously close to a strawman. And you definitely should know better, as people have been erecting your strawmen non-stop all the time for many years. Your response implies that I somehow endorse the practice of killing post-menopausal women. This story was just an example to illustrate my point that no extremes are off-limits when it comes to survival and evolution of a given society. There are countless other examples: Spartans throwing sick babies off cliffs, some African tribes (even today) sacrificing children to appease gods of profit. Just because I mention those, will you also accuse me of sharing those beliefs?

My point is (and I really want to drive this home) that IF I was born in that Amazon tribe, IF I had been raised by their society, I WOULD most likely have endorse their way of life.

And funny that you say you “can’t imagine why” even though I gave the specific reason in that sentence that you quoted: I hold deep respect for your INTELECT and DEDICATION.

I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, my only value to anyone is my ability to reproduce, so I can't imagine why anyone would waste the price of a meal on me.

Once again, not to “anyone” but just to the people who hold that belief. Please don’t assume that I do.

On the other hand, I should have been allowed to abort every fetus I ever conceived, because my ability to reproduce has nothing to do with my value to society. In fact, women who choose to never carry a child to term should be bonked over the head and killed. Not executed, mind you. Just killed by surprise because they're not performing their one vital function in society. Interesting, huh?

Same, you don’t live in that society. And neither do I. These rules don’t apply to you and me. I am not saying that women who don’t reproduce SHOULD be bonked over the head. I am saying that in that society they ARE being bonked over the head. And in my opinion our society is not 100% immune to one day adopting this strategy, however I do believe it is highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, infanticide by mom should be perfectly legal because "muh precious resources". Interesting, huh?

Not SHOULD be but WILL be given certain conditions. I know, I am repeating myself a lot.

Why, it's almost as if you're arguing that infanticide is okay because babies consume the resources of the mother, and that homicide of non-reproductive women is okay because they consume the resources of the community. While at the same time, you're offering your resources to a post-menopausal woman who should, by your reckoning, be considered to be contributing nothing whatsoever to society.

Another strawman, or maybe it’s the same one I don’t know. I am not arguing infanticide IS OK. But it CAN be normalized one day. And the mechanism for its normalization would be very similar to normalizing abortions right now.

It’s not MY reckoning. This is unfair and you know it. If I was brining up holocaust as an “interesting” example of historical extremities, would you be calling me a Nazi and accusing me of endorsing holocaust? I know you wouldn’t. You are better than that.

[–]illCodeYouABrain1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aparantly there is limit on number of characters in a response. So here is continuation of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bqc7nv/the_way_this_guy_says_explains_it_is_perfect/eociprl/

Hey. You ever wonder how you got here? If your parents had had sex in a different position the night you were conceived, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you. If your grandmother hadn't taken the bus to work every day that was driven by your grandfather, and if he hadn't persisted in hitting on her, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you. If your great great great great great grandmother's husband hadn't been killed in war, and if she hadn't remarried and given birth to your great great great great grandfather, you wouldn't be here. Someone else might be, but it wouldn't be you. If some amoeba 3.5 billion years ago had put out a pseudopod and exchanged DNA with a different amoeba than the one it actually did, you wouldn't be here. Someone might be, but it wouldn't be you.

You are the product of an uninterrupted chain of successful survival and reproduction that goes all the way back to the very first prokaryotic cells that emerged in a puddle of ooze in what is now Australia. You won the cosmic lottery, against astronomical odds. Seriously, if any one of your millions of forebears had done a single thing differently than what they did, you wouldn't be here.

That ticket was in your pocket, and no one stole it from you.

This is great topic that I would love to discuss with you over a bottle of wine face to face. This our current discussion format is not suited for this incredibly complicate topic in my opinion. But I’ll give you a short rundown. I do wonder how I got here. I’ve been on this planet for 40 years and much of this time this question greatly interested me. And what I figure, before we can say whether it “would be me” or “wouldn’t be me”, we have to define “me”. And you know it’s very fuzzy. Am I a genetic coincidence like you say? Am I like you say a “product of an uninterrupted chain of successful survival and reproduction”? Am I a biological entity? Or am I a collection of mostly carbon and hydrogen atoms? Am I not biological in principle but just a relatively complex network of electrical signals held together by my neural system? Am I just a cloud of quarks and gluons? Because each one of these definitions will yield different answers to your question. Why do you explore only one scenario and completely discard others. Am I just an abstract system of pattern recognition? Is there an objective ME at all? Can I just be a statistical probability of a random quantum field? I cannot tell you, but I know you cannot tell either. Therefore I do think this comparison to a “lottery ticket” is actually quite misleading and simplistic.

Karen, I would like to finish my response with an extended hand. Of course it is your choice to accept or decline it, and I will respect it. I did call myself pro-choice after all, didn’t I? I know that I am a complete stranger to you, but I feel like you are not a complete stranger to me. And my sushi offer still stands, that is of course if you like sushi. If not, there are plenty of other magnificent food places around DC. Do you like Indian food maybe?

Speaking of India, I just got back from business trip to Goa last week. You know they don’t eat beef, like at all. It’s not available anywhere. One billion people just somehow collectively decided that cows are not to be eaten. Water buffalos – no problem, you can have that, but not cows. Interesting, huh?...

[–]pobretano 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RealBiggly -25 points-24 points-23 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

It's really something in a mensrights sub for the most upvoted comment to be: yeah, it's unfair for men but they should just take it.

[–]RealBiggly 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know right?

15 years ago I founded an international org, put my heart and soul into it, helped bring a lot of guys together, raised awareness etc etc.

But this is ultimately why, while I still support men's rights, I quit.

Even most men don't seem to give a flying fuck about men's rights. Some do, say maybe 20%, and I'd say the number is growing as things such as Metoo and other crap cannot be ignored, but on the whole? Nah, as long as there's a chance they'll get to sniff some smelly panties or have a 4/10 smile at them they'll throw their fellow brothers under a bus.

Me, I'm a little lost, as MGTOW don't overly like me as I'm happily married, MRAs don't like me as I've been there, done that and can see 90% of it is useless spinning of wheels and circle-jerking.

People really hate the truth, such as the fact not ALL women are like that, but most of the bitches ARE.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–]LimbRetrieval-Bot 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]C4H8N8O8 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (52 children) | Copy Link

men and women should be appalled by the accepting of killing babies

[–]GimmeSomeSugar 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]airsoftmemelord 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (29 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty disgusted with how dishonest and cavalier people are when talking about killing babies.

[–]boxsterguy 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

it's clear ya'll are incapable of having an honest or genuine discussion about this

[–]GimmeSomeSugar 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thathighclassbitch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GimmeSomeSugar 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jonnytechno 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlluminationRuminati -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IlluminationRuminati0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boxsterguy 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

click the downvote kiddo, I hope it makes you feel better

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

[+]sock_lover1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

No one is arguing for killing babies, the disagreement is about when a fertilized egg becomes a baby.

[–]boxsterguy4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IlluminationRuminati1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

so mad

[–]boxsterguy1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CobaltFresco 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]GuiginosFineDining -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CobaltFresco 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Shockblocked -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

they quite clearly do

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Justathrowawayoh1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Show me the graves of the people who died at Treblinka!

Please tell me you're not this clownishly stupid.

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewPlanNewMan 69 points70 points71 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]BulldogOatmeal -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

Well considering they're including trannys and gays in that "education" i don't blame them for wanting to get rid of it.

[–]such-a-mensch 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kyriios188 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf[M] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]snuffop -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dammitwebothreddit11 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]halomon3000 58 points59 points60 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]functionalghost1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Men can't dodge the responsibility of being a parent. Why should woman get that option? Oh because it's her body? Yeah and it's his body working out in Alberta in the freezing cold to pay for his ex wife alimony and the kid he never wanted.

Nope nope nope no one is going to fight this battle for you cunt dog feminists. We ain't lifting a finger to assist you in finding a way to dodge responsibility and accountability. That has happened often enough.

[–]halomon3000 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobsbakedbeans 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bobsbakedbeans 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thalexander 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jimmy2e 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]halomon3000 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theninja94 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker43 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]IlluminationRuminati -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DanteLivra 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExsolutionLamellae -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reverend_Vader 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If it wasn't such a backwards step and serious issue, I'd be literally laughing my way to a cramp

So women in these states now have the same rights as the fathers do

Welcome to equality ladies, shit isn't it

I say this as a 100% pro choice guy who believes the mother does still have the right to make the final decision

However, want my support and help, you better tell you feminist friends that demanding vasectomies (my body but strangely not my choice), blaming men when women are 50% of the vote, pushing sex strikes on idiot book (just some of what I've read in the feminism sub this week)

My favourite of the week was "women are more important than a clump of cells", guess who isn't as important as this clump, men!

You think im going to support your right to choose when I lost that right and anything related ages ago, not even telling the dad when the choice is made, married, bf or ons, doesn't matter to many now, we are not even worth being informed, never mind consulted

Give me an opt out and I'm behind you 100%, until then

Your body, your problem

[–]fgrsentinel 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well spoken. Personally I'm pro-choice too, but hearing this nonsense and the fact that most feminists can't comprehend that this is how the majority of fathers who are forced to pay child support for a kid they didn't want (especially the men who are forced to pay their rapists child support) or that they're not the only ones who suffer from this turns me off on the stance of pro-choice.

Sure, it sucks that in some states abortion is banned in all cases and I think those states need to ease up and calm their shit, but the ones that allow abortion under certain serious circumstances aren't really doing anything too bad. Men don't have the right to not pay child support if they didn't want the kid, feminists scream and throw a fit about the ones that don't and call them "deadbeats" when some have gotten pregnant specifically to bleed a man dry. Now they're being told they can't have abortions and they're acting like it's the biggest injustice in America in the last 20-40 years.

I'm sorry for all the normal, sane women that understand where MRAs are coming from on the child support issue that are forced to suffer through this, but at the same time the way the feminists are acting shows that they need to grow up and learn that they have it better than just about everyone else right now. When they learn to understand and appreciate that fact and use their influence to fix the child support situation, I'll happily take up the pro-choice stance again. Until then, my sympathies for all the women that don't agree with their nonsense that have to suffer for i.

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]vicious_armbar1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Men do. The only reason alimony laws have been reformed in many states is because some women have started to have to pay alimony.

[+]ExsolutionLamellae -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ExsolutionLamellae -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]azmareld 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ColorMeOffended5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rockbottom503 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]family-love-michael 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]family-love-michael 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You have my upvote. If you want to do the deed, use your own condoms (or at the very least a woman shouldn’t expect the man to always provide the condoms which is totally unfair) and a woman shouldn’t be offended or taken aback if asked if she is on birth control or had been tested recently. Totally agree with the “takes two to tango blah blah blah” philosophy.

Also I assume giving a woman “baby juice” means that one is ejaculating inside the condom. I am picturing a bow and award ceremony lol. I know this is not actually happening but I am cracking up.

The female condom seems super easy to wear and I would totality try it and spread the word to my female friends who I think would feel the same. Any way to not get preg or contract STDs is fine for this gal.

I do have a question - and it is not meant to be combative because I do support many MRA issues and love reading posts on this board. Is this an MRA issue? I would consider this more of a sex ed issue.

You mentioned that condoms affect sensation, and it does for women too. Also wouldn’t a latex female condom have the same effect? There would be timing to put that on/in that could potentially delay things and ruin the mood. This is why I think it might be a general birth control issue and not really MRA. What do you think? Open to discussion!

[–]RealBiggly 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding is that the female condom is inserted, some lube added and then you can somewhat forget it. In contrast if I lose my erection for a moment as I'n busy giving you backrubs or something, the condom is now useless, needs throwing away and a new one opened.

Trying to jam it back on again later doesn't work too well, and would be even more mood-killing and another loss of erection, rise and repeat...

A female condom must have some effect on the vaginal walls but aren't we forever told it's all about the clitoris anyway? It doesn't cover that, so we're good.

Secondly, if you're American you may not be familiar with an intact penis, so a linky:

http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/

In short, an intact man is mostly moving within his own sheath, so adding a layer of latex makes little difference to the woman as there shouldn't be direct friction anyway.

Why 'circumcision' is so harmful for men is the primary pleasure comes from his foreskin furling and unfurling over his shaped glans - the majority of his sexual nerves are in that foreskin, not the glans which is mostly the supporting structure for that mechanism.

So a condom on an intact man is awkward, as it tries to curl in and out with the foreskin and just rubs, stretches and often snaps entirely. This is my why perfectly cute and normal-size dick has snapped at least 5 condoms over the years. They're a shit design for a natural dick, and only really work on MGM dicks. Or broomsticks. Cucumbers. That kind of thing.

Why is it a men's rights issue? Well it's part and parcel of the whole... well scroll up and look at the original post. That thing. That thing is a thing.

That should not be a thing.

Men should have a choice about parenthood too, or neither have a choice, but giving one both the choice AND the choice to physically force the other to finance that choice?

That's revolting to me. It's disgusting; more so than abortion itself, that someone can be so blatantly 2-faced and not be slapped or worse in public.

Imagine having such a distorted, twisted mind that you can actually entertain the idea that for a woman to have a basic "right" and freedom, among her various choices she can choose forcing a man into involuntary servitude for 20 odds years, or choose to just kill the unborn child, along with adoption, safe havens, morning-after pills etc etc.

Yet when the man says he's not ready to be a parent, we should hound him to the end of the Earth, calling him a "deadbeat", "lowlife" and throw him in jail?

Her body, her choice, her responsibility. The man should only be held financially liable for her choice if he gives consent. No consent means no.

It's only a difficult concept if you insist on twisting your brain into a pretzel. You know, like a traditionalist, or even a feminist?

Urgh.

[–]guillemqv 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jason13906 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vxd386 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]vxd386 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hiddeboterkoek 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crotalus 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Best_Darius_KR -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

He knows exactly what it means. And so do you.

[–]orcscorper 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fyrie-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NCHeavyHunter 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheConflictPigeon 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Kyriios188 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BilboBagginhole 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyriios188 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BilboBagginhole -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyriios188 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BilboBagginhole 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyriios188 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BilboBagginhole 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NomadFH-8 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]laelapslvi 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]valas76 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Black_caped_man 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The issue isn't that they don't want to be mothers, the issue is that they don't want to go through with a pregnancy, especially in a country with the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. That's just looking at deaths too, not mentioning all the absolutely fucked up shit that happens to a womans body.

This has nothing to do with parenthood at all, because a woman can still give a child up for adoption or just drop it off at a safe haven location.

I agree that it's totally unfair that as a man I don't have a say in whether I become a father or not but I also realize that it's because It's not actually my body. I think both parties should be able to denounce their parenthood but comments like these just makes this whole movement look like a bunch of morons only looking for a cheap gotcha and not even considering the situation.

[–]EgalitarianGirl777 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]symbioterabbit -22 points-21 points-20 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ItChEE40 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ItChEE40 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]insanemetal1871 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

women can sue their rape victims for child support.

Well, I'd hope so. It's not like she had any say in that situation.

[+]mrstickman1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

women can sue their rape victims for child support.

Well, I'd hope so. It's not like she had any say in that situation.

Female rapists have no say in raping someone?

[–]insanemetal187 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrstickman -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JayTheFordMan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]therealnumberone 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As long as men get screwed by society.

I want women to get some sand up their noses too.

It's only fair.

At minimum we shouldn't lift a finger to help them, since they try to screw us at every turn.

This forum is infested by "equalists" who say

"Cmon it's not that bad."

What they're trying to do is normalize feminism and gynocentrism.

Downplay it.

Like "Cmon it's not that bad. It's not that unfair. Women don't have it on ez-mode."

Nothing will change in society until men develop some kind of gender consciousness.

Put their own gender first for a change.

That being said

I think women will always benefit from some type of bias.

Because that's just how men and women are wired.

Men are biased towards women.

And women are even more biased towards women.

So to go against that, you're fighting your own biology.

Every time you think, "oh noes, the poor womens."

Chances are you're not really having human empathy.

It's just the female empathy bias kicking in.

I see alot of that going around here.

Alot of "equalists" pretending to have "human empathy."

[+]azmareld1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Left wing and feminists are so triggered by this I am just loving it.

[–]Potato2304 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]azmareld -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Potato2304 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CloaknPoke -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BulldogOatmeal -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BulldogOatmeal -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luckich4rmz -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aslrocks -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PixelPete85 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]CuckedIndianAmerican -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]family-love-michael 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]family-love-michael 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SatanLovesCheese -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Twstgames 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gerard_Wayyy_1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Could you please give me some cases of a man being forced to father a child?

[–]Twstgames 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawway2091 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gerard_Wayyy_1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Real life events

[–]Twstgames 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]FuckmeJeffrey -21 points-20 points-19 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wsing1974 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]FuckmeJeffrey -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FuckmeJeffrey -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not all men want to have kids when they have sex. Some women, however, know that if they get pregnant they can demand child support, so rather than say they want a kid (which in this day and age would likely make most men who are aware of what's going on due to the feminist movement back out and leave immediately) or accept that the man doesn't want one and it'd be morally unacceptable (like a decent human being), they pretend to go along with it and either sabotage the condom or use the semen in it to impregnate herself after the fact.

Hell, there's even been a woman who admitted to using semen from giving a man oral sex to impregnate herself and said that since the man "gave" it to her it was her right to do whatever she wanted with it. The courts agreed with that logic.

The fact of the matter is, right now men have zero reproductive rights, even when using a condom, because the woman can just use any semen she gets from anywhere to impregnate herself as long as it was a consensual act between them that allowed her to get access to it and the courts will still force the man to pay child support.

[–]revolution1solution -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NobodyP1 -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moimoi328 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moimoi328 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]vicious_armbar1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Men don't create children. We don't have a uterus. Women create children and decide whether to bring them to term. So they should be the ones held responsible for their decision.

[–]Shockblocked -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]vicious_armbar1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't care what you think.

[–]Shockblocked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The way this guy says explains it is perfect
Author	ajm2247
Upvotes	2954
Comments	456
Date	May 19, 2019 3:01 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bqc7nv/the_way_this_guy_says_explains_it_is_perfect/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-way-this-guy-says-explains-it-is-perfect.877377 https://theredarchive.com/post/877377

Comments