[–]abatoire 217 points218 points219 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 355 points356 points357 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Exo0804 248 points249 points250 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]BlueZir1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

All that matters is DNA. You'd think these things were a bit more advanced than that by now given that we can even analyse DNA in the first place, but hey ho it's only people's livelihoods at stake.

[–]turbulance4 82 points83 points84 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Glassiam 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]turbulance4 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Many guys do go to prison for not paying child support. The surprising thing is that men would rather go to prison than revolt.

[–]turbulance4 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]_Mellex_ 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uncle_samok 83 points84 points85 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nick30075 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]J3ST3RR 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]mcavvacm 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alreadypiecrust 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]az226 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abatoire 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]im_in_hiding 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Iamthewalrus482 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aurigod 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]chrome_titan 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Yes they get charged child support during their incarceration. They are obviously unable to pay. So the debt accrues, and the interest gets tacked on to the principal.

[–]abatoire 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]newaccount102456 -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]melonangie 59 points60 points61 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]wambaowambao 62 points63 points64 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]phantom_tempest 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xMB99 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]FlyingDutchman34 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjams 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

But forcing a man to use his body via labor to support the child for 18 YEARS is worse than having a woman carry the child without wanting to for a mere 7 months (the average time left after she discovers she is pregnant)

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

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

[–]Lostonpurpose87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a dad. I pay child support to my ex-wife. I am salty about, mainly because Texas is 30 yes outdated in how they handle child support, but that's neither here nor there.

A dad should only be able to financially opt out in a state where abortion is allowed, as these heartbeat abortion laws essentially make abortions illegal. Financially opting out should also remove any rights you have as that child's biological parent. If you aren't going to at least take care of part of the financial burden of taking care of a child you essentially waive your right to make any decisions regarding the child after it is born. In states where abortion is illegal you are essentially forcing the mother to carry the baby to term and both people were equally responsible for conceiving that child and should be responsible for raising it.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingDutchman34 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Moving" chickens with their heads cut off do that.

"Thinking" there is no evidence that an organism that is from zygote to fetus has this.

"Instincts" if we're gonna even talk about it, we're literally the worst animal on the planet.

"has glowing blood" are you joking?

"is just a clump of cells that's no better than the piles my dogs leave behind in the yard" pretty much. We're the only species to sacrifice for something that can't do fuck-all on it's own. We're the only species dumb enough to keep the weak alive.

But I’d be pissed as hell if she just went and killed our baby without me having any form of input.

Tough shit. Women aren't machines to be utilized for anyone but their own benefit or symbiotic relationships, just as men aren't atms to be utilized for anyone but their own benefit or symbiotic relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]jlevy1126 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Men use their body to pay child support, yet we compel him to continue using their body against his will (jail time results if he stops).

So, we have precedent. It is perfectly acceptable to compels someone to utilize their body.

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are the majority voting block. Numerous studies have demonstrated they lack empathy towards men and have in-group bias. As long as they do not directly benefit they will never vote for men to have equal reproductive rights.

As such, the only solution is removing their rights and then we can work on a reproductive bill of rights that includes both genders. Only this way will they become allies.

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

That is unfortunately where things might seem unfair, but being pregnant is not an easy thing and there can be numerous health risks involved - especially if the woman involved is forced to carry a child she doesn't want / care for.

At the end of the day, it's her body so she gets the say. That being said, I 100% support men opting out of paying child support if they become father unwillingly.

If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy and prevent you from becoming a father, it's very unfortunate but you'll find another opportunity later on at least.

If the woman you got pregnant decides to have this child despite strong opposition from you, you will always be a father. Period. And will most likely have to pay for it, literally, for many many years to come.

There is a slight difference there.

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Being overworked has many health risks too. And we compel men to use their body to pay unjust child support. So, if we can compel men's bodies for 18 years we can certainly compel a woman's body for 9 months.

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

[–]FlyingDutchman34 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]vicsj 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You know ontraceptives fail. Not all women who abort are reckless or irresponsible. Most contraceptives (when used correctly) only have a 1-2% fail rate. Which sounds pretty secure but think about how many people 2% of birth control users actually are. Which means each year there is always going to be thousands of failed contraceptives despite the women being responsible. You shouldn't be forced to go through the mental, physical, financial and life long strain and responsibility because of something that was beyond you - whether you're a woman or a man.

If it makes you feel any better, no one wants to abort. It is a very unpleasant experience and worst case, you can either go sterile or die of an infection.

But when you've aborted, you suffer horrible cramps, nausea, some women can't walk for a few days after, and in a few cases you don't stop bleeding for weeks. It's not just an easy way out of not having a baby. It should be the very last resort.

Besides, the "baby" isn't technically a baby at the allowed stage of abortions. It is called a fetus for a reason. If it was a baby, we would call it a baby. It's not considered a baby if it can't survive outside of the womb. Which also means it has no sensory system or self awareness. It doesn't think, or feel or anything really. It's a blob of cells containing combined DNA. I know it is still a sad thing, but we treat alive and very feeling animals worse than we do fetuses. We throw male chicks into grinders alive and slit 6 month old pig's throats. I'm not vegan, but there is some hypocrisy or lack of awareness when it comes to how we value life.

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

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

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

the first definition i found says that it is actually not even a fetus until after about 8 weeks. and the very next thing i see is that fetal development begins in the 9th week and continues until birth. since we were talking about a woman that is 1 day away from birth, then it does not match your definition of a fetus, although you agreed that it could survive outside the womb.

interestingly, i found a source that said most abortions happen within the first 8 weeks, which would mean those are not actually a fetus being aborted. and of course that might only apply to the US.

im not sure what youre getting at by saying a person that waits that long shouldnt be a parent and somethings fucked. it seems like youre suggesting that its better off that way if a baby dies, which would be the same as saying a baby should be euthanized if they have an unfit mother.

[–]TheAndredal[S] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]4uber2fuzz0 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hubey808 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]4uber2fuzz0 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hubey808 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]steak4take 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hubey808 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steak4take 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hubey808 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4uber2fuzz0 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hubey808 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is literally the topic at hand though. It's not like I'm writing an essay intended for a random audience. We are already talking about the lack of mens rights when it comes to their child. If I need to quote every comment up this point it'd make for a long post.

What about when the men wants the child and the women don’t. They Both made it

The comment before yours was in relation to the above quote. This comment shouldn't have to reference every right a man has vs the rights men don't have when it comes to the topic.

I feel the government uses men as a scapegoat for the financial well being of a child, whether he wants it or not; it's the womans right to keep or abort said child which is not equality. On the other token if the father of this future child wanted to be a dad, it's still up to the mother to keep or abort; this is not equality.

If the topic was already broad and generalized then we can talk about the gender pay gap or whatever else you want, but it's not.

[+]meatman941 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I know Florida has laws in place for this. It's actually as simple as signing a form that negates any and all rights a male would have to the child. I had a friend whose brother chose that option. I'm sure of the whole process though.

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

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

[–]ABitterSatireHeWrote 136 points137 points138 points 7 years ago* (188 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 104 points105 points106 points 7 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

[+]vicious_armbar1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (54 children) | Copy Link

Roe vs Wade was decided nearly half a century ago. What is the state of reproductive rights for men? Non-existent.

There has only been greater levels of coercion as: child support was federalized and required in all cases; advancements in technology made it easier to track people; and penalties got harsher.

Honestly I think the only way forward is if more women have to pay child support. That's how alimony got reformed in many states. Then perhaps we could see child support reforms.

Such as not imprisoning people who can't pay; allowing people in debt to keep their drivers license so they can still get to work; and making child support debt dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[–]Content_Not_History 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[+]VANcf13 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

I'd be curious how you would implement this "choice" of not wanting to be a parent?

to me, the right to have an abortion isn't about not wanting to be a parent, it's about having the right to choose what happens to your body. the fact that you have to go through a physical and mental ordeal carrying a baby plus the life long consequences for physical and mental health that can be induced by birth.

since men can get post partum depression for example, I'd assume that this "right to their own body" doesn't really apply to abortions.

how would you suggest to give men the equivalent to an abortion? I mean, of you do want to prevent pregnancy, a vasectomy could be a viable option since the procedure is highly reversible and fairly safe. other than that a condom would be a good option, which is fairly safe if used properly.

unfortunately, due to the biology of reproduction, I'm afraid that men cannot get the same "right" as women in this regard.

[–]Kravego 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LegginMF12 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cindymannunu -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Content_Not_History 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

I'd be curious how you would implement this "choice" of not wanting to be a parent?

Make it so men would have to opt-in in order to be on the hook for child support. That's really the only way to go about it.

to me, the right to have an abortion isn't about not wanting to be a parent, it's about having the right to choose what happens to your body.

That's great for you, but it doesn't matter what you think about it per se. Lots of females have abortions because they aren't ready to be responsible for said child.

It doesn't matter what the reason is - the end result is that you will not be giving birth and thus be responsible. Men deserve the same choice.

the fact that you have to go through a physical and mental ordeal carrying a baby plus the life long consequences for physical and mental health that can be induced by birth.

Well, that's the price to pay for being female, eh? I mean, pregnancy is their responsibility. In any case, that's another conversation and isn't really relevant here.

since men can get post partum depression for example, I'd assume that this "right to their own body" doesn't really apply to abortions.

Not sure what you're talking about. Men aren't looking for an actual abortion, unless you want to call it a "financial abortion", perhaps.

unfortunately, due to the biology of reproduction, I'm afraid that men cannot get the same "right" as women in this regard.

Not sure what you mean by "same". If they get the choice, then it is good enough!

[–]cindymannunu -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Content_Not_History -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]cindymannunu -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Content_Not_History 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]AEHIILRS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]VANcf13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AEHIILRS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

it is highly reversible though, there's studies about it

Depends what you mean by "reversible". Yes, you can go get an expensive microsurgical procedure to reconnect what was separated, and that's technically a reversal, but you're still probably going to be infertile. And the probability of remaining infertile increases with the time between the original vasectomy and the reversal.

men are basically always fertile and women only 3 days a month there should be something done about that

So. When a man has unprotected sex, there's a 10% chance his partner is fertile. When a woman has unprotected sex, there's a 100% chance her partner is fertile. Before even getting into the difference in biological cost/risk, you've already established women have a 10x greater motivating responsibility to do something about that.

Don't get me wrong, something like RISUG/Vasalgel that is successfully reversible would be a great boon to gender equal reproductive rights, but...

vasectomies should not be considered reversible.

[–]VANcf13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

but by saying "women have a 10x greater motivating responsibility" you entirely disregard that men have to take 50% responsibility for what happens if a pregnancy occurs, since it's 50% their fault, there's just no denying that, since they KNOW they are fertile every day and could impregnate a woman at ANY time, they CANNOT rely on the woman for birth control and then whine that they don't want to be fathers.

and that means they have to tale responsibility for the child that is born from this. they know before engaging in sex that a pregnancy could occur, it's not like they are tricked into believing that sex is not involved in making a baby. and trusting in a woman to be careful with birth control is very irresponsible, since even if the woman is diligent, there may be factors that she cannot control that make her birth control unreliable.

I do agree that vasgel should be studied more and it should become a common birth control for men, since, from what I know, it seems to be super cheap and super easy. and it would finally take away the general suspicion of some men, that it's a woman's only life goal to trick them into becoming fathers and paying child support. especially since a woman also has to pay child support if the man cares for the kid. and that aside, the money that is received through child support is in no way enough to care for a kid, let alone "make a profit". you definitely end up in red numbers with this plan.

[+]AEHIILRS1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

you entirely disregard that men have to take 50% responsibility for what happens if a pregnancy occurs

Of course. I support gender equal reproductive rights.

If you ascribe 50% responsibility, they can assert 50% right to choose what happens if a pregnancy occurs. Sweet anti-abortion argument, bro.

This is why "pro-choice" people need to stop opposing reproductive rights.

they know before engaging in sex that a pregnancy could occur,

Sweet anti-abortion argument, bro. Have you tried not opposing reproductive rights?

the money that is received through child support is in no way enough to care for a kid, let alone "make a profit". you definitely end up in red numbers with this plan.

If you consent to parenthood, the kid itself respresents significant positive value.

And if you could have something you wanted but could get it 50%+ off with this one easy trick, yes, that's a huge benefit to you vs. being solely responsible for your sole choices and actions.

[–]MostThanks 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]autoeroticassfxation -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itsjustjessienowbro 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]autoeroticassfxation -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago* (52 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 7 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]vmerc 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]stinkybasket 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]FlyingDutchman34 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingDutchman34 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree that people have sex and know that many people never want to have a child. But be smart, make that decision. There are apps and calendars designed to help women follow their fertility schedule, chose to stay abstinent during the 5-7 days of the month they’re most fertile, use condoms, use birth control. I’d imagine that pregnancy rate of women who are on birth control, use condoms and are knowledgeable of their fertility cycle are extraordinarily low. As I said, be smart, and you shouldn’t have issues.

As for the “clump of cells” comment, that’s old and tired and you’ve been manipulated to believe that to make you feel that abortion isn’t the unethical action it is. The brain development in the 2nd trimester includes reflexes and muscle movement and I believe is where we see the biggest growth of the cerebrum, the thinking and feeling portion of the brain. That’s a functioning brain. This is not a “clump of cells” it’s a highly organized living organism....

I understand you’ll probably never change your mind, but maybe you should speak with a family who lost their baby in the first trimester and tel them all they lost was a “clump of cells”....

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwiggityStag 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

so it doesn't hurt when their daughters get aborted? English isn't my first language, I meant Son/daughter. "But it isn't their body, and it shouldn't ultimately be up to them, nor should they get an "equal say". It's a really shitty situation, but that's the way it has to be. Whether or not the fetus is "alive" and has its "own" body doesn't really matter, what matters is if it's conscious. A 26-year-old woman is, a 2-month-old fetus is not. There is no contest here." Then i guess than the fathers will only pay doctors and hospital when the baby is born. It required 2 people to make, 2 Dna genetics, it's THEIR son and daughter, not her son/daughter. So they get Equal say( it's not the father guilt if he can't carry the child.) The counscious argument is very faulty, i advice to dont go that way. A 2-month-old fetus is already a different person. Different Dna, different sex(maybe).

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Warod0 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]vmerc -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ABitterSatireHeWrote 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]vmerc 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ABitterSatireHeWrote 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]vmerc 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ABitterSatireHeWrote 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Leftism = the left wing of capital. Leftists essentially seek nothing more than a change in management, not in the system of production. State-owned enterprises don't change anything fundamental. Neither do syndicates, neither do co-ops. The expansion of economic value, by value - ultimately, money turning into more money - which is called "capital" (which is also the separation of humans from the means of life), is still the ruling force in all of them. Such situations involve: workers, enterprises and/or states, wage labor (the purchase of a worker's ability to work) and money (or a deficient replacement), commodities, etc.

There is a word for such systems of production which are ruled by capital (both the process [the self-expansion of value], and the relation [alienation from the "means of production"]): capitalism.

"Communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". The future phase and outcome of this movement is also called communism (or, alternatively, socialism).

Capitalism =/= "free markets", even though it may in many situations be better expressed and will function better with "freer" markets.

Socialism =/= "when the government does stuff", after the fall of feudalism, states exist to perpetuate capitalist conditions (although they do this with greater or lesser effectiveness). Even if you grant the most stupidly generous definition of socialism as "anything that isn't capitalism", then no "real existing socialism" ever spawned would make the cut.

https://greatmomentsinleftism.blogspot.com/2013/10/socialism-in-one-comic-strip.html (larger version: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GD4EIiXvkwU/UmbBB96MGdI/AAAAAAAAAJI/fQQQ1A22LMw/s1600/001.png)

[–]vmerc 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

Interesting. A good explanation

I tried my best to condense both the explanation of the usual understanding and the critique into a few paragraphs! The base concepts aren't particularly complicated, but there is a ton of background info which is hard to sum up in that short a space. But thanks! I'll take that to mean I succeeded at least to some extent!

but I don't think many share that interpretation with you

That would be absolutely correct. The umbrella categories of theories and movements/organizations which are related to what I put above is (ironically [they didn't pick the names a la "MRA"]) "ultra-left" and "left communist".

So, short of the absolute impossibility of true communism, what would you say is the closest viable form of government you support?

Now this, this is where we really get started. Because the answer is "none" and that the notion of "the absolute impossibility of true communism" misunderstand both "impossibility" and "communism" , but if I left it at that it would be quite the unsatisfactory answer, so here comes some more long-winded answers (RIP making this short):

Communism isn't an alternative Utopian form of government, nor of economy, it can't be poofed into existence in one isolated location. It is the negation of both the state and the economy (which actually gives rise to the state). As stated above:

Communism is "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" . Here is the full quote:

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (Marx & Engels, "The German Ideology")

The tl;dr is that capitalism has created the conditions for communism (socially, economically, etc.) and tends towards its own destruction (the most clear empirical form of this is the tendency for the rate of profit to fall).

There is no blueprint of what "true communism" is. What we can know of the resulting society is extremely limited (it will have no nations, state, classes, money, enterprises, markets, private property, etc.), our knowledge is primarily confined to what it will surely not be. Our understanding of the transition between capitalism and communism is similarly impaired. We know that the current (capitalist) state will not exist and the only similar organ will be a pseudo-/semi-state which is merely the organ for the workers to seize control of the means of life (and I'd say we can give a pretty well-educated guess that these organs will be a centralized network of whats called "workers' councils"), and will fade into an administrative organ (basically one giant database of material objects, and a center for planning). To say this is impossible isn't to say that some particular Utopian system won't work, it is to say that no alternative to capitalism is possible, which is, once you understand the mechanics and relations of capitalism (this self-expanding value - money turning itself into more money [via exploitation of workers in production], and the forced separation of workers from the means of life - private property [upheld by the force of the state]), absurd on its face. It is to claim that humans can't manage their own lives, neither collectively nor individually and be independent self-developing persons, but instead need to be organized by erratic, non-conscious, systems of force and impoverishment (one which destroys and impairs its own functioning anyway).

Such a movement is entirely opposed and contradictory to the current functions of government. So workers' primary interests are to organize themselves outside and against any form of state or style of governance by the capitalist state (regardless of if the ruling party has the word "workers" in the title). And the communist movement can only be a unified world movement, negating every state and the world economy and integrating humanity, as capitalism is a world system. Furthermore, capitalism's internal antagonistic forces lead it to it own destruction, so no governments which arises from it in order to perpetuate it can be called "viable", nor is there any point in trying to "fix" or "change" them beyond removing what potential the workers do have to organize their only true "outs" of their conditions: their own independent organizations outside and against state power.

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

it will have no nations, state, classes, money, enterprises, markets, private property, etc.

How does that differ from anarchism?

Also, I firmly believe that we should consciously transition from capitalism before the roboticization of the workforce encourages the wealthy elite to slough workers off the earth like the chaff they think we are. You sound like someone who's interested in coordinated a series of planned steps away from capitalism, rather than insisting on one revolutionary push (a desire, imo, that has more to do with one's ego than any true commitment to the betterment of humanity).

As a humanist, I especially agree with:

it is to say that no alternative to capitalism is possible, which is, once you understand the mechanics and relations of capitalism ... absurd on its face. It is to claim that humans can't manage their own lives, neither collectively nor individually and be independent self-developing persons, but instead need to be organized by erratic, non-conscious, systems of force and impoverishment

The inability to see us incapable of managing resources reveals the misanthropic roots of capitalism. It'd be an eighty-year project, and we wouldn't live to see the end of it, but a good person plants a tree whose shade they'll never enjoy.

I've bookmarked you as someone who would be interested in forming a group to create these changes.

Keep up the good work!

[+]Ctrl_Alt_Abstergo1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You’re a moron. Communism is far left and saying otherwise undermines your other asinine positions.

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

You’re a moron.

I try.

Communism is far left

If by that you mean that many far-left ideologies call themselves and their glorified make-overs for capitalism "communist", then yes I agree with that. If you mean that what I'm laying out is also leftist simply because I speak of replacing capitalism with this "communism" then that does not logically follow in light of the argument I just made. You could argue that the premises and explanations of the nature of leftism offered are wrong, but that is a separate (but relevant) argument from "communism is far-left" in reference to what I call it without reference to the arguments provide

saying otherwise undermines your other asinine positions.

? So:

(What I mean by communist/communism is qualitatively different from leftist ideology and how it uses it = wrong) = (fetuses = babies) and/or (a woman should have final say on what happens to her body = wrong)

Did I misrepresent that in any way? Because - what was the word used, asinine?

[–]jameswalker43 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]SpellBlue -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]14b755fe39 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]BlackRhyno74 -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

first, I know 2 people actually, who are children of a rape victim, both men are surprisingly well grounded people, and I don't understand the pyschology behind it, but were probably better loved children then most.. and this statement is nothing more then a perspective that actually giving birth to a child conceived of rape doesn't actually turn into an 18 year reminder of a horrific event. That being said, most pro-lifers would probably say ok to rape related abortions if we were to agree that all other abortions are bad,reason being that out of 1000 abortions performed, the rape related abortion would maybe add up to 1 of them. Its odd that cases of rape and incest are the reasons most called to as why it's necessary to keep abortion legal, yet they are absolutely the lowest ranking cases of actual abortions, where almost all others are convenience related reasons.

When roe vs wade was passed, it was passed so that 'as a last resort when all else fails' woman would have this right to choose. Never was it considered that abortion would rise to the forfront of options in almost all pregnancies from that point forward. it's literally the first thing suggested to unmarried woman, with promises of support if they go thru with the procedure.

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

[–]kevinnelson89991 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]kevinnelson89991 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinnelson89991 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, even if we are going by 'basically', there are too many distinguishing difference between a parasite and a fetus.

Parasites come from an external source, a fetus is formed internally

A parasite makes direct contact with the hosts living tissue, a fetus liven in the placenta, fed by the umbilical cord, both of which are fetal tissue (formed by the fetus

When a parasite invades a host, the host tissue will usually respond by encapsulating the parasite in order to cut it off from other surrounding tissue. In the case of a fetus, the mother’s tissue will create a lining tissue that connects, rather than cuts off contact with other tissues (placenta lining).

Parasites usually elicit a surge of antibodies as an immunological response. With the fetus, however, a mother’s trophoblast (the shell of cells surrounding the embryo) will naturally block these antibodies so as not to reject the fetus. This reaction is only found in the embryo-mother relationship.

A parasite will generally weaken the cellular reproductive capacity of the host. For a fetus, the effect is the opposite.

Αnd finally, although not considered alive just yet, a fetus only has the potential to be a human being, it can't become anything else, even if it tried, eventually it does develop into one. A parasite can never become a human being.

[–]biff64gc 60 points61 points62 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAndredal[S] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sakke95 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]biff64gc 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackmoopoo 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XavierMalory 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CamLewWri 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

If the mother doesn't want to complete the pregnancy, but the father wants the child, I believe the final say rightly rests with the mother on whether to terminate. No man has a right to force a woman through the ordeal of pregnancy. I'd hope that this is a widely held view.

So, conversely, if the mother does want to complete the pregnancy but the father does not want the child, he should have the chance to opt out of being a legal parent of the child and avoid paying child support up until the legal limit for abortion for socio-economic reasons (24 weeks in Great Britain).

I'd also be open to the idea of making the deadline for opting out of fatherhood slightly earlier than 24 weeks to give the mother the chance to terminate before the legal deadline should she no longer wish to continue the pregnancy as a single parent.

This strikes me as the most equal way for the law to slice it but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

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

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

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

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

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]mensmod -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The issue with this has always been the welfare of the child. Being a single parent is very difficult, especially when the child is young. If the parent works, child care can cost more than $1000 per month. You have to have a pretty good paying job to afford that. If you don't work, how do you afford to pay the bills?

Financial abortion only makes sense in a country that has a social support system that can pick up the slack. It is basically saying that society holds itself accountable for the actions of its citizens, and supports the choices they make - the choice of the mother to bring the child to term, and the choice of the father to absolve themselves of parental responsibility.

I fully support a system like that. But we should be clear about the consequences of our choices of legal system:

Anti-abortion, anti-legal paternal surrender = both parents are responsible for the child, society is not.
Pro-abortion, anti-legal paternal surrender = only the mother has any say over who is responsible for the child, society is not.
Pro-abortion, pro-legal paternal surrender = society is ultimately responsible for the child if the parents choose not to be.

I don't see any other way to do this without much worse consequences.

[–]im_in_hiding 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rektHav0k 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

Children cost money. Someone pays for it either way. Society will pay for it in higher crime rates and lower GDP if we leave such children to poverty, men will pay for it if we enforce child support, or society will pay for it if we provide social services.

In the last scenario, those social services lead to improved GDP and tax revenues anyways, which results in the ability to pay for the social services anyways. A higher participation of women in the workforce means more women are paying taxes, which means more women are contributing to these costs. In addition, the children themselves, when they are older, will be better adjusted and more likely to produce more economically than they would if they had grown up poor. Those taxes go towards paying people's jobs, and we get a higher workforce participation (male and female). Overall, society is better in the last scenario than it is in the other scenarios.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Unwed mothers used to not be supported by taxes or by an unwilling man. Interesting that suddenly in the last 70 years the practices of thousands of years no longer work.

Food for thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]bananarama70 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]antifeminist3 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MetalStorm09 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]joejoseph7 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]joejoseph7 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]Kyriios188 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoctorJW5002 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]14b755fe39 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shitpostradamus 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ajm2247[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]Homeland1776 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

That's a really complicated question. Here my opinions on some circumstances:

Male rape victims: no, they should not have to pay for child support. That's just sick.

Male rapers: they should be punished. Going to jail and having to support the victim of their deed. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Consensual sex (without protection): I'm sorry, but... Protection goes both ways. If it is a decision to have sex without protection... Sure. You have to pay child support. The woman is not able to earn money for a period of time and it is not only her fault. To support her is the only right thing to do then. In case of an abortion, yes it is the woman's choice, because ultimately it is her body and even though that child carries DNA of two people, the woman should be able to decide what happens in and with her body (the same thing applies to every human being. Everyone should be able to decide what happens with their bodies or their lives). The tricky question is: when the woman decides to not have an abortion, should the man be offered the option to opt-out of child support? I don't think so. Abortion in itself is a medical procedure and often there are some psychological problems in women that had an abortion. Not always, but often. Just because she isn't getting the abortion (even though she could) doesn't give the man the right to not take up his responsibilities. Having unprotected sex was a decision of both parties. The "troubles" of having a child should then be split.

In this there are many variations where I don't see the need for the man to pay child support. But that would totally blow up this post. I have a more practical, moral and realistic view on this topic. The above mentioned examples aren't exhaustive but just examples of the view important ones.

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Why do only women get to decide what happens with their bodies? For 99% of men making money to pay child support is a cost to their body for 18 YEARS. Men should also have the same rights to their body and that means where and how they spend their labor.

[–]Trifula 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the woman should be able to decide what happens in and with her body (the same thing applies to every human being. Everyone should be able to decide what happens with their bodies or their lives)

That's what I wrote. Every human and non-human being, should be the most accurate description, but for discussion's sake I only wrote human.

The problem lies within the details. Both had consensual sex with the decision for it to be unprotected. What happens after that is nature's way of telling them "get your shit together". If a woman, for whatever reasons (being health, psychological well-being or just because), decides to have the child, the man should be held responsible for it as well. It was also his decision of having unprotected sex, he knew what could come out of that (pun intended). The decision already begins with the way of contraception. Responsibility should thus be shared.

[+]TheWisestSageEver1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

So why does the woman get choice, but the man does not? Why can the woman choosing to keep the baby now obligates the man's body to peform for 18 years? Yet, the woman's choice to have unprotected sex does not obligate her body to carry the baby for a mere 9 months?

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

Shared responsibility is all what I am saying. You decided you wanted to have unprotected sex with that woman. If you don't want any responsibility, put on a condom or don't have sex with that woman, for that matter of fact. The woman will have her chances at a career diminished because of something that both have agreed on. Yes, the woman could have gotten the abortion, but so could you have decided to have protected sex.

I also read a few of your other comments and either you are trolling or you don't know anything about abortion and how a child is conceived. The most proximate reason for a child being born is the decision to not have an abortion? What the actual fuck? You could also drive over to the woman and falcon punch her guts - crisis averted. Reproduction is biological. That is the reason why children are born. Because people have unprotected sex and fuck like rabbits. Period. Not because a woman decides not to have an abortion (there are also cases when it is too risky to have one, or maybe the psychological implications are too great - what about those cases then? Should the woman risk her life so that the man doesn't have to work for 18 years? How are you even living? You aren't paying child support right now so that means you are not working? What fucked up logic is that?)

EDIT: " Unless opted-in, men should have no responsibility to the child as they were not the deciding factor in it's creation." Do you even know how baby-making works?

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

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

Male rape victims: no, they should not have to pay for child support. That's just sick.

still happens though

Consensual sex (without protection): I'm sorry, but... Protection goes both ways. If it is a decision to have sex without protection... Sure. You have to pay child support.

If a couple gets a child then it should be a 50/50 parents split. The whole child support argument is garbage because women always get the child even it doesn't benefit the child.

The woman is not able to earn money for a period of time and it is not only her fault. To support her is the only right thing to do then.

You're making a moral argument here, not an ethical one. I thought women were equal to men and could support themselves?

In case of an abortion, yes it is the woman's choice, because ultimately it is her body and even though that child carries DNA of two people, the woman should be able to decide what happens in and with her body (the same thing applies to every human being. Everyone should be able to decide what happens with their bodies or their lives). The tricky question is: when the woman decides to not have an abortion, should the man be offered the option to opt-out of child support? I don't think so.

So you're for double standards... Wow... So women get all the choice and none of the consequences... So women get to decide over their body, so how come men can't?

Abortion in itself is a medical procedure and often there are some psychological problems in women that had an abortion. Not always, but often. Just because she isn't getting the abortion (even though she could) doesn't give the man the right to not take up his responsibilities. Having unprotected sex was a decision of both parties. The "troubles" of having a child should then be split.

So men never have any troubles after an abortion? Seems like a double standard again. So you're actually saying women shouldn't take responsibility, only the man IF the woman decides to have the child... Jeez...

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

still happens though

And that is sick, yes.

If a couple gets a child then it should be a 50/50 parents split. The whole child support argument is garbage because women always get the child even it doesn't benefit the child.

It may be as a shock, my opinion is not, that the man has to pay 100% of everything. It should always be partial. If the man earns way more than the woman, then he can support more then the woman (not saying, that the woman shouldn't pay nothing). Et vice versa when the woman earns more than the man. 50/50 split is not the most practicable thing to do, as the children, usually, live at either the dad's or the mom's. (I can only talk for german law where it is split up between both parents and where the amount of money is a deciding factor).

You're making a moral argument here, not an ethical one. I thought women were equal to men and could support themselves?

Human is human. But women are not the same as men. Starting on the biological level. Watch Jordan Peterson to understand my point on equality. There should be equality of opportunity. And that is not a given at the workplace. But that's a whole another debate.

The thing I am saying, quite logically, is: a woman will be able to work till a certain month of pregnancy (some can't at all, some can... it depends. But let us assume the normalcy). After that point she won't be able to work for quite some time. At least until age 2. So that is already 2 years of not being able to work.

So come again?

So you're for double standards... Wow... So women get all the choice and none of the consequences... So women get to decide over their body, so how come men can't?

I don't get where you are coming from. How is it double standards if I clearly state "Everyone should be able to decide what happens with their bodies or their lives"? One of the consequences, see my above statement about not being able to work.

Sure, men can decide what happens with their bodies. When did I ever state that they shouldn't be allowed to? Or do you mean, how come men aren't allowed to decide what happens to women's bodies?

So men never have any troubles after an abortion? Seems like a double standard again. So you're actually saying women shouldn't take responsibility, only the man IF the woman decides to have the child... Jeez...

Never said that.

I just stated what I know from the scientific research I read. There may be psychological troubles for a man regarding the relationship with the woman? I am not too sure. Have not read any research on that. If you can provide me any regarding this, will be happy to read.

From a psychological and biological viewpoint the woman not only has the mental/psychological troubles, the procedure is also risky for the well-being/health of the woman. There are no winners in troubles/health problems, there are only losers. Still, women will, statistically and logically speaking, have more troubles and problems after an abortion (even the possibility for those troubles).

Again, I never said that the woman shouldn't take responsibility.

THIS is the problem I have with /r/MensRights. It is the same shit that the feminists are hated for. You pick out some words, stamp it with "double standards" or some kind of bullshit, and never want to see the whole argument or understand it.

To add to the whole discussion: do you think raising a child is easy? It is not hard at all? The fuck are you even talking about?

All my thoughts are written in regards to the scenario, that a woman gets a child and the father is out of the picture. The mother has the child and has to take up the responsibility of being a parent, so does the father. If he doesn't want to be a father, ok. But at least he can take up a supporting role regarding money. Regarding the child, the father only has the responsibility to pay up, but the mother has to take the responsibility of parenting. Quite a good deal, ain't it?

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

It may be as a shock, my opinion is not, that the man has to pay 100% of everything. It should always be partial. If the man earns way more than the woman, then he can support more then the woman (not saying, that the woman shouldn't pay nothing). Et vice versa when the woman earns more than the man. 50/50 split is not the most practicable thing to do, as the children, usually, live at either the dad's or the mom's. (I can only talk for german law where it is split up between both parents and where the amount of money is a deciding factor).

the women at rare cases pay anything. It's a double standard. And what are the statistics for germany? How many % are with the mother? I bet it's the vast majority.

Human is human. But women are not the same as men. Starting on the biological level. Watch Jordan Peterson to understand my point on equality. There should be equality of opportunity. And that is not a given at the workplace. But that's a whole another debate.

The thing I am saying, quite logically, is: a woman will be able to work till a certain month of pregnancy (some can't at all, some can... it depends. But let us assume the normalcy). After that point she won't be able to work for quite some time. At least until age 2. So that is already 2 years of not being able to work.

So come again?

Yeah and Jordan Peterson doesn't always get it right, he's not pro men. He's a philosopher and a psychologist. Not someone who always looks at the statistics and facts. Women already have equality of opportunity. So citation need that there isn't... So women aren't responsible for their own pregnancy? Women are the ones that decide who they sleep with...

I don't get where you are coming from. How is it double standards if I clearly state "Everyone should be able to decide what happens with their bodies or their lives"? One of the consequences, see my above statement about not being able to work.

Sure, men can decide what happens with their bodies. When did I ever state that they shouldn't be allowed to? Or do you mean, how come men aren't allowed to decide what happens to women's bodies?

So if that's the case, why is male genital mutilation allowed?

so what happens to women who spermjack or rape men? Oh yeah, they get to get child support paychecks...

Never said that.

I just stated what I know from the scientific research I read. There may be psychological troubles for a man regarding the relationship with the woman? I am not too sure. Have not read any research on that. If you can provide me any regarding this, will be happy to read.

From a psychological and biological viewpoint the woman not only has the mental/psychological troubles, the procedure is also risky for the well-being/health of the woman. There are no winners in troubles/health problems, there are only losers. Still, women will, statistically and logically speaking, have more troubles and problems after an abortion (even the possibility for those troubles).

Again, I never said that the woman shouldn't take responsibility.

THIS is the problem I have with /r/MensRights. It is the same shit that the feminists are hated for. You pick out some words, stamp it with "double standards" or some kind of bullshit, and never want to see the whole argument or understand it.

To add to the whole discussion: do you think raising a child is easy? It is not hard at all? The fuck are you even talking about?

All my thoughts are written in regards to the scenario, that a woman gets a child and the father is out of the picture. The mother has the child and has to take up the responsibility of being a parent, so does the father. If he doesn't want to be a father, ok. But at least he can take up a supporting role regarding money. Regarding the child, the father only has the responsibility to pay up, but the mother has to take the responsibility of parenting. Quite a good deal, ain't it?

You just made the assertion that it's only women who suffer from depression after abortion. Men don't get any say one way or the other. It's not equality. Men should be able to financially abort the child they don't want, just like women get a choice.

so then they should use condoms or birth control...

No, you make statements that show clear double standards. You can try to use a collectivist argument and smear the entire MRA movement(one i am not actually a part of). Yet you lump me as a MRA. Which just proves my point. You have stated women should be able to choose, but men must always suffer consequences and responsibility... That's a double standard...

No it's not... Where did i make the assertion that it is easy?

And how many times is the father out of the picture? How many times are fathers demanded to pay more than they can? The mother has the child because the mother gets the child 85% of the time by family courts... But you just ignore that. How about you watch the movie The Red Pill? You'll see what you're saying is inaccurate. You make the assumption the father has a choice. Men don't have a choice regarding becoming a parent. You either pay or accept the woman getting an abortion. That's a double standard. No it's not a good deal, you assume that fathers aren't a good parent. That's sexist and an ignorant assumption. Statistically men are better parents when they're raising their child alone than women. Dr Warren Farrrell has debunked this assertion decades ago.

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

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

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

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

The mother us accountable too. The post is confused in and of itself. Is it advocating for prolife, which would see all men absolutely have to pay for their children whether they wanted the kid or not. It's also a Conservative post, now I'm not from the states but if there is one thing I know about conservatives in America, its that they sure as shit don't like paying for the welfare of other people. I think we can all agree that it takes two parents to raise a kid. There are plenty of single parents out there but I doubt any of them are saying it's a piece of cake. And, in the states as in many western countries with similar welfare systems there are a plethora of welfare schemes for single parents... So we all end up paying for these kids but someone we are outraged at the idea that the father of the child should have to pay for it. I'm not sure if this post was designed in a satirical way to point to a major imbalance in power when it comes to a pregnancy or if its a genuinely confused and conflicted statement. The former being an important point. The latter being the dumb shit coming from those frothing at the mouth by their triggered internal rage at having to be a responsible adult human.

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

The latter being the dumb shit coming from those frothing at the mouth by their triggered internal rage at having to be a responsible adult human.

It's ironic because you're proving the Op's point there, you flip your shit the moment men have any choice in the matter. What if for instance, the mother decides she wants to keep the baby and has no intention of letting the father raise the child with her and purely wants to keep the money she can extract both from the welfare system and the father at the same time?

Your whole paragraph of ranting has refused to take this kind of paternity fraud into account which makes me wonder how much you know about this sort of thing that you'd immediately side with the potential mother over this issue. By the way, the worse thing I've seen in regards to paternity fraud are women who trick men into raising a child claiming it's there's and it turns out they've been cheating the whole time and they're looking to extract money from their stable partner over the deadbeat that got them pregnant.

You've made a shit ton of assumptions here, the main one of which is being that the woman in the situation of being pro-choice is entirely innocent with her intentions. Why for instance should it be the case that a woman gets to keep her baby and fuck over the father?

In the previous example I think the father should have every option of opting out if he knows that she's just keeping the baby for the money. Alternatively he should be able to take full custody of the child and raise it in a proper home because the mother is inevitably at the very least going to be incredibly negligent.

You haven't thought about this and it's really funny because you accuse people of having 'internal rage' but the thought that a woman could do any potential wrong in your mind clearly messes with you. I'd be very interested if you actually bothered to respond but I have my doubts given you immediately decided to paint the man in this situation as the devil quite possibly due to your own biases towards men.

You have an incredibly one sided view of abortion and it shows, you're more than happy to negate responsibility for women but you won't do it for men even when it's justifiable.

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

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

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

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

[–]Walshy231231 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Walshy231231 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]3-10 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]Thesauruswrex -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Double_A_92 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]heavym -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]NinjasInMyBasement1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

If reddit karma really means something to you, you are probably to young to even begin thinking about parental rights because having a baby at age 16 is a poor decision. Wait you are an adult? Bullshit. Nobody fucking cares about their karma but children. You are a manchild.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[+]RiggNoxon1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

The fact of the matter is having to pay a few hundred dollars a month will never be equivalent to having to raise a child for 18+ years.

[+]im_in_hiding1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Most men pay well over a "few hundred dollars" a month.

Most men pay half or ALL of medical insurance/bills in addition to CS.

Most men pay half of extra curricular in addition to CS.

Most men pay half of the child care costs in addition to CS.

Most men also have to keep a big enough house to room the child when they have them over, in addition to CS. It's not like I'm able to just go rent a 1BR somewhere with a random friend to save some bucks and be good... I need at least an additional BR for my 2 daugthers. So really, my housing expenses stay exactly the same while my ability to pay for it decreases.

Yeah... "few hundred dollars" pfft

[–]Karissa36 -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]PeterPumpkinHead91 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There should be equality in parenting

Comments

vasectomies should not be considered reversible.

Title	There should be equality in parenting
Author	TheAndredal
Upvotes	3067
Comments	286
Date	May 23, 2019 12:03 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bs23mw/there_should_be_equality_in_parenting/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/there-should-be-equality-in-parenting.877062 https://theredarchive.com/post/877062