~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
lifegasm
[–]Ordinate1 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Yea; men need the "Paper Abortion" right.
[+]149327 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Is this sarcasm?
[–]Ordinate1 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
No.
[+]149327 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
You mean like an Opt out, right?
[–]Ordinate1 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Yes.
Women have the right to have an abortion or give up a child for adoption, with no more responsibilities, ever.
Men should have the same right.
[+]149327 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
I agree. I just haven't heard the "Paper Abortion" term before and it seemed sarcastic at first.
[–]Ordinate1 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah, no problem :)
[–]chocoboat 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's a stupid term and it's easily ridiculed. Legal Parental Surrender is the most common term for it that I've seen.
IMO it should work like a pre-nup, where the man states his intention to not become a father and in the event of a pregnancy, the rights and responsibilities are 100% on her. It's only valid if she signs it (if she won't waive that power over him, he's better off knowing that and leaving her).
This is not a perfect solution but it's the only workable one. Any other version I've seen allows for all kinds of loopholes and abuse (what if she hides the pregnancy, what if he can't find her to notify about the opt out, what if he tells her he'll opt in so she remains pregnant, then he opts out at the last minute, there are endless what ifs). It must be a pre-emptive agreement to be fair to both parties.
[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I thought the document should be used to state a mans intention of not being a father. Thus it would be the default assumption, so the onus is one the other foot to prove intention of being a father. Especially for cases of one night stands and secret pregnancies. Again not a prefect system, and cases of marriage or common law should flip the assumption.
[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Logically that would make sense. In practical use, it doesn't work. Most fathers expect that they will be opted in by default, and want to be opted in. There would be guys who didn't know they had to opt in, and then would be denied custody of their children. It's simpler and easier to make it an opt-out for the men who want to make sure fatherhood isn't something that happens to them unexpectedly.
[–]bakedpotato486 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've heard it called a "financial abortion" up 'til now.
[–]majortom22 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My favorite is how all the arguments that are given fail to have any self awareness. Example: "If he didn't want to get her pregnant, he should have thought about that and kept it in his pants". Turn that thinking around and apply it to a woman and you're a misogynist heathen.
The other thing is that they're so insistent on his responsibilities, but not on his rights. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
Does a woman have the right to a unilateral decision on abortion? I personally believe she does, legally (though I would have problems with my SO if she operated that way, which is a separate discussion). But guess what? That also means its her responsibility.
On the flipside, men don't have any actual rights in the matter. She wants to abort? OK (which I'm fine with, if things are right, as stated above). But say she wants to give the baby up for adoption or drop it off at the firehouse? Also her unilateral right, without your say.
You better be there -but only if THEY want you there! And then it's all about what you need to do, and what you need to give, and BUPKIS about what your rights.
It wouldn't be so galling if they didn't have the nerve to spin this "war on women" narrative. Anybody who doesn't drink the media narrative and looks at things honestly has to realize that (despite there being legitimate problems) there is assuredly no "war on women" -if anything, men are second class citizens and it's only getting worse.
EDIT: Additional remark I forgot to make. You know, there's a lot that wasn't good about eras past and plenty of progress to be thankful for. But when it comes to men, women, family and societal mores....you have to seriously step back and say "maybe people back then knew what they were doing".
It's almost as though having children after you marry being the standard had benefits that eliminated or severely mitigated many of the problems we discuss on this sub...or something....
[–]PIG_CUNT 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If a man wants to opt out of his child's life, he still has to pay child support.
If that same child's mother wants to opt out of that child's life, she can put it up for adoption and have to pay nothing.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
It's funny when people try to frame the pro-life v pro-choice argument on women. It's about the life of the human in the womb. We live in a truly gynocentric society.
[–]TacticusThrowaway 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's also ironic that they talk about "women's choices" and "men controlling women's bodies" while ignoring the pro-life women.
Which is sexist.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes it's like they don't exist xD
[–]jamsrobots 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Just a heads up, it isn't pro-life its pro-birth.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Could you please elaborate?
[–]jamsrobots 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It's a phrase coined to gather followers. To suggest that you are pro-life would lead you to believe that you are in the best interest of life itself, start to finish. Pro-birth is a more accurate term.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
What reason do you have to believe that I and many others don't support laws supporting life from start to finish?
[–]jamsrobots 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You may very well fully support many other laws that help to protect life in general and that is great, but supporting anti-abortion laws alone does not do that. The issue is about birth, saying it's about life is just misleading. Kind of like Obamacare vs. American Care Act. How many people do you think actually knew the difference going into last years election vs post election? Do you think the election would have been different had they known? You can call it Pro-life all you want and I can't stop you, but I do make a point to call it out every time I see it. I mean no disrespect, I support your right to make your own decisions.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I call it pro-life because I'm also against euthenasia, non-defensive war, the death penalty, and for nationalized healthcare and a strong welfare system to support the right to life. How is that just pro-birth?
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
All of that stuff isn't when you lump it together. Pull out one issue at a time and you have a different statement. Pro-birth is a perfectly good term for what you hope to accomplish by voting against the choice to abort. I do concede to the point that you yourself are pro-life, but I feel that is a better way to describe your approach to all of the issues as a whole.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I mean I guess? If you concede that is just a semantic point I can concede it I guess.
[–]jamsrobots 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sure, I guess. Like I said, you do you, tell it however you want. I myself will continue trying to pull away the veil of misleading campaigns. Thanks for listening and respectfully conversing.
[–]Taylor1391 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Yes, nothing has the right to use a person's body without their consent. That includes a fetus.
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I disagree. I'll give my logic in a pretty simplistic way:
A mother or father is the one responsible for a pregnancy, where the father is the one who inseminates, and the mother is the one who carries the pregnancy through.
Do we agree on this?
Further, we may say that the parents are responsible for their child's wellbeing inasmuch as they consent to the pregnancy by necessity and by charity they would be responsible absolutely.
This would mean that the father of a child would not be necessarily responsible for the child if he did not consent to it because the birth control was broken by the woman. Or a mother would not necessarily be responsible if she were raped. Or neither would be if their contraception were to fail.
Now, if the issue at has is where both parents knowingly used no contraception and they consented to the sex, how would you say the child is something they are not responsible for? If they have an iq that can register they would realize that putting themselves in such a position would be consenting to a child.
Even if you say they do not consent, they are still responsible.
This is funny logic you're using. Two people boink each other knowing the risks and create a new human life. Why would we say anything but that they have to take care of this child? Because usually I would agree with you. Somebody doesn't have the intrinsic right to use my liver to filter their blood. However, if I put them in that situation they do have that right. Or if they would die if they can't then definitely they have that right.
It's pretty gynocentrist tbh
[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Two people boink each other knowing the risks and create a new human life. Why would we say anything but that they have to take care of this child?
So, you want to outlaw abortion?
Seems harsh, but you're entitled to take that position if you wish.
I do want to outlaw abortion. ;)
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
How so? Are you saying every instance no matter what the conditions be (i.e. terminal defects or medical emergencies that put the mother's life at risk) or do you make room for special situations where the life of the baby and mother are protected? If it's the latter, how does that play out? Do you weigh the baby's life over the mother's or the reverse?
Sorry, this is third post I've replied to you on, I promise I'm not picking on you.
I think that if the life of the baby and the mother are at odds the mother should live, but that is the only time I think anything like abortion should be legal.
It's ok, debate is important!
Would you have an issue with the mother choosing her baby's life over her own?
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How would you prove they even used contraception in the first place?
I don't know.
[–]McFeely_Smackup 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I reject the phrase "man who got a woman pregnant" and all its implications.
a pregnancy is something a man and a woman do together.
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
But Men are restricted to providing 'Financial means'. Women will argue that they are putting their body through 9 months of hell. How can you counter that argument?
[–]Apexbreed 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
18 years of forced labor is no cake-walk either. More men die in manual labor every year than women die in child labor every year.
[–]This_is_my_phone_tho 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And that's assuming alimony isn't a factor.
"what? you wanted to retire? LOL"
[–]Stripes1974 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Hmm....
Nine months of continuous "hell", verses a potential 18 YEARS of continuous "hell"....
I think that's a damned excellent "counter" to "that argument".
[–]Rethgil 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Further;
What do the women gain? A child. Benefits. Rights to housing.
What do men gain? NOTHING. ZERO. Not even access to see the child they fund.
[–]SworntotheDeath 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Women will argue that they are putting their body through 9 months of hell. How can you counter that argument?
They do so strictly by their own will. No one forces women to become pregnant, and there are even legal and commonly accessible means for birth control and even abortion!
[–]Rethgil 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Simple. They only face that if they CHOOSE it.
Now you defend NOT giving men rights.
[–]chocoboat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women will argue that they are putting their body through 9 months of hell.
BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.
[–]Sarin_G_Series 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And WTF is five years of military service, eighteen months on a railyard, 12 months of construction, 24 months as a ranch hand, and 25 months as a roughneck, now finishing school trying to find work as a machinist after two years of GI Bill schooling, when the market is saturated with experienced, skilled machinists leaping on "entry level" positions because the fucking Saudis glutted the oil market and I picked a fulfilling career field with super shitty timing? Not "hell on the body," in their book, I assure you. Super specific rant, but I am already dealing with emasculation attempts for not being able to find work in my field or that pays more than my wife's fucking job(she does behavioral therapy, mostly for severely autistic clients. Requires HS degree, and generally pays upwards of $14/hr in TX, if you're interested.)
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because it's your body you have the sole right to decide if a child enters the world. He doesn't have a say on that.
[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
But she can choose to not go through with those 9 months. She had that right and that choice, but to suggest she can force that choice on someone else doesn't lead to equity.
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I've been bombarded with the same answer. Man, you should have noticed that many people here have shared the same opinion.
[–]rocelot7 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Checked the first couple responses and the where all about the 9 months vs 18 years. Plus mobile which makes it harder to read. Besides the idea that ones choice and right means it there responsibility is a much better argument.
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
In part because you (seemingly) make the assumption that the only contribution that a man makes to a woman's pregnancy and subsequent birth of a child is "providing financial means".
That is merely the lowest level of contribution that a man makes, or can make, not the only level.
The other part is that you (seemingly) make the assumption that "providing financial means" is comparatively simple when compared to the so-called "nine months of hell" that a woman goes through during a pregnancy. Your words (seemingly) ignore the very real feelings and emotions and stresses that the soon-to-be/potentially-not-wanting-to-be father potentially goes through during this time as well. And if you want to discuss a "counter" to the "argument" that after giving birth, a woman has up to eighteen years of child care to assume, and try to reaffirm that the man/father only is "providing financial means", you again are missing out on what the man/father may be going through by belittling any potential contribution he could or might wish to make, by likening him to being a 'mere' banker, someone who the mother goes to, in order to get money.
What about the feelings of the potential father, who may have done what he could in order to prevent a pregnancy? Once it occurs, he has no rights to what happens to that baby during the pregnancy. He has no right to ask the woman to abort, nor to not abort; he is bound-- nay, he is legally castrated into whatever decision the woman chooses to make; he has NO choice at all. And what about the feelings of the potential father after the child is born, and the mother doesn't want him to have any influence into the child's life? In many cases, CPS/Family Courts will default primary or sole custody to the mother, meaning that she has all the rights as to whether or not he can have access to his child; if and where the mother doesn't want him to have access to his child, he must fight in Court in order to prove that he is capable of being a co-parent, fight in order to be granted partial or shared custody-- and unless the mother is in jail, getting primary or sole custody of his child is very unlikely to happen.
If you want the TL;DR version, it's this: Your original (?) comment was lacking in thought; you only looked at one side of the equation, and those of us here were a little upset at your (seeming) heavy-handed thoughtlessness.
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I needed the counter arguments to prove my point. But, I was not able to voice my opinion properly.
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What point were you trying to prove???
And how were you not able to voice your opinion properly???
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I needed arguments to counter those of my friend who said that women are the ones who suffer most. So, I asked. But, I failed to.convey my thoughts in a proper manner.
[–]Taxus_Calyx 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Pregnancy makes most women euphoric actually.
[–]Apexbreed 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My wife was amazing when she was pregnant. We have honestly never gotten along better. Besides the nausea it was a wonderful time for us both.
[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not mine. Terrible morning sickness through the entire thing.
[–]NSawsome 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Pregnancy was shit for my mom from what I heard from my dad so I don't think that's always true
[–]Taxus_Calyx 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course its not always true. I did not, and would not ever say that. It is common though. Check this out http://www.womenshealthmag.com/beauty/octomom-syndrome
Here's one relevant quote from the article, "Mother Nature prods us by making sex and its aftermath feel amazing. Oxytocin, the so-called "cuddle" hormone that promotes bonding, floods women's bodies during intercourse, pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. "[The pregnancy feeling] is like a love drug," Weil says. "A baby-love drug."
no, you must be thinking of atheism
[–]LoicyT -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And of course even though this is a repost noobz come out the woodwork to reposte it to get clicks...
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6kbupl/the_doublestandards_must_end/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6kdia5/so_if_a_woman_decides_she_doesnt_want_to_be_a/
I likes this comic... 2 years ago?
Do we not have some kind of image duplicate detection?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree.
We should insert more realism into starting the topic.
http://i.imgur.com/I6f5UsD.png
https://i.imgur.com/GMCckjq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oYPog3A.jpg
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Ordinate1 61 points62 points63 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]149327 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Is this sarcasm?
[–]Ordinate1 36 points37 points38 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+]149327 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
You mean like an Opt out, right?
[–]Ordinate1 49 points50 points51 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]149327 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
I agree. I just haven't heard the "Paper Abortion" term before and it seemed sarcastic at first.
[–]Ordinate1 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chocoboat 12 points13 points14 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]majortom22 36 points37 points38 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 8 points9 points10 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]TacticusThrowaway 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 3 points4 points5 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jamsrobots 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GoodKingWenceslaus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]McFeely_Smackup 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexbreed 42 points43 points44 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]This_is_my_phone_tho 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 22 points23 points24 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rethgil 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SworntotheDeath 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rethgil 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chocoboat 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sarin_G_Series 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rocelot7 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rocelot7 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]presumptuous_parvenu 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taxus_Calyx 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexbreed 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NSawsome 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taxus_Calyx 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link