~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
spagma
[–]Streamwave 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Funny people say things like "Life is not fair" or "it's biology" when it's a social construct that forces the man to pay/stay when he doesn't agree. Look at biology in other life forms...
At that point in argument, it's mentioned that we are humans and we should be compassionate or think of greater good (one way that's). However, I never understood why giving birth is assumed to be bigger burden or more of an issue than being forced to support or want 18+ years man didn't agree to.
[–]SweetJeebus 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
However, I never understood why giving birth is assumed to be bigger burden or more of an issue than being forced to support or want 18+ years man didn't agree to.
This is a good question and I don't think I've ever heard an answer to this. I always hear people use the birth thing as though it trumps all other arguments.
DISCLAIMER: I am a woman who has never given birth. I'm not trying to say that it's easy, but I can logically assume (because some women do it a few times) that it's not as bad as being forced into parenting for 18 yrs.
[–]bluthru 162 points163 points164 points 14 years ago* (187 children) | Copy Link
Conception: 50% male DNA, 50% female DNA.
Pregnancy: 100% the female's.
Birth: 50% male's, 50% female's. If divorce: 70% female's (or more).
I don't think a man should have any say about a baby during pregnancy, but that must be coupled with a man being free to make his own decision about whether or not he wants to be involved in the child's life. If a man could sign away rights to be the father during the first month*, then maybe women would think twice about bringing a child into the world that doesn't have the support of 2 parents.
EDIT: I'm not sure what the time period should be. Women might not even be aware that they are pregnant for a month.
[–]surfnsound 50 points51 points52 points 14 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link
I'm on the same page as you, but I think the window needs to be longer. Women might not even know they were pregnant for a month or more. I would make the window 13 weeks, making sure there is ample opportunity to know for certain about a pregnancy, but still giving the woman the option of abortion.
[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link
I see no reason why it shouldn't be opt-in rather than opt-out. That way the woman has the full three months or whatever to get an abortion, and the father has the right to opt in any time up until.. birth? A week after? After, whenever, the mother get's sole custody. So if he wants to be added as a father after that time, he needs the mother's permission.
[–]Valendr0s 69 points70 points71 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
These are all cogent, well thought out, logical ideas that open the floor for discussion, civilized argument, evidence gathering, study, analysis and should lead to new legislation on mens parentage rights.
It will never see the outside of this forum post. And that's sad.
[–]misnamed 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I find it hard to fathom the reality of the situation. That a man can be essentially an indentured servant at the whim of a woman for two decades, but the woman can choose any number of alternatives - abortion, adoption, etc... along the way. But you're right, society is stuck in its ways, and this will never be a serious debate. All the more frustrating.
[–]PsychicChinchilla 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That always bothered me as well. If a father really does want to step up and take care of the child himself (this assuming the mother does in fact want to give birth, when she doesn't it gets a bit dicey) he has to jump through tons of hoops and prove that the mother is outrageously incompetent in order to gain custody. He may be a much better provider and more stable financially and emotionally but if the lady wants it she gets it.
If the father does gain custody by the mother voluntarily giving up her custody, does she have to pay him child support? I really don't know
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If the father does gain custody by the mother voluntarily giving up her custody, does she have to pay him child support?
I'm pretty sure the fear of it is there, which is why women who choose not to abort but still don't want to be a mother will do everything they can to block the guy out while they give the child up for adoption.
[–]PsychicChinchilla -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn I didn't know that! I wish that could be made illegal without the people proposing the bill being easily turned into monsters by the mass media. This issue always makes me lose faith in females
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
this will never be a serious debate.
Because there's no debate to be had. Non Custodial Parents (mostly men) who are being forced to pay child support are having their Constitutional rights violated. Involuntary servitude became unconstitutional in the 13th Amendment.
And this is being done because a woman's "right" to have pre-marital sex and be mostly absolved of the bad consequences of her choices is more important to society than a man's Constitutionally-protected right against being forced into involuntary servitude.
[–]Chandon 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
And this is being done because a woman's "right" to have pre-marital sex and be mostly absolved of the bad consequences of her choices
That's a terrible way to frame it.
Consenting adults have a right to have as much per-marital sex as they want. Women have the choice to not get pregnant, not stay pregnant, or not keep the baby when it's born. Because it's their choice, they must be - by default - solely responsible for any resulting liability.
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable.
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Because it's their choice, they must be - by default - solely responsible for any resulting liability.
Read RvW and pay close attention to the fact that they are attempting to absolve the mother from the responsibility of taking care of the child.
Look at abandonment laws, which were passed after mothers (with full rights to have an abortion or give their child up for adoption) were dumping their children into dumpsters so our government gave them even yet more ways to escape responsibility.
But when it comes to men and sex, the government will nail his ass to the wall and demand he take responsibility. It doesn't matter if he was unconscious, if she stole sperm from a condom, or even if he was 13 and she was 39.
No, I've framed it exactly as it is... or government attempting to buy women's votes by giving them more and more ways to escape responsibility for their actions and choices.
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Have an upvote for stripping away the bullshit and putting it all out there in it's raw, un-PC true form.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Upvote for telling it like it is. It's true, and we've seen it in articles about male victims of rape being forced to pay child support, or men whose sperm was used after a bj so the woman could get pregnant. There's so many of them out there...
[–]banksnld 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
At least in my state (Michigan) if the parents aren't married the mother automatically gets sole custody - you have to go to family court for it to be any other way.
They tried to change this back in 2004 with a referendum, but the referendum failed. The biggest argument against it was that it had the potential for abusive boyfriends/fathers to have too much control. (Apparently, a marriage license removes that threat... /sarcasm)
[–]Ragnrok 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
So if he wants to be added as a father after that time, he needs the mother's permission.
You had me until here. I don't think either parent should be able to disallow or force the other to be in the child's life.
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think the problem with leaving that out is that the father could say no, he doesn't want to be involved, disappear for 5 years and then come back and demand to be the child's father even though the mother has now moved on, is married, and another man is raising that child as his own. That doesn't seem right to me.
[–]Ragnrok 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh no, the opt out would be permanent without the other parent consenting to some sort of reunion.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh, right. But if you were to do an opt-in rule instead there would have to be a time limit on it.
Well no obviously it would have to be forever rather than allowing some scumbag to pick and choose which times he's going to be around.
[–]spagma -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
True, but you would also have to take into consideration the times when the father isn't aware of the pregnancy at all and the child is 3 before he finds out.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Definitely not that. A baby takes a LOT of planning and preparation. A woman can't just assume the dad will/won't be around and still manage things. If daddy decides to show up days before birth, that scumbag has skipped out on thousands of dollars and countless hours of learning and preparation.
Edit: Opt out would be a great idea though. Then it is set in stone what will be happening. You just can't leave it open to guessing and assumption like an opt-in system would be. You opted-in to being the daddy when you didn't use a condom. But I do agree there should be an opt-out option. Then the woman can be free to decide about abortion/adoption/alternative parenting help without having any curveballs coming her way during a difficult time.
[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
We have an automatic opt-in system right now - it's called marriage. Outside of that, I don't think either party can fairly be sad to be giving consent to coparent when they screw. And unless BOTH parties want to create an extramarital coparenting relationship, I don't think it benefits the child to have biodad dragged in against his will or to have biodad force his way in against mom's will. Either way is a recipe for ongoing conflict.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I have to disagree. It doesn't benefit the child for two unprepared people to have a shitty situation bestowed upon them, especially one that costs so much. But then if one of the two responsible runs off, it really screws the child due to lacking finances, if nothing else.
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I agree. It does screw them. It also screws them if the dad is a good guy who wants to be involved and the mom cuts him out. I hate that either scenario happens, but I hate even more the creation of a fucked-up fake family composed of two adults who may barely know each other and the baby they accidentally had. I expect parents to choose to raise children together and to demonstrate their intent in a concrete way. Sex doesn't constitute such an agreement by either party, IMNSHO.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Oh, I don't for a moment mean the father should have to actually have a role in the child's life. That would be a terrible idea. But I do believe that, if the woman keeps the child (as we cannot morally force her to not do), the man should help finance it during pregnancy and possibly the first short period of life. Parenting and financial support are different things.
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I disagree. It is the role of parents to financially support their children (and the role of society to fill in the gaps when insufficient parental support is available). If we (as a society) have the right to demand payment from a single man to the single woman he had sex with, then we're saying "you're the dad, just as though you were her husband and you two had planned to have a baby together." To ask for that, and THEN deny single men a role in the lives of their biological offspring, is possibly the most unfair scenario humankind is capable of devising.
Biology isn't fair. No way around that. I don't think any man has a claim on the children I bear unless we come to mutually agreeable terms as coparents - marriage is the obvious example, though there are other ways. In strictly biological terms, men's contribution to the human reproductive process is not very significant. But we can at least not ADD to that inherent imbalance with our social policy, by enabling single women to get money out of men that they don't wish to have acting as a father to their children.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I don't mean pay for the whole life of the child, just the time leading up to, and maybe shortly after, the birth. Because the fact is that the baby, whether intentional or not, is 50 per cent the fault of the man. Just saying "I don't want that, good luck" is a dick move. The woman is every bit as unprepared as the father, only she's STUCK with this kid (if we assume she has moral leanings against abortion or adoption). It's not fair that a problem, caused equally by both parties, can be entirely dumped onto one party, especially such an expensive problem. I only think the man should own up to his mistake and take some responsibility, just for long enough that the mother is not entirely f*cked. Diapers are expensive. Financially help her prepare for roughly nine months. By that time, she should have been able to work out an alternate solution, such as getting help from her family or a new man.
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Steps must be taken to make sure the mother can't stop the father from adding his name if we were to do that.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well the point would be that a father has a legal right to add himself, and whatever legal official he goes to about that would know that. If the mother tries to stop him that could be used against her in future custody battles. The real danger would be her lying about who the father was, or simply not telling him. Paternity testing at birth. Add it to the list of tests they do on every newborn, it's cheap and getting cheaper.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I agree completely, in theory-- in practice, though, what's to stop a woman from not telling the man she was pregnant until after the kid is born, but claiming that she did?
[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well, I'd imagine there would be some type of paperwork invovled at the time of notification. For example, when you refinance a mortgage, you have a 3 days to rescind. At the time of signing, you have to sign a document acknowledging that you only have 3 days to do so, and then if you decide to rescind, another box on the form to sign. I'd could see a document that the father signs at the time he is notified, and yet again when he wants to terminate his rights and responsibilities.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The woman could claim she couldn't find him-- or worse, she doesn't know who he is.
I believe in the principle, as I said, but legally hammering out practicalities is not as simple. :(
[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well if she can't find him or doesn't know who he is, then his financial responsibility should already be null and void.
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's not necessarily true either. I can think of circumstances where the man leaves before the woman knows she's pregnant, but then she can't locate him, though he may want to be involved with the kid-- for instance, a serviceman?
See my post above for some ideas on that:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jv4z2/this_about_sums_it_up/c2fkbs5
[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
True. It's pretty easy to hide a pregnancy for a month.
Now that I think of it, how would it be possible for the guy to know that a girl is pregnant for a long while, especially if she's overweight?
Maybe the solution is an "opt-in" policy? That way the woman has an interest in revealing the pregnancy ASAP? At that point the man could sign on to being legally bound to the baby.
What definitely isn't right is that a man signs on to having a baby just by having sex while the women has more freedom of choice in that regard--and it's not a choice that only affects herself as it affects potentially 3 people.
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Legal forms that falsifying would be punishable as purjury. It's not perfect, but neither are looks on your front door. Think of it as keeping the honest people honest. Some women will indeed still flaunt the law, and in many cases they'll get caught and hopefully punished. I'd like to see something like the following:
1) Woman gets pregnant. The doctor gives her state mandated forms that require her to file within 5 business days.
2) The paperwork includes an affidavit listing all possible fathers (if known).
3) State notifies the men they are potentially the father of a child and have 30 days to acknowledge or disavow paternity.
4) If they acknowledge it then they have to submit a DNA sample for paternity testing upon birth. If positive they they go on the birth certificate and get 50% custody or whatever other arrangement is made with the mother.
5) Penalties & disincentives: If the mother does not file the requisite forms with the state then she's ineligible for certain state assistance or state and/or federal jobs. Think of it as a female analog to registering for the draft. And even then the possible fathers will get the 30 days to opt in or out upon notification should she ever file for child support.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Most women (of average weight) dont start to show until about 2-3 months and its still not very noticeable. Some dont know they are pregnant until its been months!
[–]Bobsutan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's kind of a red herring to bicker about a time period for men to opt out. Even if they eclipse the timeframe for abortion *women can still give the child up for adoption or use an amnesty box at the local fire station or hospital. *
[–]Jahonay 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree with what you're saying. I don't think a man should have a choice over a woman with abortion. But if a man doesn't want to be a father and she decides against adoption or abortion, he shouldn't be forced into a fatherly role.
[–]saracuda 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Extend it to 9-13 weeks, and add in the split cost of the abortion and I completely agree.
[–]Kill_The_Rich 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd be fine with one week after notification of paternity and splitting the cost of either the abortion or the medical procedures/etc. to birth the child which are not paid for through insurance (i.e. half of any copays, etc.), along with a mandate that his insurer must provide coverage for necessary procedures stemming from her pregnancy even if they're not married. A) this avoids the problem of her simply not notifying him until it's too late, and B) both are responsible for putting her body in that situation and both should bear the financial responsibility for returning her body to (approximately) normal (i.e. abortion or birth).
[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
Agreed on both points. Couples should always split the cost of birth control, IMO.
[–]saracuda 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
Hey, maybe you can answer my question. What does the majority of MensRights feel is the solution to a situation where the pregnant female wants an abortion, but the male wants to have the child (and is willing to take sole custody of the child etc.). I know right now in society the female will win the this situation because it's her body that is put on the line, but I was curious if anyone in MensRights had an equal solution to this.
As a female, I'm inclined to say "fuck you, I'm not destroying my body for a kid", but I'd really like to hear the opinions from the other side.
[–]Kill_The_Rich 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It should remain her choice, because anything else is fucked. Maybe one day we'll have artificial wombs and a way to transfer fertilized eggs non-surgically (which is ridiculously implausible)...if that happened, then we should reevaluate such things, but until then: her body; her choice.
[–]bluthru 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
I'm just a guy who happens to pop over here. I wouldn't label myself an MRA or a feminist. I'd like to think of myself as an egalitarian or no label at all, since about all of them are loaded.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby? Heck no. That's like giving a woman a 30 pound tumor against her will. It's her body and it's completely up to her.
If she chooses to carry the baby out of shear kindness, fine. If she chooses to carry the baby and gets paid for her work, fine. I believe the "It's her body" point of view 100%.
Men simply can't have babies or force others to have them for them. We also don't have periods, so I think it's a more than fair tradeoff.
[–]saracuda 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for taking the time to share your point of view on this! I feel the same way, so it is a relief that my view is shared by some of the opposite gender.
[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No problem. I don't get the sense that our view is in the minority, though, at least among pro-choicers.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
i've seen some MR that want to force the women to carry the baby, it was scary. i'll try to find you the thread, there was a post on /r/twoxchromosomes about the father having to sign an abortion sheet in some state in order for the woman to get an abortion, a lot of MR were for it. but that's crazy! it was a crazy thread, it's scary to think some people want to force women to have babies against their will. :/
[–]saracuda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus, that's pretty scary...
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
the father having to sign an abortion sheet in some state in order for the woman to get an abortion, a lot of MR were for it. but that's crazy!
I'm curios what your take is on some doctors requiring a wife's signature for the husband to get a vasectomy, but never the reverse?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
i don't think either should be allowed. it's your body. and a vasectomy and an abortion are not the same. forcing a woman to have a baby is horrible.
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Answer this hypothetical if you would:
A woman goes to a doctor and asks to have an abortion a few days before she'll give birth. Would you want that allowed?
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is that required in some places? It certainly shouldn't be.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
Thanks for your input!
[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There certainly is - financial abortion.
That has nothing to do with bodily integrity.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Misread that, my bad.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It's the same issue as making abortion illegal in any other situation. You're effectively making it illegal for a woman to get a relatively safe minor surgical procedure and forcing her to endure a much more dangerous medical complication later on.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Egads, how many times does it have to be said that pregnancy and childbirth are NOT the horror they're made out to be! The mortality rate in Western nations is NEGLIGABLE! It's not much more than 0.01% in the USA.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Fine, but just because they're not going to die from it does not mean that it's not an invasion procedure.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So... what's the difference between birth and abortion, then? They're both invasive, though I'm not sure that's the most accurate word for childbirth. You're not being invaded by anything unless there's medical intervention for some reason, and you're within your rights to refuse it (please correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but I THINK that's true).
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think abortion is an incredibly complicated issue. Since the rise of liberal thought a century or so ago most controversial political issues have been about a conflict between who's rights are more important. This individual or that individual, the individual or society, ect. I see abortion as a genuine and unavoidable conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights. I dismiss the argument that a fetus isn't really a human, I think that's silly. So that leaves me in a position without a solution. Both the mother and the child are entitled to their rights but we can't grant both at once. In leu of a solution to this unavoidable conflict I err on the side of non-prohibition. Making abortion illegal would cause unwanted births, encourage a black market for medical procedures, and other social ills. Thus, I am pro-abortion (not pro-choice because I don't want to associate with the feminist argument that fetuses don't have rights). So, even if childbearing involves very little risk of life to the mother it still requires a painful and disruptive experience, taking time away from other activities, and likely some sickness. Any law which prevents the mother from mitigating these conditions is a violation of her right to autonomy. The child's rights are also being violated for obvious reasons. But someone who's rights are not represented here at all is the father. While it is indeed a sad experience for a man hoping to be a father to see the mother of his child get an abortion, his right to autonomy is not at risk. Only his right to a family, and, if such a thing even exists, that certainly does not trump the individual's right to autonomy. Hope that clears up my perspective for you :)
I'm similar. I'm all for women having the option of abortion, but find it abhorrent.
[–]effarve 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
heres your upvote... You just had the best worded argument ive ever read/ heard for making it more equal to men... Thanks for the perspective to think on.
[–]DJWhamo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Pregnancy: 100% the female's
I agree...I mean, she is the one carrying the child, and the alternative is forcing her to carry it...but I've never felt fully comfortable with the notion that in cases of abortion, for example, the woman doesn't even have to consult the father on something that is 50% his. If my girlfriend turned around and did this, I'd be devastated. I know there isn't much of a middle ground, considering the circumstances, but...
the solution would be to get with a women who wants children. and it's not a baby nor is it murder, it's an abortion plain and simple. if the women doesn't want to have a child there's no consultation. you're not killing a child.
[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
why only first month? should be as long as the woman has to decide to abort, which I thought was 8 months 30 days.
[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It should be longer than a month, but telling your GF 7 months in that you want to break up and don't want to pay for the child is too cruel.
[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
well I'm for equal rights, so whatever a woman gets, so does a man. if 7 months is cruel, make it 6. but also reduce the time to choose abortion to 6 months
[–]utterdamnnonsense 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
actually, it would make more sense that the man would have less time, since if this changed the woman's mind, she would need time to set up the abortion apt etc. but afaik abortions performed after 5 months are rare and usually related to ensuring the woman's health .
Really? Because I know people who didn't realize they were pregnant for five months. More than one of them.
You need to take into account the fringe cases in your new, awesome law.
[–]xcydal 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I know one too. Women can have periods throughout the majority of their pregnancy sometimes.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A terrifying thought.
Most of these people commenting seem to know little about womens' bodies, I have seen several people stating that the "opt in/out" period should be in the first few weeks/ first month. LOL because we all know the fucking second we become fertilized. Jeez...
I'm all for people thinking of new ways to handle problems. But I just don't see how even a simple notification would be enforceable.
[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here's my opinion. Say abortion is legal for non-medical reasons for the first thirteen weeks (first trimester) of pregnancy. The mother has six weeks to inform the father that she is pregnant. If she fails to inform him by that time, that shall be considered her releasing him from all responsibility regarding the child. If she informs in within that time, he has up until the ninth week of pregnancy (at least three weeks) to decide whether he wants to accept responsibility, leaving her at least a month to have the abortion if she wishes, if he decides that he does not want to be involved in the child's life.
[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link
Do you think it is correct that one person should be able to unilaterally sign away the rights of another person? The rights you speak of belong to the child -- not to either parent.
[–]EvilPundit 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
The "rights of the child" argument is ridiculous. If the rights of the child actually had priority, abortion would be illegal.
True but saying the woman effectively has full control gives her rights priority over two other humans. I've still never worked out why that is acceptable. People say that men should live with it and if they don't want a child then they shouldn't have had sex yet that doesn't seem to apply to women.
I'm all for abortion. If you don't want to raise a child you'll probably raise a shitty child. But likewise if the father wants out he should be allowed.
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People say that men should live with it and if they don't want a child then they shouldn't have had sex yet that doesn't seem to apply to women.
This is a double standard that doesn't get enough attention, IMO.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Been to South Dakota lately?
The current argument presumes that the child's personhood is instantiated at the moment of birth, in which case all rights attach at that instant. Its immaterial when any decision about non-support is made; those rights are present at birth and cannot be unilaterally signed away by anyone.
[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
If we accept that, then abortion would be illegal.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
How so? If there is no personhood prior to birth, why would that suggest making abortion illegal? I think it suggests the opposite.
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If there is no personhood prior to birth, then a man cannot be morally obligated to support a possible personhood that might exist in the future.
If there is a personhood before birth, then a woman cannot be morally allowed to kill it.
Currently, the law assumes a personhood is present before birth in one case, but denies it in the other. This is a contradiction.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
then a man cannot be morally obligated to support a possible personhood that might exist in the future.
Why not? What happens if we change "possible" to "inevitable"?
Not sure if you're American or not, but in the USofA the "personhood" question is hotly debated, extremely controversial, and is the direct root cause of multiple murders over the last couple of decades so you're not alone in seeing contradictions.
[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What happens if we change "possible" to "inevitable"?
Then we have an error of fact, because a pregnancy does not inevitably lead to the birth of a person.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That depends entirely on who you are dealing with, and where you are geographically located.
[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Which is precisely why I suggested that this all happens before a child exists.
Not allowing the man to have a say in hist involvement before a child is born is the problem.
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
What difference does it make if he disavows all responsibility before or after the child is born? Once the child is born, it is still without the support of the man responsible for his/her existence.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
What about women that choose to have a child on their own, without a father? Do you also think sperm banks should be banned using the same logic? That the mother is doing the child a major disservice by starting a family that only has one parent? Should we make this illegal?
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Wow, loaded questions and only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but since I love nothing so much as the sound of my own voice, I'll engage:
1) Sperm banks should not be banned, but see #3 below
2) Yes I do think that women who opt to have children without a partner of either sex are depriving their child (cue angry emails from people happily and successfully raised by single parents).
3) No, with the caveat that there are lawsuits already out there and the beginnings of established -- and wildly-contradictory -- case law on the rights of biological parents who get that way via non-traditional methods (i.e. egg and sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc.) I'm not sure how I feel about it all, to be honest. Its very thorny and concept of the rights of the children seem to get lost in the all the screaming and flag-waving over the rights of the mother and father.
[–]boomguy 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Tangentially related? It's two methods of getting pregnant, one just happens to be a bit more personal.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
women who opt to have children without a partner of either sex are depriving their child
Why do you think this? Could you try to give concrete, specific examples of how 2 parents is better than one? Also, do you think there is merit to having more than 2 parents? After all if 2 is better than 1, why is 3 not better than 2? I don't think my other questions were that loaded, but maybe this next one is just a little bit. What is the magic number of parents that is "best"?
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh man, this is quite the can of worms, isn't it? I don't have a magic number, and I'm not sure there is one. Indeed, the idea of a "nuclear family" of two parents going it alone is very new, emerging only within the last 60 or so years and is largely a product of post WWII economic expansion that allowed married couples to purchase their own homes, and more importantly cars -- which allowed them to live greater than walking distance/public transit from their extended family and support system. Prior to that, most people lived in the same house as or walking distance to extended family and by default a build-in multi-generational support system that included aunts, uncles, grandparents, nieces, and nephews to assist in child-raising duties.
On a purely practical level, 2 > 1 simply because parents can take a tag-team approach to rearing up children. Its exhausting work, and having someone there to take over when you're at the end of your rope is HUGE. Having n+1 perspectives on a child's development and behavior (important with child of the opposite sex of the parent, particularly), also important.
Three may indeed be better than two, I simply don't know. At some point you're going to hit the delta, where some value of n actually creates more problems than it solves, but I don't know what that value is. Maybe ask that question of people who were raised in a commune-type situation, or in a multi-generation household? They'd probably have a better answer for you than I, since my take on that type of upbringing is pure conjecture.
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can say, categorically, living on the opposite side of the country from our families with a new baby, as first-time parents, is exceedingly rough on both of us. There are all kinds of situations that come up that many of my friends solve by dumping the kid(s) at their parents that just aren't available to us. Vacations, holidays, sick days... everything is hugely stressful.
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
What difference does it make if he disavows all responsibility before or after the child is born?
Because the woman can choose to have the baby or not before it is born. That choice doesn't exist after.
Once the child is born, it is still without the support of the man responsible for his/her existence.
No, two people are responsible for the child's existence. The problem is that only one person gets to make a choice regarding their involvement.
The woman would have to consider if she really wants to have the child if she would be having the child by herself.
[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy. At what point do the child's rights and best-interests engage?
Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fatherhood before he has unprotected sex.
[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy.
Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby.
Financial obligations are not biology.
At what point do the child's rights and best-interests engage?
Before the child is born, which is why the woman can choose to have the baby or not. Maybe she won't have the baby if she can't take the man's money without his consent.
But not the woman? When a woman has sex, she isn't signing a contract that if she gets pregnant, she must carry it to term and financially provide for it. And yet, you're saying that the man is signing away is rights when he has sex. Completely lopsided.
A woman gets to decide what she does with her body, but every individual should be able to decide what to do with their own money.
[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
He signs away those rights because of the way our bodies are. He inherently loses control over what happens in the pregnancy once his sperm is out of his body. He can either have sex and risk the creation of a child, or he can not have sex. This is his right and also the fact he needs to consider before having sex with someone. Nobody is stopping him from making that consideration, just as they shouldn't stop the woman from her options once she's pregnant. It's not a lopsided injustice, it's just the lopsided way of nature.
Financial obligations are not biology, but if there is a child in the world that's yours, you're morally responsible for it. If you sign away your financial obligations, you're just putting your irresponsibility in writing. The child you don't care for will still be in the world, whether you think the woman who brought it to term was irresponsible for doing so or not. It's easy to say "I don't want to be financially responsible for a child," "you can just get an abortion," and "you can carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption." It's a lot harder for the woman to actually do those things.
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
but if there is a child in the world that's yours, you're morally responsible for it.
Not true. One can choose to give a child up for adoption.
If you sign away your financial obligations, you're just putting your irresponsibility in writing.
How is this different than a woman choosing to have an abortion, financially? I think we're back at the original image, here.
It's a lot harder for the woman to actually do those things.
Well, as you put it, that's "the way our bodies are".
[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Adoption is a morally responsible choice. I was saying it's morally irresponsible for the man to sign away his financial responsibility to the child and leaving it at that. Having an abortion removes the reality of a child. A "financial abortion" is just ignoring your responsibility to the child. You accept the risk of being responsible for a child when you have sex with a woman who will keep the child if she gets pregnant.
That was my point. The differences in our bodies justify the apparent lopsidedness in our rights and available choices.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy. Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby.
Correct.
But they are inextricably linked to biology, and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet.
She's not taking his money, his money goes towards support of the child he has had a 50% share in producing.
Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fatherhood before he has unprotected sex. But not the woman? When a woman has sex, she isn't signing a contract that if she gets pregnant, she must carry it to term and financially provide for it. And yet, you're saying that the man is signing away is rights when he has sex. Completely lopsided.
Do men have uteruses? No, then you're right it is completely lopsided, and that's the breaks. You might want to consider entering into sexual relationships with that understanding.
Really? Can I stop paying taxes without any legal repercussions, then?
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But they are inextricably linked to biology
What does this mean? A child dies when it only has the income of one parent? This statement makes no sense. Until you can understand how they aren't "inextricably linked", this discussion is pointless.
and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet.
Just because it's law doesn't make it right. Think pre Roe v. Wade or pre women's suffrage. We're talking about what should be the law. Convention != justice.
If there was no such thing as abortion, I would agree with you. However, there is abortion and it gives the woman a choice.
For all intents and purposes (if you're pro choice), there is no child until it is born. Having the child is not inevitable, determined by the woman. It's not "for the child" if the woman has 100% say. The man has 0% say and the child has a 0% say as well. The woman is the actor, not the child.
Can you explain the differences between "50% share in producing" and "it's 100% my body and my choice"? The financial freedom of the man balances this.
The uterus's biological function is to take money from someone else? No? Then you can't use the biology argument here.
Here's an example of the biological argument working: Men have no say in a woman's pregnancy because 100% of the baby is in the woman.
Here's an example of the biological argument failing: Women have a uterus so men are required to provide for the child.
Apart from taxes, then. Strawmen are annoying.
The difference is that one chooses to be part of society. You're free to live off the grid in the middle of nowhere undetected if you want to evade taxes.
[–]saucisse -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
The definitely suffer a strong financial disadvantage. They also suffer an emotional disadvantage (again: cue angry replies from happy adults raised by single parents) of not having both parents available to support them as individuals, and to take the stress off each other during the exhausting business of raising up children.
There is universal convention around parental rights and responsibilities. The boundaries and definitions vary from society to society, but there is not one society on earth that does not hold people responsible for their own heirs.
You are talking about introducing new law to allow person A to unilaterally terminate rights belonging to person B.
Agreed. But it does not give a child a choice whether or not to be born.
I am both pro-choice and a realist. If a woman has a baby, then lets say the baby is instantiated at birth. All rights to parental support are attached to the child at that instant. You are still suggesting that Parent A be able to unilaterally terminate that child's rights to parental support at the moment of instantiation.
False. There is no child without a father, it is physically impossible. The rights to parental support belong to the child. Nobody's desire for "financial freedom" trumps that.
Of course I can.
True.
False. Child emerges from the womb. Man is required to support child.
Haha, so I have total freedom of choice in financial matters except for those matters I have no choice in?
I suppose. Do babies have the choice of whether or not to be born?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
the rights you speak of belong to the child -- not to either parent.
Parents sign away their childrens rights all the time
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Describe?
[–]darkamir 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
adoption?
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Adoption terminates parental rights, it does not terminate the child's rights to support.
[–]darkamir 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
If the child is put for adoption what is the responsibility of the parents to him?
Does the responsibility goes to the state?
BTW. All this talk about abandoning children makes me sick.
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I'm not familiar with the specifics of adoption law, but there are legalities around one entity affirmatively taking over support of a child from another. Simply handing your child to someone without any kind of legal affirmation of responsibility on the part of the recipient would be considered abandonment, I'm fairly certain.
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Which women are free to do-- unilaterally-- as well.
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I notice that you've neglected to mention that safe haven laws are available to anybody (even men omg) with legal custody of a child in most places, and in some places even available to people who only have physical custody (e.g. a grandparent or babysitter).
You've also neglected to mention that safe haven laws are not meant to be a permanent option with respect to the legal custody of children. They're meant as an emergency stopgap to prevent infanticide.
You've also neglected to mention how rarely safe haven laws get used.
Did you mean to present the truth so misleadingly?
[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And financial abortion also terminates parental rights, it does not terminate the child's right to support. Idiot.
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You're right, that support is provide by the person who doesn't terminate their parental right (or gains them through adoption). Why are women allowed to terminate their parental rights, but not men (without the woman's consent)? That is the crux of the issue at hand.
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
One example, parents have the right to physically discipline their child , they also have the right to transfer that authority to others. They can sign away their childs right to not be hit .
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If parents have the right to physically discipline their child, then children don't have the right to not be hit. How can the parents sign away a right that the child never had to begin with?
Your premise is flawed
If parents have the right to physically discipline their child, then children don't have the right to not be hit
If you can't walk down the street with a rocket launcher , then you don't have the right to bear arms.
If you can't yell fire in a movie theater you don't have freedom of speech
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Neither of those are very apt analogies.
If someone has the right to do x to you, then you do not have the right to not have x done to you.
If someone has the right to shoot you with a rocket launcher, then you do not have the right to not be shot with a rocket launcher.
If someone has the right to hit you, then you do not have the right to not be hit.
Give me an example where someone has the right to do x to you, but you somehow still have the right to be protected from x.
[–]numb3rb0y 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Why are the rights of the child necessarily linked to their biological parents (except where they're not, such as adoption)? If society is so hell-bent on supporting the child, shouldn't society pay, rather than a biological father who was not afforded any choice beyond whether to have sex in stark contrast to the mother?
They are linked by default, but that default can be altered under very specific conditions, namely that there is a party or parties willing and able to absorb the cost (financial/emotional/social) of those rights and affirmatively take them on.
"Society" does pay -- they pay through CPS departments (underfunded and undervalued as they are), subsidized foster programs, and institutional care. All of those options are sub-optimal and frequently have very poor outcomes, and are a poor substitute for parents -- plural -- actively engaging in the care and well-being of the child they brought into the world.
They are linked by default
For the mother, yes. For the father, no. It varies by state of course, so YMMV.
[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But we're not talking about mandatory shared custody, we're talking about purely financial arrangements. In that context, society (through the government) is entirely capable of paying the same amount of money to the custodial parent as the non-custodial parent would be forced to pay under the present system. It may not be desirable to many and it would certainly result in either significantly increased taxation or major budgetary changes, but it would be entirely possible.
Of course, the normal response to this is that it would be unfair to force people to pay for children they weren't responsible for, but this is almost hilarious in its irony considering that the present system happily holds parents responsible for children when they had significantly less agency in the creation of the child than the other partner, or none at all in the case of male rape and statutory rape victims.
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It is theoretically possible, but only through increased taxation of the general population. How well do you think that's going to fly, these days? I don't particularly relish the idea of paying for other people's kids simply because they don't feel like it. Why should I expect them to pay for mine?
On a practical level I think it has the consequence (unintended? not so sure) of encouraging capricious abandonment. "I don't feel like being a parent so I'm just going to dump all responsibility on Parent B and make "society" pay with their payroll taxes". Its an easy way out of a very complex and complicated relationship, and I don't believe that child-support should be easily written off by anyone.
I agree with you that the legality around this is poorly defined and even more poorly executed in practice. I would also add in the conflicting legal opinions on support of children who are the product of extra-marital affairs. I am not sure how I feel about that, especially when dad has a strong parental relationship with a child that turns out not to be his, biologically. What then?
Its an easy way out of a very complex and complicated relationship, and I don't believe that child-support should be easily written off by anyone.
If it's so easy, it should be equally easy for the woman to put the baby up for adoption.
[–]canijoinin 80 points81 points82 points 14 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link
I disagree with this one.
When babies are around and the woman decides not to be in the picture, she's a deadbeat just as much as a man.
[–]Ragnrok 64 points65 points66 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Tell that to the people who feel that there is nothing wrong with the fact that my mother never paid my dad a penny of child support.
[–]canijoinin 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I will. My son's mom doesn't pay me child support either.
[–]IlliniJeeper 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
And that's just fine by you when, if the shoe was on the other foot, your ass could be thrown in jail for doing the same thing?
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, he'd be nailed to the fucking wall. My mom never paid my dad child support either.
[–]SystemOutPrintln -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Relevant username?
[–]om_nom_nom 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
My dad never paid shit, and nothing ever happened to him.
[–]IlliniJeeper 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Illinois must have stiffer penalties for dead beat dads than other parts of the country. http://www.findgreatlawyers.com/blog/2011/03/dupage-county-rounds-up-deadbeat-dads/
[–]om_nom_nom 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, it's the same here too, he just kept worming his way out of it. I'm 20 now so it doesn't even matter anymore.
[–]Patti234 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
the government thinks it's totally fine that my dad never paid my mom a penny of child support because he's "legally insane", let alone can and has held down jobs and is doing quite well for himself financially.
[–]Ragnrok 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This discussion has been one of public opinion. What the government thinks is completely irrelevant.
[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well I thought I would ADD government opinion to the conversation, seeing as they would be the ones to enforce that my dad pay. But whatevs.
[–]sp0radic 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What were you thinking, it's not like they take money out of people's pockets for this... oh wait.
[–]rantgrrl 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So, what you're saying is that a normal woman is equivalent to a legally insane man?
[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
While I did not mention anything about equivalency, whatever people "believe" should be irrelevant. What matters is right and wrong, which shouldn't be determined by popular opinion. Individuals who have children and are financially capable of providing for the child, especially if the child is disadvantaged financially, should damned well be paying child support, if nothing else.
[–]DownSoFar 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Or (and I'm just guessing here) Patti could be saying that anecdotes like Ragnrok's are completely useless.
But I guess your useless and ridiculous hyperbole might be right. Anything's possible.
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that your statement is really dumb. Non-custodial mothers are subject to exactly the same laws (laws which are formulated in a gender neutral way) as non-custodial fathers, and anybody who takes even a second to look it up would know that.
[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Patti is saying that his/her anecdote that the government isn't collecting child support from a man who it thinks is verifiably 'insane' is equivalent to several anecdotes in which child support is not being collected from presumably sane women.
Do you see the discrepancy? A man has to be verifiably insane before the government decides not to collect child support; a woman just has to be... a woman.
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Patti is saying that his/her anecdote that the government isn't collecting child support from a man who it thinks is verifiably 'insane' is equivalent to
No, that's not what Patti is saying at all, Patti has told you that already. There's nothing in there about equivalence.
A man has to be verifiably insane before the government decides not to collect child support; a woman just has to be... a woman.
You're full of shit. Look! A presumably legally sane man that got away with not paying child support. Patti uses scare quotes around legally insane for a reason. Want to guess what that reason is? I'm betting it has to do with the clause following it. People who put wealth ahead of providing for their own children will find any reason available to avoid supporting their children. Patti's providing her (?) father's reason does not in any way imply an equivalency with other cases. You're completely wrong in your previous statement. Especially seeing as though (despite your stupid as fuck assertions) being a woman is not used as a reason to avoid paying child support.
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If your dad doesn't have serious mental issues something had had to go seriously wrong for him to be declared legally insane. It's no cake walk though.
[–]ChipWhip 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The kicker here is that the woman never actually has to be in the picture because she just got an abortion.
[–]canijoinin 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah, I see.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
See, THAT is a similar comparison. In the comic, the woman is making a choice before there is an actual human who needs love & support. I understand that the man cannot make that choice at that stage (which should be legally amended), but once there is a third human in the picture who needs you? Yes, it's bad to walk away at that point, whether you're male or female.
[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
the woman is making a choice before there is an actual human
Here's the thing: there IS an actual human. We are human right from conception - fully human DNA. Residing in a womb doesn't mean they aren't human beings. They're alive, too, by the way.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I don't want to get into a debate about if abortion is murder. This thread is about how society regards men vs. women about their involvement as parents.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I don't want to get into a debate about if abortion is murder.
Neither do I. I didn't use the word murder anywhere in my post. However, when I encounter a wrong statement like the one I replied to, that there is no actual human growing in the womb - and see that it's getting upvotes, too - I can't just let it slide. It's false (I can't say that without thinking of Dwight K. Shrute, ha ha!), and is completely contradicted by science. Every one of us begins as the fusion of a human egg cell, with 23 human genes, and a human sperm cell, with 23 genes. How can such a being not be human at any stage of development?
This thread is about how society regards men vs. women about their involvement as parents.
It's also about the double standard with which we view children: disposable and unimportant before birth, particularly if the mother doesn't want them, but then important and deserving of protection and provision after birth. You can clearly see it, reading through the comments.
As I said, I really don't want to debate this with you. The one thing you might want to consider, in future debates with people, is the legal perspective of if a fetus is a human. According to legal systems, a fetus is NOT a human until it can survive outside the womb (usually third trimester). Otherwise, yes, abortion would be outlawed because killing a human = murder.
It's fine if you consider it a human since conception, but legally, that's not the case.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's the point of the cartoon - that there's a huge double standard where this issue is concerned. Women can, essentially, bugger off via abortion, and it's acceptable, but men who abandon their kids are hated for it.
[–]ViP_Suite 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link
Yes, this is one time I disagree with MR. I feel it is a moral responsibility for the man to support the child. I think the picture portrays a man who leaves the woman and child because he simply does not want to be involved. As for the woman, there are many who would shun her for aborting. Once the baby is born, I say it is up to both parents to assume resposibility.
[–]spagma 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This picture depicts both making their choice before birth. She can choose to abort, he can't choose not to be a father at all, he doesn't get that choice.
[–]ViP_Suite 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree completely that before birth, it is messed up for the man. With some of the stories I've seen in this subreddit, it's terrifying. I keep think of the story where a lady sperm jacked a guy from a blowjob and impregnated herself, took the guy to court and won a case where he had to pay child support.
If the lady wants to have the baby, he is forced into it. One the other hand, he can't force her to have an abortion.
If he wants to have the baby, she can abort it if she doesn't want the baby.
Either way, it is a really messed up system.
There was a story here a few weeks ago about a boy who was raped when he was a minor and yet still forced to pay child support to his rapist.
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Once the baby is born, I say it is up to both parents to assume resposibility.
So we're going to outlaw adoption and abandonment unless the father's consent has been obtained?
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Ideally? Yes. That is alraedy the case in some states, which becomes problematic when the mother can't find the father because he has already split.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
That is alraedy the case in some states
Could you please source that? My understanding is that unwed fathers have to jump through several hoops to even have the slimmest chance of stopping an adoption.
And that's if mom doesn't dump the kid in Utah's adoption system. Then there's basically no chance of dad ever seeing the kid again.
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Per Lehr v. Robertson, unmarried fathers must either be on the birth certificate (in which case they become the legal father) or sign a putative-father's registry in order to have standing to file a petition to halt any adoption proceeding and/or petition to gain custody. If they are established as the putative father (or absolutely established by being on the birth certificate) they can simply not consent to the unilateral termination of their parental rights.
Consent may be unnecessary if mom can demonstrate that dad has abandoned them or otherwise refused to provide reasonable financial or in-person pre- or post-natal support.
[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
So... Yes, I was correct that a father needs to jump through hoops.
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
You need to send a postcard into a registry. Do you have a better suggestion for establishing paternity of a child when your name is not on the birth cert and/or you are not married to mom?
That's IF the father even knows the mother gave birth or was pregnant in the first place. There's no requirements for women to do so, so there's no chance for a lot of guys to protect their parental rights.
Fair enough, that's an excellent point.
I don't have a good solution to your other point, though, about don't know/can't find. "Don't know" gets into some shaky moralizing territory which I'd like to avoid, but "can't find" seems fairly straightforward, wouldn't you say?
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Well, if the mother wants to give it up for abandonment or adoption... why not have her find the father and obtain his consent first?
She is required to in some place.
What if she can't, though?
[–]Chandon -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Responsibility and choice go together. A woman has full control over whether she has a child, therefore she must be fully responsible for that child. Anything else sets you up for systemic failures.
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Responsibility and choice go together.
What choice do I make that results in my responsibility to pay taxes? What choice am I making that results in my responsibility to show up for jury duty when I am summoned? What choice do I make that results in my responsibility to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem I'm a part of?
Some responsibilities you choose. Some you don't. It doesn't follow from the fact that someone didn't choose the responsibility that they don't still have it.
[–]Chandon 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Taxes and jury duty aren't responsibilities. They're compelled by threat of force.
At very least, such compulsions should be minimized and should be structured in such a way as to not generate perverse incentives.
[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh, you're one of those.
They're civic responsibilities. The fact that there's a punishment for not owning up to them doesn't change that fact. They fit the definition of a responsibility precisely. They're something you are obligated to do. In fact the definition of a responsibility directly implies a negative consequence for shirking it! Or are you operating under some incorrect definition of responsibility that I should know about?
I noticed that you didn't address the responsibility to maintain the integrity of one's ecosystem. What choice is resulting in that responsibility?
[–]Chandon 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
They're civic responsibilities.
You mean they're duties, like the feudal serf's duty to grow crops on his lord's land. I'm sorry, but such medieval notions of ethics have no place in the modern world regardless of conservatives trying to dredge them back up and guilt people with their cultural remnants. We've been beyond that nonsense for centuries.
Responsibilities must be accepted willingly. Anything else devolves quickly into involuntary servitude.
I noticed that you didn't address the responsibility to maintain the integrity of one's ecosystem.
This is the sort of confusion you get dragged into by your archaic system of ethics, and it all gets intertwined and seems to reinforce itself. But... if you just think in terms of the rights of your neighbors, there's no problem here.
[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
You mean they're duties
Duty and responsibility are synonyms. One is used in a more formal setting ("duty of care", "sworn duty"), but they both mean the same thing: an obligation to perform (or refrain from) certain acts.
Responsibilities must be accepted willingly.
So if I don't want to maintain the ecosystem I'm a part of, I don't have that responsibility? Do employers not have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employees (granted that they don't want that responsibility)? Do I even have a responsibility to follow the law? When did I agree to that?
Regarding your edit:
if you just think in terms of the rights of your neighbors, there's no problem here.
When did I agree to a duty (a.k.a. responsibility) to respect the rights of my neighbors? =P
This is not even an ethics issue. The definition of "responsibility" is
A thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation.
Or if you prefer:
something for which one is responsible (i.e. liable to be called on to answer)
It doesn't matter if you've willingly accepted the responsibility. If you have an obligation to do something, you have a responsibility to do it, by definition. For example, children have a responsibility to complete whatever chores their parents assign to them. Children who don't do their chores are irresponsible.
So, yeah. You're just wrong in your statement that a responsibility must be chosen. It's actually sort of embarrassing for you to argue the point, to be honest.
Sorry but there is no way women have received as much grief as men for supposedly not holding up their end. A woman usually has to be a true dead beat to get called out. A guy can get shit and not actually be a dead beat.
I disagree as well. Where I grew up, there were so many cases where either the mother, father, or both abandoned their children, leaving it up to grandparents to raise the kids. The "women" (usually very young) go out and party all the time while the "men" (also very young) are either not around at all or partying all the time. They are both equally disgusting.
[–]canijoinin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I just disagree with that. :\
[–]Ishmael999 39 points40 points41 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
I agree to a large degree, but you realize in a lot of cases the woman gets called a murderer, right?
[–]NickRausch 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Call me whatever you want. I am worried about my income
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't diminish, in any way, the realities facing men.
[–]SweetJeebus 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think the point is that the comic speaks to what a man in that situation is CALLED. It relies on the idea that:
I do however agree that men should have a similar right to opt out of parenting.
[+]TicTokCroc -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't diminish, in any way, the realities facing deadbeat dads.
FTFY. I'm a man and if I knock up a girl and she decides to keep it, then I have a responsibility to that child. You mensrighters are a bunch of fucking losers.
[–]xcydal 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
It's not about responsibility per se; it's about the disparity between men and women's rights. Women have a choice, we don't.
[–]xcydal 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Getting called a "murderer" by randoms > being an indentured servant for 18 years.
I'd rather a couple random people I don't care about call me a murderer instead of forcing me to pay $1000 a month for two decades.
[–]bluthru 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
While it is unfortunate that ignorant people might call women (1/3 of women, that is) who have had an abortion terrible names, that has nothing to do with the liability disparity between the sexes.
"Deadbeats" have to pay. "Murderers" have their choice.
[–]Ishmael999 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Point taken. I just hope nobody's trying to dismiss their experiences.
I don't think anyone is.
It's not the woman's fault that she gets the positive labels. It's the general culture surrounding the attitude towards men in parenting.
I think this is mostly about how "progressives" think about abortion. Conservatives have their own problems.
[–]communicatrix 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
This is FAR too black and white. The issue can't be summed up in such a manner.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Obviously. It's a comic. Not everything is a political treatise, that doesn't mean it isn't making a valid point.
The allegory isn't very accurate.
In many cases, if a reasonable woman opts to carry the child, the man is given a right not to be involved if he so wishes. You have a personal responsibility to be careful who you sleep with, in that you may possibly, no matter how narrow the margins may be, father a child with them.
The comic assumes that women are unreasonable and make decisions dependent on their own needs as a potential mother. It's just not true.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The comic is about a man being perceived as a deadbeat and a woman being perceived as 'pro-choice'. All that stuff about women being reasonable or not is in your head, not the comic. The comic is about the double standard in the public perception of fathers and mothers. And no, men do not have the right to opt-out of fatherhood. Someone choosing not to punch you is not the same as having a legal right not to be punched.
[–]oligobop 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're right. The shade of ink used for this sketch is too stark a contrast to the white paper on which it was drawn.
[–]communicatrix 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I knew this was coming.
[–]solidwhetstone -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's what she- eh too easy.
[–]TicTokCroc -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
On MR it can. We're all fucking retards here or haven't you heard?
[–]troikaman 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Last time I checked there were plenty of people who think of abortion as murder, and anybody involved in one monsters.
[–]IronWolve 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Like Ron Paul. I finally heard him speak out against abortion. He said, the day before the baby is born, abortion could be performed legally. The next day its murder.
Far as I can tell, only 13 states allow it, and then, its very restricted. Almost only to save the mothers life.
I think most people agree on late term, but to use that as the rally cry for a ban is nothing but propaganda.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
deciding not to be a mother gets called you selfish and no one wants to perform any sterilization on you, lots of doctors refuse. it's like expected of you to be a mother. if you don't want to, then you're insane, something's wrong with you, you're lonely, selfish. etc. sigh.
[–]numb3rb0y 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
deciding not to be a mother gets called you selfish and no one wants to perform any sterilization on you, lots of doctors refuse.
That's got nothing to do with sex; you get exactly the same response as a man looking to get a vasectomy unless you lie about already having children or are relatively old.
[–]spagma 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
I saw this a few years back and saved a copy. I haven't seen it here, and didn't find it on a search, so I figured I would share it.
[–]lovedrunk 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
this is probably one of the most accurate statements of our day.
[+]RedAnarchist -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
That and if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every block.
[–]rockidol 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because men care a lot less about life than a woman?
It sounds pretty sexist.
[–]rantgrrl 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Because society respects men's bodily integrity so much more then women's.
Since you're asserting this, why don't you provide some examples that support your assertion?
[–]Demonspawn -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
The right to abortion has nothing to do with bodily integrity. That's a red-herring that feminists throw out, FYI. The right to abortion has to do with absolving a mother from the responsibility of motherhood and the burdens it would place upon her. When you read the majority decision of Roe v Wade it becomes very obvious what this right to abortion is all about: absolving women from responsibility.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I've said it once before and I'll say it again - RvW was about medical privacy...
[–]RedAnarchist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Wow men's rights is a scary place.
I've never seen someone try to twist such a very well studied and analyzed court case.
This isn't really debatable. RvW was about privacy.
that's what i've been saying
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
If it was about privacy, than why were 3rd trimester abortions not made legal?
If it's simply a matter of privacy, then surely the age of the fetus shouldn't matter, right?
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You've obviously never read the majority decision.
And if it weren't for the right to privacy it wouldn't have been.
[–]LoveCurves 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Legal justification and the actual thinking behind the ruling are different things.
[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Determining your level of responsibility is a subset of bodily integrity.
[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Possibly, but I don't like it's usage as it draws one to conclude that the right to abortion has to do with not being forced to 'incubate' a child. Instead, the right to abortion comes from being free from "Maternity, or additional offspring, [which] may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"
[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're right.
In that case, society does not respect men's right to consensual fatherhood.
[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. (1)Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. (2) Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. (3) Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (4) There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."[Enumeration mine]
Notice that the right to abortion is more focused on freedom from motherhood rather than control over one's body. Where is a man's right to be free of fatherhood?
If we do not give men the same rights to be free of fatherhood (meaning without the partner's consent), then we must ban abortion under all situations other than as a medical procedure to save the life of the mother.
[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I suppose I always thought that the "freedom of motherhood" was paid from the price of the mother always being seen as the responsible party. She didn't keep her legs closed, she didn't push him to wear a condom, she didn't have a backup method in place. She didn't protect herself and it is mostly her fault that she got pregnant. Some even stretch this responsibility to rape victims but this is not about that. Sorry for even bringing that up. Now that she has this society induced pressure some freedoms are put in to relieve it I suppose. It's rather difficult to justify I must admit.
THIS ONLY GOES FOR BEFORE THE BABY IS BORN NOT AFTER JUST THOUGHT I'D MAKE THAT CLEAR NOW
But it may not be as simple as that either. We have to accept that when it comes to fetuses, and the pregnancy part of this issue, men and women will never be equal. Biology is a powerful thing. It's been said a thousand times that pregnancy is not an easy process, and child birth can permanently alter the women's body (vagina mostly) or leave a rather large scar. The only fair way I can see a man taking his right to fatherhood (ie. stopping an abortion) when the woman does not want to carry the baby, would be to carry it himself. But he can't. That is why it will always be an unequal time, and that's sad but I don't know anyway to get around that.
[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That is why it will always be an unequal time, and that's sad but I don't know anyway to get around that.
I am fully willing to admit that due to biology it will never be perfectly fair/equal. But it can be made a hell of a lot more fair/equal than it is currently.
[–]PsychicChinchilla 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That is true, do you have any examples of even the small things that could be made more equal? I'm personally stumped
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I covered the gross concept here
What it really comes down to is: do both get the freedoms women have (able to absolve themselves from parental responsibility without the partner's consent) or are we both burdened with the duty men face (cannot absolve responsibility unless the partner consents; abortion outlawed other than to save the life of the mother).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Here is what you do.
Now, I'd like to live in an ideal world where every woman would be okay with getting an abortion. Really, really would. But see, I'm well aware this isn't the case. You can't force a medical procedure on someone, and there are some women, for whatever reasons, that cannot get an abortion. Some are religious, some are ethical (such as not being aware of a pregnancy until a few months in, where she feels it is a human being), and some are medical (if she has an abortion, she dies/suffers infertility).
I would simply not abide by a system that would fuck over so very many people, burdening them with the choice of giving them up for adoption, or raising them in financial destituion. There are men who would say "Well Suzy, sure sucks your ovaries will be destroyed if you get an abortion, but, well, I'm not paying for your fucking kid. TOODLE OO!" Simply put, no one should be a victim of circumstance.
1) Give people the OPTION of signing a contract on financial abortion, and bind them to it if it is signed. Should the woman go ahead with the pregnancy, it is now her problem, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
2) A child is not entitled to his or her father's wallet any more than the father is entitled to his children's. A child's status in life should NOT be predicated upon who the mother had sex with, especially as any man who would abide by these minimums most likely (and regrettably) does not wish to be in that child's life. Anyone who suggests that a loving father would not, as a rule or even guideline, go above and beyond these minimums if it is in his capability is clearly a bigot. Suzy is not entitled to getting a sports vehicle for her sixteenth because her estranged father happened to be loaded, and Johnny should not be left destitute and wearing potato sacks because his biological father makes $300 a week.
Children are, however, entitled to food, shelter, emotional and physical security. This is why I propose the following guidelines:
[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Really liked you post, but I felt I needed to reply to your points as well. Possibly shake out a few other details
1) I believe this was covered in other reply's, but I did have some small problems with your caveats.
Having a physical violence clause seems like a great idea in a world where women (and men) do not lie about being physically violent. And I always have issue when the courts decide intent (since it's nearly impossible to prove intent even when you have a tape of the encounter in question), ie we can see he hit you, but was it because he wanted you to sign the paper? Or was it some other reason self defense or something unjustified but that's not covered under these terms? I just wouldn't want this to be another "they'll just cry violence forcing me to pay" things.
Also the last one may be redundant since most men wouldn't feel the need to force an abortion if they can gain a financial one. That just seems a bit weird but then I could be reading everything incorrectly
I may just be being nit picky
2)See I always thought that this WAS what child support is. You may want to re-write that for people who don't understand the in's an outs of child support payments. I just looked it up and now your point makes sense. Child support being a percentage of the fathers income as opposed to a set number based on basic food, shelter and necessities costs. Which seems unfair until you really think about how many fathers are paying child support and how diverse this group of estranged parents is. Since when has the government been any good at that kind of organization?
Food, water and to an extent clothing is pretty easy to find an average for, but shelters pretty damn tricky. This depends on what the mother by herself could afford vs how much more she pays to be in a larger place (a one bedroom up from a studio lets say) in order to have enough room for two people. Then you have to wonder how much space do two people need? What if you had many children and support 2 or more? What if the father makes very little money and it would take his whole paycheck to pay for his "share" of little billy's food shelter clothes and schooling. How much should the government help out exactly? More case to case stuff gumming up the process.
Schooling! It's possible the mother could have come away like a thief and sends their son to a fancy school, how much of that should the father pay?
It would be the largest logistical nightmare ever thought of to work out how much each individual father would have to pay based on both his income and what the mother may need or not need. And then classifying and putting a value on the food the child needs thus assessing what his stipend is and then it has to be re-evaluated every year or less to compensate for his/her growth and the changing amount of money the father can or cannot provide.
It just seems like a big idea that is outrageously impractical because of the amount of variables involved. It's interesting but I was looking for something that could actually be something, especially just small changes.
The biggest obstacle in fairness, especially in this issue, is efficiency. Case to case decision making, based on all the evidence for this set of parents, and nothing else is possibly the fairest way to rule. But we just don't have the time an resources. So we must be efficient.
The simpler the better, KISS and all that. When it's simple people can't twist rules or abuse the system as easily. Hence why I believe most child support is a % of income. That way it will always be "within the means" of the father to pay it in theory. And if even that is being mishandled or abused, well all I can say is we better not make it any more complicated
[+]elebrin -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
I agree with you, but I am on the side of banning abortion on the grounds that it is murder.
If you think about it, if you hit a woman driving her car, and she is pregnant (even if only a week or two pregnant), and you kill her, then in the eyes of the law you just murdered two people. If a doctor fucks up and accidentally kills the baby, the doctor is liable for that. Why is it any different when the mother chooses to end the life of her fetus?
We can quibble all day about when human life begins, but even at only a few moments old, the embryo has a full set of DNA. DNA is what causes us to be human. This embryo is definitely living and the cells are dividing. It is by definition a human life.
[–]SenorSpicyBeans 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
if you hit a woman driving her car, and she is pregnant (even if only a week or two pregnant), and you kill her, then in the eyes of the law you just murdered two people.
You should look up the definition of "murder".
[–]banksnld 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Here you go.
edit: fixed link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I agree we should at least be consistent
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The way I resolve it, myself, is thus:
I am anti-abortion. I think abortion should be illegal. However, until it is, we are showing gross sex discrimination in the way we handle reproductive rights. So as long as women can legally have abortions, men should be able to legally walk away from the pregnancy.
If abortions ever become illegal, obviously, men should lose these similar rights as well.
[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
who is "we"?
As I said yesterday, Abortion is a wedge issue, and it'll be used as a tool to break us all apart.
the people who wonder in and ask "innocently" are handing us both guns and giving us the chance to shoot each other.
the mens' rights movement is not founded upon religious beliefs.
If you think you're called to be Buddhist, be Buddhist, or if you feel called to be Christian, be Christian, or (insofar as you honestly think you're called) worship whatever other gods / goddesses / flying food monster(s) you want. Do it devoutly.
But don't feel the immediate need to draw the lines in the sand that someone else instructs you to draw.
and don't get yourself guilty of murder.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
The legal system, our country. Either a fetus has rights (no abortion, killing a pregnant woman is murder x2) or it doesn't (abortion and killing a prego is murder x1). Consistentcy
Edit: to be clear my first sentence is in response to "who is "we""
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As I said yesterday, Abortion is a wedge issue
Not really. I would say that damn near everyone in the MRA agrees that the difference in reproductive rights needs to be balanced. Either we are free to fuck without any responsibility less we choose it (freedom that women enjoy) or that we must be responsible for the outcomes of our actions (duty that men bear).
The only real question is which way to solve the issue. Do we choose the solution which is better for individuals or the solution which is better for society as a whole? Currently, women get the individual solution while men are being told their responsibilities to society outweigh their individual freedoms.
[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I actually agree with you that it is used as a wedge issue. It has never been a big issue for me, and no abortion debate has ever influenced my vote. I am not particularly religious. Note that I did not use a religious argument. Those don't belong in the political sphere.
I just commented on the topic because it was here for discussion. Apparently the downvotes have spoken and that was the wrong thing to do, so I will shut my hole.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
A fetus has 23 pairs of chromosomes, which makes it classified as a human.
So people with an extra chromosome aren't human? Furthermore, these animals also have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so I guess they are human now
Humans (Homo sapiens) - Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi) - Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46 - European hare (Lepus europeus) - Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus) - Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) - Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) - Beach vole (Microtus breweri) - Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) - Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki) - Grey vole (Microtus arvalis) - Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi) - Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis) - Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi) - Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus) - Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Hmmm. It would have to include the morphological and physiological makeup of humans, a genetic code of humans not withstanding a pathology such as Downs Syndrome, and the ability to live independently of constant supply of another individuals chemical resources on a physiological scale (thus excluding cancer and fetuses).
[–]boomguy 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
and the ability to live independently of constant supply of another individuals chemical resources on a physiological scale
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but wouldn't that exclude the mentally and physically handicapped who can't survive without a constant supply of resources from another individual?
[–]DownSoFar 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're reading it wrong. They're excluding human cell masses which extract their nutrients directly the physiology of another human, e.g. from their blood supply.
Yes, you are reading it wrong. Those people require someone to supply them with food but are not physiologically parasitizing energy resources like a cancer or a fetus.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Sure, which is why most abortions have to occur before the third trimester.
[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
An embryo has specifically human DNA.
[–]cooj -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
You're making your argument very poorly. What you're trying to say is that an unique genetic code is what distinguishes human individuals. A fetus has an unique genetic code, and is therefore a human individual.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
within the species. because chimps also have unique genetic codes.
[–]cooj 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, unique human genetic code. Wasn't precise enough.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Cancer tends to also have a unique genetic code. That doesn't make it an individual. You will need to refine your definition.
[–]cooj 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I was helping him with his definition, not stating my own. I evidently wasn't precise enough. If you want to get into this, we can. I've been around this block a few times before...
What really matters is personhood. Personhood requires humanity, a unique genetic code for individuality, and inhabitation (complex moral term that basically means the thing carves out space for itself). All three are required on my definition, but some people like to say that chimps/dolphins/crows can have personhood, which I can live with.
A thing is conferred rights at the moment it gains personhood. If a thing has no personhood, then it may as well be a rock morally speaking. I like to use the "fetal death ray" argument here. If the fetus is a worthless lump of cells akin to a rock, then it's not only true that the mother can destroy the lump of cells, it's true that anyone can destroy the cells using a hypothetical fetal death ray. Suppose a death ray could be constructed such that, when aimed at a fetus by any passerby on the street, would make one small tweak to the genetic code of the fetus so that when it was born it could never breathe air. The mother's body would be completely unchanged and unharmed, the fetus would just be altered in such a way that it died upon delivery. This would be morally neutral behavior if the fetus was just a lump of cells akin to a rock, but our intuitions tell us that something is wrong there.
I own a gun, and I have the right to clean out the chambers of my gun. However if I use the trigger and point the gun at my child's head, I'm infringing upon the rights of another person (the most important right, in fact: life). A woman has a uterus, and has the right to clean out her uterus. That being said, her right to have a clean uterus does not supersede the right to life of the child.
This would be morally neutral behavior if the fetus was just a lump of cells akin to a rock, but our intuitions tell us that something is wrong there.
Well, not quite. It wouldn't be murder, but if you take a death ray and destroy someone's favorite rock, that's still vandalism or destruction of property. Cats don't have person-hood, but if I kill my neighbor's, I'm still breaking the law and doing something obviously immoral.
Other than that, your comment is great. It's a shame more people don't use logic when talking about abortion.
Yeah I guess you're right. It still seems a little bit off that it would be a misdemeanor (or barely a felony) to destroy someone's fetus.
[–]elebrin -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Bingo.
My liver has DNA.
Yes, your DNA. If you had a kid, your liver and your kid would have different DNA.
But possessing unique dna does not make something a human being is my point.
elebrin had a good point, s/he just didn't express it very clearly.
Human DNA is what makes us human.
Unique DNA is what makes the embryo/fetus separate from the mother (and not comparable to appendix, tumor, liver, etc.).
Having both human DNA (human) and unique DNA (being) is what makes it a human being, IMO, and, I suspect, what elebrin was getting at.
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If you're looking for law to define morality than you are looking in the wrong place.
[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Define it? no, law can't define morality but it can reflect it.
You got it backwards, you don't assume the law reflects morality. You figure out what is ethical or not on your own and then you try to have the law reflect that.
Upvoted for a logical argument. I don't 100% agree with everything you've said, but it's a good argument.
[–]thatusernameisal 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unless the man clearly states that he wants a child it's obvious that he doesn't, since woman is the party in danger of getting pregnant she should take care of her own birth control, be prepared to have an abortion or be prepared to become a single mother. You want sole control over what happens to your body? Then assume sole responsibility.
[–]therealbarackobama 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's pretty intellectually dishonest to draw an ethical parallel between situations where there is and is not a living child without food and clothes but thats just me
[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I've heard the argument is that child support is an absolute right of the child that neither the mother nor the father can sign away.
Why having sufficient access to the emotional resources of the father isn't also an absolute right of the child is beyond me.
It's more complicated than that because we allow parents to put children up for adoption. So obviously we recognize that parents also have a right to not be parents if they don't want to. In that case the state, and future adoptive parents assumes the financial responsibility of raising the child.
It's only when one parent, usually the mother, wants to keep the child and the other want to that we suddenly turn around and say "You can't sign away your parental responsibilities"
[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't. I would, however, not make a child's relationship with his or her father inferior to and contingent upon the child's relationship to his or her mother.
[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You're not supposed to point out that women can no more abscond from parental duties of a child than a man can.
Except that they choose if there is a child to have parental responsibilities for in the first place.
[–]snkscore 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
Not exactly. The dad is opting out of being supportive of an actual human child. The woman is terminating a pregnancy before there is a human child that needs supporting.
A dead beat dad is screwing over his kid, having him grow up without a father. This isn't the case of a terminated pregnancy.
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
It is implied that the 'father' has stated he does not wish to be one as soon as the woman explains that she is pregnant (and intends to complete the pregnancy)
[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
I understand, and obviously the father is being put in a tough spot that, if he were a woman and could simply terminate the pregnancy he wouldn't be in, but the difference is the fathers choice is really going to cause life long problems for an innocent child. The mothers choice doesn't cause any problems for any one, unless you're a religious zealot.
Personally, I disagree with the sentiment, though I can understand where you're coming from as well.
The idea that a woman can't make the serious decision to raise a child on her own is silly. Essentially, we already allow things like sperm banks to be used by single women, and single men can adopt children as well(lets keep the lid on that issue closed). To me this says that society agrees that a single parent household is acceptable.
For that reason I don't feel a man who doesn't wish to be a father to be forced to be one against his will.
[–]shitposter2 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are you saying that it is inconceivable that a non-religious man might not want his child aborted?
[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, I didn't consider that. Yes it's perfectly conceivable.
[–]Torger083 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or the kid.
[–]Deus_Imperator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
fathers choice is really going to cause life long problems for an innocent child.
Dont care at all.
Am I the only one of the opinion that 'prevention is the best cure'?
Everyone has a responsibility to choose who they sleep with. These incidences should be discussed at the start of a sexual relationship, before these situations can present themselves. There is a certain element of responsibility in sex with anyone, and it's only natural that you should sleep with somebody that feels the same way you do about these issues.
And that works in a perfect world where noone lies and noone ever changes their mind on a dime.
That's all well and good, but that is not what the discussion is about.
[–]boomguy 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
Why should the father have to be supportive of a choice that the mother made which he legally has no input in?
[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
Because it's his child. Why is no one thinking of the child's well-being?
If you were the kid who had his dad walk away because he didn't agree with your mother's choice to have you, would you think: "He made the right decision, denying me a father. It wasn't his fault I was born."
I'm going to guess no.
I like to think that I would be able to rational enough to realize that I'd rather have one parent who loves me, than to have two parents who absolutely hate each other and it ends up getting taken out on me.
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I never said they had to stay together. And if they are responsible and caring parents, they wouldn't take their anger out on the child.
[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You expect someone who never wanted a child and now has to pay for/care for it to be a responsible and caring parent? I'm sorry but most humans don't act that way. Maybe I'm just a pessimist...
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Because its retarded that the child's well being is the focus in the first place.
Why? Why are the feelings of the parents more important than the life of the child? Why shouldn't the smallest and most vulnerable and helpless one's needs take precedence?
[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Go get abortion banned then come back to me to discuss this. It falls under: can't have your cake and eat it too.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Go get abortion banned then come back to me to discuss this.
Nice cop out there...you can just say that you don't want to answer my question instead of trying to skirt around it like that. It's a valid question though....why not answer it?
It falls under: can't have your cake and eat it too.
How, exactly, do two adults putting the needs of their child above their own needs fall under "can't have your cake"? That makes no sense.
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
On one hand women can put their needs above that of the unborn child by removing it's entire existence, but the father, while not doing that, can't choose to not have anything to do with it
If you were to choose, between poor and dead, which would you choose?
Poor. I've been poor, and as difficult as it was, life was still worth living. I would not want to take a life in order to prevent it from experiencing poverty, either.
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I am glad you see my point. You would prefer to be a child of a single mother than an aborted fetus.
A woman putting her needs above the fetus' needs = abortion A man putting his needs above the fetus' needs = single mother
[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm just going to echo this comment: It's ridiculous to compare an unborn fetus to a child that has to live with the abandonment all of his/her life.
[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is ridiculous to allow one sex the ability to opt out after the fact and not allow the other to do so.
If the father opts out and the mother chooses to have the child anyway, that's up to her, and she is deciding to put her child through that. Remember, its her body her choice, she needs to take responsibility for that choice.
[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Read your first sentence out loud. How incredibly selfish.
[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Read spagma's second sentence out loud. How incredibly ridiculous your comment is.
[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't even going to get into tearing apart that logic.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Absolutely not. I had no trouble understanding what he meant, it's just ridiculous to compare an unborn fetus to a child that has to live with the abandonment all of his/her life.
[–]Starcast 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Just because a child's genetic father isn't around doesn't mean they'll grow up with abandonment issues. I'd say the mother would be just as responsible as father for bringing the child into the world with one parental figure, if she knew well enough in advance that he isn't interested in raising children.
A man and a woman, both engage int he same act, she gets pregnant, and somehow it's all his fault.
She has all the choices, he has all the blame. That is not logical at all.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
It's not even legal to abort after 8 months unless it threatens the mother's life. And I would guess that most mother's wouldn't choose to abort after 6 months tops.
Edit: *choose- can't believe I did that
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not exactly. I would vote in favor of a law that keep all forms of abortion legal except partial-birth abortions unless the mother's health is at risk. But morally, I feel that aborting after 6 months is questionable unless the mother's health is in jeopardy or they find through testing that the baby has some horrible disease. I have heard of a disease where the baby is in constant, terrible pain until it dies at like 6 months or somewhere around there.
[–]Tiby312 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
But isn't it just as much the mother's 'fault' for going along with the pregnancy knowing full well that the kid would not have his/her father? If both parents really wanted the child to have two parents and one of them really didn't want to be a parent, the kid would not be born.
[–]misnamed 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Right, but the point is: the dad never had that choice, so he evolves into the deadbeat dad when the child is born ... the mom had that choice, and used it. This is the fairness disparity. He is 'forced' into his 'deadbeat dad' roll ... she is not forced into anything. I am glad she isn't, but disappointed he is.
[–]snkscore 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't disagree. The woman, being that she is carrying the embryo, has the extra option. But I don't think the 2 situations are truly the same as the cartoon applies. The implication is that we should be "as ok" (as a society) with dead beat dads as we are with women who abort a pregnancy. I wouldn't agree with that. I think opting out of a kids life, even if you didn't want it, even if you never had the choice to terminate because you were a man, is worse than a woman terminating. I agree with you that it the man has fewer options, but I don't think it's necessarily society imposing that so much as it just nature.
Question: if the fetus growing in the woman's womb isn't a human being, what is it? When does it suddenly become a human? And what's your scientific evidence for holding that position? Everything I've read on the subject indicates that we are human right from conception - the sperm is human, the egg is human, the combined 46 chromosomes comprise a complete set of fully human DNA. At any stage of pregnancy, you can take cells from the fetus and readily identify it as a human one by sampling its DNA (and once it's big enough, just looking at it makes it obvious which species it is). Science shows that the unborn are human. It also shows that they're alive. Have you any evidence to the contrary?
[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
if the fetus growing in the woman's womb isn't a human being, what is it?
Obviously we'd need to agree to some definition of a human being, or I'd have to use more specific language in my post but I'd say that the fetus is just that: a "human fetus". If it makes it easier to discuss I'd say that what I've been calling a human being might more easily be called a "person" whereas a fetus is a growing embryo, and not a person.
If someone was decapitated in a car accident, but through the miracles of modern medicine the doctors were able to keep his body alive by connecting it to a bunch of machines surely no one would consider that thing a living person anymore. It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone. A embryo has not a single brain cell. It can't think a single thought or "feel" anything.
And what's your scientific evidence for holding that position? Everything I've read on the subject indicates that we are human right from conception - the sperm is human, the egg is human, the combined 46 chromosomes comprise a complete set of fully human DNA.
Shortly after conception the blastocyst is growing with cells each containing human DNA. But I think this falls far short of being a person. It can grow into one, but it isn't one. As a minor aside, I think you are also incorrect to say that sperm and eggs are human, unless you are suggesting that masturbators and menstruating women are both murders.
When does it suddenly become a human?
This is a question for which I don't think we have a good answer. It would be like asking, at what exact point does green become purple: http://www.kinemac.com/products/kinemac/next/150/gradient_stage.jpg
Right now, in terms of us law, the fetus gains some level of rights at the time of viability. Once the fetus reaches a point where it could survive, it ceases to be just a fetus and starts to be considered a human in the eyes of the law. That seems like a good point to me as well, if not even earlier.
A fetus that is 39.9 weeks old is basically an infant. A fetus that is 0.1 weeks old is basically nothing. Along the path from "a clump of 10 cells" to "a baby on the verge of being born" it grows into a human. But I don't know if there is a way to point to a day on the calendar and declare this the day that the fetus is now more than just a fetus.
A interesting thought experiment I like to propose when people insist that fertilized embryos are in fact, equal to human babies: imagine you find yourself outside a burning down office that contained a nursery and an invetro fertilization clinic. You run inside to see if anyone needs help. On your left is a little freezer containing 100 fertilized embryos. On the right is a crying baby. You only have time to save one. Either the 100 frozen embryos or the baby. I've never met anyone who would pick to save the 100 embyos.
If someone was decapitated in a car accident, but through the miracles of modern medicine the doctors were able to keep his body alive by connecting it to a bunch of machines surely no one would consider that thing a living person anymore. It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone.
That's not the same thing.
A embryo has not a single brain cell.
Not so...the brain and spinal column begin developing during the embryonic stage, which is basically from implantation (7 days after the egg is fertilized) to the 9th week of pregnancy. Brain waves have been detected during the embryonic stage...you cannot have brain waves without brain cells. They are capable of movement, which requires nervous tissue, and they are capable of detecting and responding to things in their environment - a needle, for example. Again, brain matter is required for that to happen. Whether they feel pain or not is irrelevant; we don't perform surgery on people who are paralyzed without anesthetic just because they can't feel it, as that would be inhumane.
As a minor aside, I think you are also incorrect to say that sperm and eggs are human, unless you are suggesting that masturbators and menstruating women are both murders.
I meant "human" in the same sense that you could identify my skin cells or muscle cells as human rather than some other species. Not that they are a human - that would be ridiculous indeed.
A interesting thought experiment I like to propose when people insist that fertilized embryos are in fact, equal to human babies:
I'd save the baby too. My point all along hasn't been that an embryo is the same as a newborn; my point has been that, while it's far less developed, it's no less human. I'm not talking about personhood or legality; just humanity. They are human.
[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone. That's not the same thing.
It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone.
Why not? This seems like a similar thing to me. You say later that you are not talking about any type of equality of "value" but simply that a fetus is human. Surely a person with massive brain damage still is human right? Even though he has no brain function and is effectively dead, the body laying there being kept alive by machines is still human. Maybe you don't even disagree with any of this and it's all down to my use loose of the term "human being" to describe what I consider to be a "living person" as opposed to a human fetus or brain dead human body.
Not so...
I'm not an expert in the field, but some quick google searchers show that a lot of stuff in this paragraph is well-debunked stuff being pushed by the pro-life side. Pain sensation at 26 weeks. Brain waves not before 20 weeks etc.
"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."
we don't perform surgery on people who are paralyzed without anesthetic just because they can't feel it
Honestly I'd assume that they wouldn't bother with anesthetic for minor things. I couldn't find anything online one way or another, but if someone who is paralyzed from the waste down cuts their leg badly, you'd think the doctor would give them a shot of novocaine before sewing up their leg? I'd be really surprised if that were the case. What's the point? They can't feel it.
If you were doing open hear surgery, well then of course you want them unconscious, but not because of pain sensation but because you don't want them moving around during the process.
Why not?
You answered it yourself: "...Even though he has no brain function and is effectively dead". It's dead. Human, yes, but dead. A fetus or embryo is not effectively dead.
Pain sensation at 26 weeks. Brain waves not before 20 weeks etc.
See, and I've seen studies that were not from pro-life sources that said fetuses can feel pain as early as 16 weeks and potentially even earlier, as well as studies showing that primitive brain waves have been observed in the first trimester. Hm.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]PushTheLittleDaisies 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
True. If the mother had the child and then neglected or abandoned it, she would be called the same things as the dad in this cartoon. Abortion and abandonment are NOT equivalent.
[–]Celda 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
False, women can legally abandon their child and face no consequences.
[–]womblefish 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fourty five states have "safe haven" laws that allow women to abandon babies (and young children) "no questions asked".
And that's without even discussing adoption.
[+]spagma -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
They are right, abortion is far worse. :D
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
poor vs dead? You choose which is worse.
Let me make it easy for you. There are plenty of happy children with one or no parents, there are 0 happy aborted fetuses.
That's very simple minded thinking. The point is to prevent births which can't be supported. Abortion is necessary in many cases. The problem is that rights of the father are trampled in the process.
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
My point is when a man chooses not to be a father, the child can still have a happy life with its mother. When a woman chooses not to be a mother, the child ceases to exist. Given the choice, the child would prefer the former, yet it is the former which is looked down upon, while the latter is praised as empowerment.
I think you are partially right. Yes are society gives women the privilege to abort and not to men BUT! A painful existence < non-existence < a happy existence. Abortion allows us to terminate a child which would be born into near impossible odds, as many children are. I think adoption is great, but not enough people are willing to try it. Until we can learn to produce children in a responsible way, there will be cases which abortion is obviouslly the better, more moral choice. You say poor is worse than dead, but you use those words inappropriate way. Let's try another example: Which is worse? Life in prison or the death sentence? I'd say life in prison is worse. Don't you agree?
I think this is where the disconnect is:
A painful existence < non-existence < a happy existence.
I would see non-existence as worse, and death sentence is worse, and I would be willing to bet most would agree, since so many criminals fight tooth and nail to avoid the death penalty.
Are we agreeing to disagree? It CAN happen!
Holy shit, anything really is possible.
[–]wizzard13 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
so true! i am a woman, and society is completly unfair when it comes to a man and being a father..my fiance for instance, is a perfect example..he was with this chick for about 3 yrs, he took her to the dr for birth control, paid for it and everything, and then, she decides on her own to just stop taking them...so of course, a baby comes along, and my fiance felt totally trapped and betrayed of course, but according to society, he must "do the right thing" and be a father, even tho the woman didn't "do the right thing" by asking whether or not he even wanted a child..im sure he isn't the only man who found himself in this situation, and i just wish there was a way to stop women like her...k, rant over, sorry!
[–]mackey187 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Someone very close to me did this as well. She trapped her boyfriend into staying with her. He is one of the most upright, responsible, nice people we've ever known and she's a total selfish rude bitch. They've been together for 2 years. He wouldn't be with her today if it wasn't for their child. There's a whole disgusting backstory to this that makes her even worse, but I don't want to give away too much. These types of people make me sick though. Props to you having to deal with this situation though. That can't be easy at times. It makes you look like a really mature person. Congratulations on getting engaged too :)
[–]wizzard13 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yeah, it's a sucky situation, but at the same time, he is an amazing father, and too me, that makes him that much more attractive..thanks for the congrats and the un-hateful comment!
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Maybe your fiance should have chosen better. If he wants to stick his dick into someone that he can't fully trust then that's on him. Don't stick your dick into someone unless you're OK with the possibility that a child may result from that action. Simple rule really.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
So woman can just go have sex, willy-nilly. If they don't want to have the kid, no sweat.
Men, on the other hand, have to go into every single sexual experience from the age of 14 to death "knowing" that they could be tricked into having a kid, and that being tricked is inherently their fault? That the person doing the deception is actually in the right?
I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't feel that way regarding deception when someone lies about say, well, anything else of importance. Right? Or is a business lying to you actually just a part of doing business with them? Hey, they cook their books. Not their problem. You should have just known.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Duh. They also have to keep in mind that if the man wants to desert he can.
Men, on the other hand, have to go into every single sexual experience from the age of 14 to death "knowing" that they could be tricked into having a kid, blah blah blah
Also duh. Every sexual experience involving intercourse could result in a child or an aborted one and ultimately he has no physical control over it.
I'm not arguing legal issues.
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Legal issues is the point.
Legal can never trump physical.
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Tell that to the guys in jail for not paying child support.
This is a failure of society to properly educate young men that when you have intercourse with a woman you have to be 100% OK with a child being a potential result. That doesn't mean that it always will be the result but that means that we should educate young men to choose their mate wisely b/c it could be the result. If you're having intercourse with someone you don't want to have a child with them then that is not recommended.
Still, if the guy wanted to escape he probably could. Most of the time child support won't get you jail time. The choice is still yours to make who you mate with even if you're avoiding pregnancy. Men want all of the choice but none of the responsibility. There are far more cases of dead beat dads than men going to jail for failure to pay child support and it's silly to pretend otherwise. They should go to jail if they could support their child and they don't and this hopefully would dissuade young men from thinking that they can have sex with no consequences.
This is a failure of society to properly educate young WOMAN that when you have intercourse with a MAN you have to be 100% OK with a child being a potential result.
Wow, see how that works? Why do you feel the rules should be different based solely on gender?
They should have been able to opt out of having the child. If the mother decided then to bring the child into the world without the financial aid of the father, its her choice. She is not forced to have the child, he should not be forced to be responsible for it. There is no reason she can't make her decision with input from his.
[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The problem is that you could make the exact same rationalisations about women choosing who to have sex with in order to dismantle their reproductive rights, and yet that's considered immoral and illiberal. Not that I disagree with that assessment, but it's a clear double standard and simply arguing that people should be alerted to the status quo is not a sufficient response when the status quo is wrong. If something is unfair we should seek to change it, not merely educate others regarding its unfairness.
Back the fuck up.
No one is in the right. This 'tricking' you're talking about is a small number of cases; if you have added paranoia that's your problem.
Let's discuss a hypothetical stance, as a woman, from me. Say my stance on pregnacy is:
"I would never get an abortion, but I do not feel that I would be able to raise a child on my own. I will never budge on the abortion issue."
Would you still have sex with me, fully knowledgable of the consequences? That to me makes someone an irresponsible asshole.
[–]wizzard13 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
thanks for that totally unhelpful advice! kinda late for that, and im sure you've never ever misjudged someone in your life right?! of course not, your a big smarty hiding behind a computer screen..
missing the point - your fiance isn't a victim. he's feeding you a line of crap and you're buying it.
[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
well, you know what they say about opinions....
they're like diapers, always on your ass and full of shit?
[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
haha! ive actually never heard that before...
[–]sillyhatsnthings 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The difference is that a woman will not bring the kid into the world. A man just ditches the child, often after it's born. You are not making a fair comparison.
[–]dewisri 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
This comic is ridiculous. If the man shares the risk of an unwanted pregnancy then he had better be ready to sit on the sidelines when it comes time for the woman to decide what to do with her body, and he had better be ready to support a child when it is born. What are the alternatives? They get pregnant and she obeys his decision on the matter? They get pregnant and he walks away from his share of the responsibility? Is the illustrator suggesting that abortion should be illegal, that both men and women who produce unwanted pregnancies are deadbeats, or that men should have the right to determine the outcome?
of course it is, we're in /r/MensRights - I stumbled in here by accident too
[–]Seel007 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Door is that way ----->
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
How is it that you can come up with all that bullshit, but not even come close to the point the comic is making?
[–]dewisri 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
When I read the comic it seems that the illustrator is trying to make one of the three points I listed above. In fact, before I read the comments I thought that he was most likely saying that abortion should be illegal. Why don't you post what you think it means?
[–]DrunkenVillain 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
From what I gathered, the illustrator was trying to show how unfair it is that if a man get's a women pregnant and he doesn't want a child, he has no say in the matter and is forced to look after the child (Unless he just leaves them.) But if a women get's pregnant and she doesn't want to have a child she can just get an abortion.
[–]dewisri -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I see. That's fine if he's just saying it seems unfair. Life is not fair, after all.
[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I love how people just say "Life is not fair, after all" and think it absolves them of even having to think about trying to make life a little more fair.
[–]Kuonji 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Hey life isn't fair, tough. Now let's get busy fixing some of these inequalities that women face."
[–]dewisri 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I can understand that he might feel that "life is unfair" because the woman has the right to decide what to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, but he's just going to have to accept that because the woman will always have the right to decide what to do with her own body. The key point is that the baby develops inside of the woman's body, and this biological difference gives her the right to choose.
How do you propose making life a little more fair in this case?
[–]boomguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've never said the man should be able to control what the woman does with her own body, but the man should be able to control his own future. The man should not be required to support a child he never wanted.
[–]SpawnQuixote 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Damn, that's what we should have said when women wanted the vote.
[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If you want men to be able to force women to abort or give birth against their will, just say so. Otherwise the argument is moot. No one can overrule the medical decisions of another compos mentis adult, and because thanks to biology, pregnancy takes place entirely within the female body and no one outside that individual woman can violate her bodily sovereignty.
Should I cry about political correctness because mensrights is butthurt over the social ramifications of natural biological differences? Because it's pretty much the case that once the child is born, parental responsibilities are equal. Whoever leaves has to cough up support, mother or father. That seems pretty fair to me.
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If you want men to be able to force women to abort or give birth against their will, just say so.
No one is arguing that.
Sorry, you're a man-hater, financial abortion is fair and desirable.
[–]venomous_harridan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, you're a man-hater,
This is the best you can come up with? Anyone who disagrees with an argument here hates men? Isn't that exactly how you accuse feminists of behaving?
[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The comic is stating that its all well and good in the world for a woman to choose to not be a mother, and by doing so she is glorified. However if a man chooses to not be a father, he is ridiculed and disgraced.
[–]dewisri -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've never heard of a woman being glorified for terminating a pregnancy, nor have I ever heard of a woman being glorified for abandoning a child.
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks, been looking for it before.
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The guy is dressed too nicely. If the photo were accurate, there is a very slim chance he would be able to afford nice clothes after paying child support.
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He is a "dead beat," meaning he doesn't pay child support.
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought that was just the label.
Hell I have my son 47% of the, I still pay child support, and I am labeled a deadbeat.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link
This is specious reasoning.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link
Not being facetious -- I would appreciate a fleshing out of your post.
[–]Kimano 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link
The problem I think he has, and I agree with to certain extent, is that the situation at the end of the day ends up different.
If the woman chooses to abort, there is no child to support. If the man chooses to not be a parent, the child is still alive, just bereft a parent.
The alternative when parties disagree would be to either force an abortion or force the woman to carry it to term, both of which I don't think I'm comfortable with.
The existing system is by no means perfect, but I'm not sure there's really a viable alternative (outside of the suggestions made earlier about opt-in/out, which has it's own set of issues.)
This is a repost, but I felt I ought reply to you ask well :)
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No parent, male or not should be forced to be a parent against their will up until the point the child is born. Once you agree and the child is born, you're in it for the long haul as far as I'm concerned.
Barring extenuating circumstances, once you have a kid you lose the right to just go "nope, sorry, I don't feel like it so I'm out of here" as far as I'm concerned.
Oh I agree with you 100% on that; I was saying if a woman finds out she's pregnant the man involved should be allowed to have what is from time to time not-so-elegantly called a financial abortion.
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Certainly, though I'd prefer people just used birth control and avoided the issue in the first place.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
force an abortion
Or, you know, just have the man not be financially responsible for an unwanted child.
[–]CellarDorre -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Which would leave the woman completely on her own to take care of the child that both parties had a hand in creating. The reason she's pregnant is because they made a decision that lead to it. Both parties need to accept responsibility for their actions.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Which would leave the woman completely on her own to take care of the child that both parties had a hand in creating
As opposed to depriving a father of a child he wanted to raise, but the mother didn't, so she aborted?
The reason she's pregnant is because they made a decision that lead to it. Both parties need to accept responsibility for their actions.
So if the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't she can just go ahead and abort. Pro choice! But if the mother wants the child, and the father doesn't, well then just fuck that deadbeat dad! He can pay child support for the next 18 years! Right?
[–]CellarDorre -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Again, this relies a lot on biology and things that really can't be changed. It's not as simple as just handing over a child to a father who wants it. There's the pregnancy and delivery.
Obviously they should discuss the situation and hopefully the woman would be okay with going through all of that for them, but it's still a huge thing to ask of them.
So if the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't she can just go ahead and abort.
You're not looking at both sides. They're not undergoing the same thing in this situation. Obviously they need to talk about the situation, but ultimately, if she gets pregnant, the woman's stuck in an awful situation while the male can just sit around, twiddling his thumbs. I think this is a situation where they're going with the lesser of two evils because there aren't any other options.
Think of it this way:
If you changed the situation so that both sides had to agree to an abortion, people could go around having sex with women, getting them pregnant and then refusing to allow them to abort. This is similar to the idea of women running around, getting pregnant and collecting child support. If they got rid of the child support idea, then there would be some (again, only some ) men who wouldn't care about whether they got a woman pregnant or not because they could just leave without an repercussions.
So, none of those things work. The best option, in my opinion, is to just have something you sign declaring that you're not prepared to accept any responsibility for a child and that you reserve the right to leave/abort if pregnancy occurs. Both parties sign and date it before having sex and there you go. It's inconvenient and there are flaws, but other than that, there will always be one party that's worse off than the other.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
but it's still a huge thing to ask of them.
And 18 years of child support for an unwanted child isn't? Personally, I'd shit out a kid before I turned over a significant portion of my paycheck every month for 18 years.
You're not looking at both sides.
I laughed at this. You're supporting hypocrisy, and have the gall to say that.
They're not undergoing the same thing in this situation.
Wrong. The situation is exactly the same, the end result isn't. Father wants child, mother doesn't. No child, cost of abortion. Mother wants child, father doesn't. Child, cost of 18 years of child support.
If you changed the situation so that both sides had to agree to an abortion, people could go around having sex with women, getting them pregnant and then refusing to allow them to abort.
Do you really believe that? That is completely ridiculous.
If they got rid of the child support idea, then there would be some (again, only some ) men who wouldn't care about whether they got a woman pregnant or not because they could just leave without an repercussions.
So have them be financially obligated to an abortion. I mean, if the mother doesn't want a child, that's all she has to pay. It'd only be fair, right?
[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No child, free abortion.
Fixed, Canadian edition.
Here's the difference.
In Australia, abortion costs anywhere from $300 to $800. Part of it will be returned to you via Medicare. (Average of those two figures is $550).
http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/procedure.htm
Average childcare payments per year in Australia: a bit over $5,000. Over 18 years, that's $90,000.
Meaning it's about 164 times more expensive for a guy to pay child support than a woman to pay for an abortion.
http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/facts_figures/05/ff05_6_1.php
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Which is why he should bear half the costs of either the birth or abortion. He shouldn't be forced into parenthood just like she shouldn't...which is why he should be able to opt-out of parenthood. And no, I'm not just talking about abortion, I'm talking about safe-haven laws as well. His ability to opt-out does not need to be equal to hers, but he needs a post-conception option as well...even if it's simply a 1 week window.
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I definitely understand where everyone's coming with this. It's really unfair to one of the sexes regardless of how it's done.
The main problem I see with these discussions though is a lot of talk about his and her rights and needs, but not much about the child that may come to be.
Whatever the end result happens to be, if the child's born, I just hope that both parties can appreciate the life they brought into the world and try to at least do what's best for him/her. Few things suck more than hearing people fight over who should support you and hearing your parents treat you like a disease that needs to dealt with instead of a human being that needs to be cared for.
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Few things suck more than hearing people fight over who should support you and hearing your parents treat you like a disease that needs to dealt with instead of a human being that needs to be cared for.
I was raised by a single mother. My father fought her tooth and nail re child support. She was only asking for around $150 a month and he wouldn't even pay that, so finally she had to take him to court and was told that he should be paying 4 times that much...but she was proud and took only the amount she needed (she's always been awesome like that). I grew up knowing this. I remember how it felt knowing he didn't really want anything to do with me. And you know what? There are A LOT of things that are WAY WORSE. For example: his wife used to torture me (i.e. locking me in a basement closet for hours, burning me with cigarettes, etc.). Do you know what else was worse? Having a bunch of close family members and friends die while I was growing up. Knowing that he wanted nothing to do with me and only saw me out of some weird attempt to keep up appearances for his brothers and sister? Not that big of a fucking deal in comparison.
My dad and I have had a fucked up relationship since as far back as I can remember. And you know, after all is said and done, I wish he would have just walked away. I wish he would have been able to opt-out of parenthood, in the way that I've described. Why? Because it's worse to have two parent in your life when one doesn't really give a shit about you, than it is to have a single-parent who loves the fuck out of you.
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
And you know what? There are A LOT of things that are WAY WORSE. For example: his wife used to torture me (i.e. locking me in a basement closet for hours, burning me with cigarettes, etc.). Do you know what else was worse? Having a bunch of close family members and friends die while I was growing up. Knowing that he wanted nothing to do with me and only saw me out of some weird attempt to keep up appearances for his brothers and sister? Not that big of a fucking deal in comparison.
So what? Just because there are worse things that could happen doesn't mean it's okay to have to experience something shitty. Also, just because you personally didn't think it was that big of a deal, doesn't mean that it won't be more significant to someone else. Honestly, I found that having someone blatantly not give a shit about me and fighting to not support me was worse than cigarette burns by far.
Why? Because it's worse to have two parent in your life when one doesn't really give a shit about you, than it is to have a single-parent who loves the fuck out of you.
You know what's even better than that? Two parents who can act like adults. Either way, you said your mother took what she needed and fought for the money because she needed to have it. What would've happened if he wasn't there at all? She wouldn't have had that money and your life could've been much worse. It seems like she must have really needed that money to have put up with so much bullshit.
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He shouldn't be forced into parenthood just like she shouldn't...which is why he should be able to opt-out of parenthood. And no, I'm not just talking about abortion, I'm talking about safe-haven laws as well.
You seem to be operating under a mistaken assumption about safe haven laws. The vast majority of states allow either parent to relinquish an infant (some don't even require the relinquishing party to be a parent).
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The vast majority of states allow either parent to relinquish an infant (some don't even require the relinquishing party to be a parent).
I was operating under the assumption that in all states both parents could theoretically leave their children. But, come on, the purpose of these laws is to convince mothers to choose something other than abortion/killing the child once it's born. The law itself may be gender neutral...but the purpose and effect is overwhelmingly gendered (as women are, to a ridiculous degree, most likely to actually have custody of the child during that initial window wherein a safe-haven may be utilized).
[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Which would leave the woman completely on her own"
She could choose to give the child up for adoption.
If the woman chooses to abort, there is no child to support.
A huge portion of the population thinks of abortion as murder. To this group an abortion is worse than a father not wanting to be a parent. This group alone has a significant weight against the point you're bringing up. I am undecided on this extremely complex topic. But I do think both sides have valid arguments and at least to some extent it is reasonable to view abortion as a negative thing. What you've done here is nonchalantly implied that abortion is not a big factor when analyzing the ethics on this topic.
If the man chooses to not be a parent, the child is still alive, just bereft a parent.
This implies that you think there is a strong moral responsibility to afford children both a mother and a father. We could debate the legitimacy of this idea for quite some time. Although that would be pointless since we can't quantify this at all. As a counter point to this idea, though, let me bring up another argument.
Do you think women should be allowed to be single mothers by their own choosing? If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid? If not, why is it only a disservice to the kid when a man doesn't want to be a father? This is about as big of a double standard as you can get.
[–]Kimano 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
What you've done here is nonchalantly implied that abortion is not a big factor when analyzing the ethics on this topic.
I was mostly just setting the ethics of abortion aside. It was just a simple statement of fact that if the mother has an abortion, there's no child to support anymore. For the purposes of discussion, it's common to just ignore facets that are only tangentially related.
Do you think women should be allowed to be single mothers by their own choosing? If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid?
While I think the whole 'nuclear family' idea is outdated, I don't really think there is any question that a 2 parent (gay couples included) environment is better for a child than a single parent one. I have no data or statistics to back this up, it's just personal opinion.
I think that adoption should be considered on a case by case basis (as it's done now), if the woman can prove that as a single parent she has the means to give the child a loving home and to provide for him/her there's no reason not to allow it.
This is about as big of a double standard as you can get.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that it's a disservice to the kid to give it up as a father, I was pointing out that the end scenario, given the current rules, is vastly different.
After a pregnancy, when the two parent have disagreed on whether or not to take the baby to term, the two outcomes are different. In one the baby is born, in the other, it's not.
You didn't answer the most important question I had.
If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid?
I did, I probably just wasn't clear about it.
As long as she's financially and emotionally capable of caring for the child, no.
Sorry if the bolds comes off as flaming - I don't intend on it being that way at all. I really do appreciate the discussion we're having here. I just want to make it very clear why I think you're having a double standard here.
In an earlier post you had a problem with a dad not wanting to be a dad. The main consequence you listed was that the child would lose out on having a second parent. If a man chooses not to be a dad, the child ends up with only one parent, thus he is doing something wrong.
If you compare this to my example the same exact end outcome happens. Mom decides she wants to be a single parent and based on her actions the child ends up having only one parent. If mom chooses to be a single mom, the child ends up with only one parent, and she is doing nothing wrong.
So yeah I am really not sure how this can't be considered a double standard.
Oh no, I have no problem with a man not wanting to be a father. It's a lot of pressure and responsibility on a person and not something to be taken lightly or without consent.
My point is that when a father decides sometime during the pregnancy that he's not ready and wants out, the child is going to be born anyway, as biologically, he has no way to terminate the pregnancy without the mother's consent.
If a mother decides during a pregnancy she's not ready one of two things happens: 1) She aborts. There's no baby and no 'dereliction' ( though I don't mean that with any negative connotation.) 2) She has the child and leaves it with the father. Ethically, I'd consider this on the same level as the first case, where the father is considered a 'deadbeat'. She's essentially a deadbeat mom in this case.
We agree in the first and third cases, but not on the second.
To clarify:
Mother Wants Mother Doesn't Want Father Wants Baby Born, No Issue See Below Father Doesn't Want 'Deadbeat Father' Abortion/Adoption
The point of contention is on the 'See Below' and it essentially comes down to the mother having an additional option the father does not: terminating the pregnancy. If the pregnancy isn't terminated and the father raises the child then it's just a 'Deadbeat Mother' situation.
What people are essentially suggesting in this thread is the father having access to an 'abortion' of vested rights and responsibilities for the child, which I think is the only viable and realistic solution.
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Abortion aside, she still has the ability and option to opt out of parenthood...in such a way that the child still exists, and without any consequences.
Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as a "Baby Moses laws") are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the mother.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_laws
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I should've clarified that the mother has the option to take it to term and then put the baby up for adoption as an alternative to abortion, but that's just a middle of the road compromise between the two.
Adoption isn't an option unless both parents don't want the baby and choose to not abort.
[–]Kill_The_Rich -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
No, that's not true at all.
If he wants the child, and, after giving birth, she decides she doesn't, then she can ANONYMOUSLY leave it at the hospital and he has no recourse. Read the article I linked.
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Safe haven laws are also vastly different state to state, and much of their legality is still open for interpretation.
A father who wanted his child back if the mother abandoned it does have legal recourse, though it'd be without precedent (as far as I'm aware).
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
How, exactly, could he get his child back?
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Court. Sue for custody.
If he had partial custody, then she doesn't have the legal right to give up full custody to the state, which is a requirement for legal adoption.
Safe haven laws typically apply only to the first 30 days. A lawsuit like that would take well over 30 days. The whole thing is set up so that she can simply leave the kid at the hospital...anonymously. If she does that, there's no way for him to get his child back.
If he wants the child, and, after giving birth, she decides she doesn't, then she can ANONYMOUSLY leave it at the hospital and he has no recourse.
This is not entirely true.
Approximately 20 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted. Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child.
In addition
Before the baby is placed in a preadoptive home, 13 States require the department to request the local law enforcement agency to determine whether the baby has been reported as a missing child. In addition, five States require the department to check the putative father registry before a termination of parental rights petition can be filed.
From here.
In certain states, there may be no recourse, and that's obviously wrong.
So half of the country is set up so that the father CAN actually do something...if he even knows the children were left at a safe-haven (if not, he can go fuck himself).
And only 13/50 states even bother to check if the child was reported missing? Really? That's a big fucking problem right there. One would assume they would all do that.
I haven't read through the entire document you've so graciously provided, but this stands out as well:
In four States, only the mother may relinquish her infant.
This backs up what I was saying here.
Anyway, thanks for the white paper...it looks like it'll be pretty damn useful.
Through abortion, a mother is able to, without the consent of the father, give up all responsibility for the child, while at the same time denying the father a chance to have a child.
Why not let fathers give children up for adoption with the caveat that the mother can adopt immediately as a single parent? That way he has same ability to give up responsibility, but doesn't take away the mother's right to have a child.
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Why not let fathers give children up for adoption with the caveat that the mother can adopt immediately as a single parent?
Did you forget about the nine month pregnancy and the birthing process? That's a huge ordeal experienced solely by the female and, in the end, she'd be going through all of that just to give a man a child and then never seeing it again. That's a lot to ask of someone.
I meant the other way around. The father gives up all rights/responsibilities and the mother keeps the child.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
See, a woman who gets rid of the pregnancy gets rid of the problem for everyone. No baby, no worries. A man that just skips out on the woman he knocked up is leaving this woman alone with a problem that is 50 per cent his fault. Unless you are trying to say that men should have a right to force women to have abortions, this comic just isn't very logical.
[–]boomguy 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No, men shouldn't have the right to force woman to have an abortion. But men should have the right to tell the woman that he will not be in the child's life and will not be supporting the child so that the woman can make an educated decision on whether to have the child or not.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agree. I clarified in an edit up there. An opt-out agreement would be perfect, but an opt-in would not work.
[–]Coziestpigeon2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Fair. Let me clarify, firstly, I was meaning to include adoption and abortion when I said 'get rid of the pregnancy.' I worded that poorly.
And I do believe women have a right to chose to be a single parent, but no one should ever be abandoned and forced into it. It is a disservice when the man doesn't want to be a father, but the woman is unable to raise the child alone. A woman that chooses to be a single mother is generally prepared for it. A woman that gets knocked up in a situation where the father may not want the child is usually not thinking about children at all.
Basically, the point I mean to convey is that the parents should be in agreement, or at least understanding, about the situation. If the father wants no part in the child, but the woman is against abortion/adoption (and we assume here that it is viewed as morally wrong to make a woman give up her baby), if she is not able (financially or otherwise) the father should at least help her become prepared. Give an amount of money for diapers/food or something. I don't believe he should be forced to be included in the upbringing or financing of the child after it is born, but in the nine months leading up to it, he could help the woman prepare for something that is partially his doing.
It's kind of like if you set someone's house on fire while you were with them, playing with matches. The house is gone now, and it's partially your fault. You should help pay for the damages, but you don't have to live there.
I think you bring up a really good point here about the mother having to deal with the cost of an unexpected pregnancy more than a father would. This certainly sways my thinking on the subject so that if this were to happen the man should be liable for the money to help her get out of it. If the woman chooses to have an abortion I think it is reasonable that the guy should foot the bill (since it hurts her body but not his). I even think that if she decides to go through with the pregnancy then the man should have to pay for half of the medical costs until the baby is delivered. And maybe even a limited amount of support for a minimal period of time - like one year, which represents the period of time that the woman cannot really work. Past that, though, I still think it is entirely unreasonable for the man to have to pay for a kid that he does not want.
I agree. It's ridiculous for a man to have to pay child support for a full 18 years. But I do think it is reasonable for the man to help the woman out during the pregnancy and possibly first year (or so) of the baby's life. After that stage, it is entirely possible for her to find other means of support. Also, if the man first decides to stick around, and then jumps ship when the child is still an infant (not talking legitimate breakup/divorce, more like 'shit, this was a bad idea, I'm out') I do think he should have to pay child support until the child is 18. Because then the man isn't deciding he doesn't want a child, it is the man becoming overwhelmed and trying to bail out of a bad decision.
[–]lepetitmonstre 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Child support is supposed to be used for the support of the child. Therefore, once a baby has been brought into the world, both parents have an obligation to lend financial support to it. Out of biological necessity, only one parent has the true option of aborting the kid. Unless we had some better social welfare in the United States, simply allowing one parent to opt out of paying for their offspring would detrimentally affect the CHILD, who cannot fend for himself.
Therefore although it's not "fair," this is what you must accept as a human being.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
So if a woman decides to "forget" to take the pill one morning...that just sucks for the guy? "Just part of being a human (I suppose being deceived is a pretty universal human experience)?"
So really...guys should just stop having sex with woman unless they are fully ready to have a kid, right? It's the only really "safe" thing, otherwise you just need to "accept the consequences of your actions." Anything else is just praying you don't get fucked with, right?
[–]CellarDorre 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So if a woman decides to "forget" to take the pill one morning...
You can take someone to court for lying about something like that. For something relating to deception and fraud. There have been cases where men have won on those grounds. Also, very few women actually do things like that; those are the actions of a crazy person, not your average woman.
Also, it's the male's responsibility to make sure that they're protecting themselves as well. If you're having sex with someone who you don't know very well/can't fully trust, use a condom; don't just believe they're on the pill. If you're in a relationship, then you need to make sure you're being smart about it and with someone you can trust, not just sticking with crazy because it's good sex.
So really...guys should just stop having sex with woman unless they are fully ready to have a kid, right?
Or you could just, y'know, be safe about it.
[–]numb3rb0y 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can take someone to court for lying about something like that. For something relating to deception and fraud. There have been cases where men have won on those grounds.
They may be able to win damages in tort for EED and similar, but they certainly can't sever child support obligations on that basis and any damage award is highly unlikely to be equivalent to 18 years of child support obligations. So, while an unwilling father may be financially screwed slightly less, he's still financially screwed.
A common misconception is that you can have safe sex. There is no safe sex, only "safer sex".
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
"Hey, stop kissing me! OK, wait a moment, I need to turn on the light and get out my magnifying glass so I can examine this condom. Don't worry, I do this with all women to make sure they didn't actually put a pin-sized hole in it. I don't actually think you did honey, but I need to be safe since you were near my bedstand. This should only take about five minutes. Wait, what? Why are you putting your clothes going back on?"
edit....I totally agree about the fact that most women would never even think about doing something like that. I'm just not sure where "being safe" crosses over into "obsessively protecting onesself."
[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I totally agree about the fact that most people would never do something like that. I'm just not sure where "being safe" crosses over into "obsessively protecting onesself."
I think it's pretty clear where those things cross over. If you're sitting there inspecting your own condoms for pin-pricks, you need to get the fuck away from whatever girl you're with. If you actually think she may have done something like that, you're an idiot for being anywhere near her, let alone sleeping with her.
Of course, we don't always know who's crazy and who isn't, however, if there's a case where someone tampers with someone's birth control, you can take them to court.
In all fairness, unplanned pregnancy is one of the risks of having sex before you're prepared to handle that kind of situation. One of the reasons why it's such a big deal is because it's a rough situation where it's impossible to please everyone involved and someone will end up losing out in some way. However, the priority should be to make sure that the child which may result won't be the one losing out.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Generally, it seems as though "crazy" comes out in a grand moment, though I suppose people really should only sleep with people they trust. At least in a perfect world. Still, sociopaths of both sexes are experts in hiding their nature.
That is interesting that you can take someone to court over birth control, but how would you ever prove that someone didn't simply "forget" to take it or that the condom didn't simply fail except in extremely obvious cases?
That is definitely true about unplanned pregnancy, but is this entire thing really only about the child? I mean, if the man wanted to father the child, but the woman wanted to abort, it would be aborted. If the woman wanted to mother the child but the dad didn't want to, he's paying child-support whether he even gets to see the child or not. It seems as though it is more:
1) what does the woman want? 2) in light of what the woman wants, what is in the best interest of the child?
[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's definitely no easy answer to this. Hopefully technology will get to a point where they're able to transfer the fetus not wanted by the woman to a surrogate so the male would have a chance to be the father if the woman didn't want it. Until then, there's no good answer.
If you're so opposed to the opinions of women then you can feel free to stop having sex with them at any time.
[–]shuddleston919 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not quite sure what you mean here... how is sadsadworldwehave opposed to women's opinions? Seems to be voicing a legitimate concern to me... especially considering the fact that most people know of at least one child being born from some level of deception by a female who has "forgotten" to take her birth control. I know several children who came into the world this way, unfortunately.
I don't believe I even mentioned opinions.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Why? I have yet to hear a clear argument as to why the rights of the child supersede the rights of the parent, other than a bunch of appeals to emotion.
[–]spagma -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Rights of the child certainly do not supersede the rights of the mother, in cases of abortion, why should it be different for the father? Right?
[–]rokovoj 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The rights of the fetus do not supersede the rights of the mother.
That's the point, at the time the father chooses it is still a fetus. Why it should magically change because she chose to have it born?
[–]CellarDorre 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
While it's still a fetus, the woman can choose to abort it. Once it's born, killing it would be infanticide.
While it's still a fetus, the man doesn't have to pay for anything, offer any support etc. After it's born, he's neglecting his responsibilities to his child. (Again, not his responsibilities to the mother, but to the child).
[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well by that reasoning the man did not help create a child, he only helped create a fetus. He then chose to have nothing more to do with the fetus. It was the mother and the mother alone that chose to create the child from the fetus and therefore the father should not be responsible for something he did not create.
If she chooses to have the child she does so knowing the father isn't involved, and if she cannot provide for it, she was neglectful for having the child.
[–]rokovoj -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If you have hetero sex, you are accepting the possibility that that might result in a child. If you don't want to have a child, don't stick your dick in a woman.
If that's your argument then you should also accept that abortion should be illegal because if she didn't want a child, she shouldn't have let a dick inside her. After all, she accepted that sex might result in a child.
I guess we should ban abortions then, since women are also "accepting the possibility that that might result in a child" no need to allow them to choose. As a woman, don't allow a dick to be stuck in you.
But oh wait that's different, right?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
simply allowing one parent to opt out of paying for their offspring would detrimentally affect the CHILD, who cannot fend for himself.
Why don't we care about the welfare of the child before it's born? People are fine with that same child being outright killed before birth, but make it grow up in a single-parent home and oh hells no, the world might explode. ?? It's a wildly inconsistent position, in my opinion.
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why don't we care about the welfare of the child before it's born?
Fetuses don't have subjective experience. They don't even feel pain until at least six months in. They have none of the qualities of a person other than being alive, something which is neither necessary nor sufficient. Their welfare is quasi-inconsequential.
People are fine with that same child being outright killed before birth, but make it grow up in a single-parent home and oh hells no, the world might explode.
Yeah. People care about suffering. Weird, huh?
[–]getting_old_not_wise 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In Canada, abortion is provincially funded. That is, the state will pay for an abortion. On a related note, the state will not pay to help couples who want children when they are having problems conceiving. Which is to say that if a man wants to be a father and requires medical assistance to make it happen he has to pay for it privately. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, the government will pay for it.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Probably because population growth is an economic burden. Contraception is cheaper than conception assistance, delivery, health care, and public education for a new youngster.
[–]Benny_the_Jew 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a good one.
Pro choice? More than that. She evaluated her situation and decided that she's unable to provide for the child.
For the most part, at least. I admit there are gaylords who use abortion as birth control
[–]mrbigfresh 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's biology
A better solution would be if the father could abort the mother (their relationship and his responsibility to her), not the child once it's born. Though a mother can give a child up for adoption without financial responsibility, so there is that double standard too.
[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
An oldie but a goodie.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I didn't realize MensRights were so against abortion
[–]boomguy 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
MensRights isn't against abortions, it is however against the fact that Men lose their rights to fatherhood after the point of conception. And generally seems to be of the belief that if a women can decide not to be a mother then the man should be able to decide not to be a father, and not have to be putting money and time towards a child they never wanted.
[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
one million times, this!
[–]Kuonji 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes. And when a rainy day makes me sad, it means I am anti-water.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Really, the solution is just to stop having sex with women. I know it's hard, but if we could just control our impulses for a few years and just not form relationships maybe our society would actually think about gender issues instead of sweeping them under the table or blindly supporting things due to emotion.
[–]mammoth12 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is extremely misleading and presents a false equivalency. The first picture implies that there is a physical child to be taken care of while the other implies a fetus. Fetus =/= human child.
Indeed. Women are allowed to abandon their child with finality by aborting it, and you're not supposed to judge them for it. After all, "a woman shouldn't be forced to be a mother if she doesn't want to be" (why? nobody can ever tell me why...). But when a man does the same thing, abandoning his child (only without ending its life), suddenly he's a selfish douchenozzle and everyone hates him and condemns him for it. Apparently, while it's inhumane to force motherhood on a woman, it's not at all wrong to force fatherhood on a man.
At any rate, I am of the opinion that abortion - unless it's being done for a medically valid reason, such as an ectopic pregnancy - is no different than a deadbeat "dad" running away and refusing to take responsibility for his kid. It's not right. It shouldn't happen.
[+]jonmlm -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
LOL mensrights, ohhh you guys
[–]shadowboxer47 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why are you here?
[–]jonmlm 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
front page. sigh.
I feel ya; I keep stumbling across stuff like this and I'm like, "WTF is this shit?". Then I go back and realize it's from MensRights. I'm not even subscribed to this subreddit, so why does it come up?
[–]jonmlm 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have RES which lets me block subreddit's. I just always forgot about this one but I'm adding it to my block list now.
[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ohhh you. Posting stuff that adds nothing to the discussion.
[–]jonmlm -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for chiming in on my contribution
Not my problem!
[–]OtherMikeP -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep women enjoy some privileges that men don't and vice versa.
[–]iheartbakon -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't want kids? Don't fuck.
Tell that to women who have abortions.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
While this may be a bit rash, I have to admit, I think this entire discussion changed my view on abortion for the first time in my life.
It probably should only be legal in cases of life/death and rape. Anything else and it's just glorified birth control being masqueraded as a body issue. After all, they shouldn't have had sex unless they wanted a child. Equal is equal.
[–]Chiglet[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Equal is equal. Therefore I say that the man must agree that he "wants" a child before having sex with ANY woman. Ever. At all. Even while married. Furthermore, he must agree to do his best in raising and supporting said child.
In return the woman will agree to the same, as well as agreeing to carry any oopsie babies to term.
Fair?
What a load a shit.
It's funny...conservative bible-beating patriarchy-supporting individuals never made the concept have validity in my mind...
[–]Chiglet[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Kind of makes me sick, actually.
I can agree with the rationale of making it equal. Whether it be give both the choice, or remove choice from both. People may not like it, but it would be equal.
[–]Willie_Main -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Give me a fucking break. Unless the woman puts a gun to the guy's head and forces him to have sex with her he is JUST as responsible as she is.
If a guy gets a girl pregnant he needs to either man up and be a dad or discuss, in great detail, other options with the woman.
Ultimately, it's the woman's decision because the baby is in her body. If he's going to be a dick bag about it he deserves to pay and he is a lowlife if he doesn't.
That happens too
[–]ABrown890 -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
How does having the baby in her body makes it the woman's decision?
[–]superpony123 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Because she is the only one capable of carrying a pregnancy to term. Do you think it would be okay if a woman said "I want to get an abortion" and the man that got her pregnant would not allow it? Forced her to carry it and give birth?
You can't deny biology. It is what it is. It's a woman's right to choose what to do with the baby. Pregnancy is not only an extremely expensive endeavour (yes, pregnancy. not even talking about a born child yet), but it is dangerous and often forces a woman to be bedridden and unable to go to work if she has a job. If a woman decides not to keep a pregnancy, it's ultimately her decision. Sure, she should discuss the decision with the man, but no matter what, its going to be her decision. If they both can't afford it and would not be in a good situation, SHOULD she abort? Probably. Regardless, you can't take away her right to choose (although it appears that is already happening in some states)
[–]ABrown890 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ok well then what about once the baby is born? How is being outside the mother cause enough to call the baby a living human with a human's rights as opposed to when the baby is still in her womb? What I'm asking is by what characteristics do you define humanity?
[–]superpony123 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How is being outside the mother cause enough to call the baby a living human with a human's rights as opposed to when the baby is still in her womb?
Probably because if a child (already born) is alive, it's a living human with human rights. A baby that is still inside the womb is a fetus (up to a certain number of weeks. There is a reason we have limits on when you can voluntarily have abortions. There are times when late-term abortions are necessary due to medical complications, in order to save the life of the mother)
A born human baby is a human baby. I am 100% pro choice. If a woman wants an abortion, I believe she should have access to safe and affordable abortion procedures. There is a difference between a fetus and a born infant if you ask me. Some people feel differently, but thats everyone's own choice.
Having said that, I'm not cool with bitches who think it's cool to poke holes in condoms or lie and say theyre taking their pills when they arent. But, at the same time, both parties are risking pregnancy every time they have sex. You have to accept that pregnancy is a very possible outcome of the act.
A woman has no biological ability to force an abortion. She can carry the child, but there's no built-in kill-switch in our biology.
Well no shit sherlock! I was going for the fact that women are capable of making life-altering decisions, such as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (via medical procedure, plan B pill, or in many unfortunate cases, illegal abortions or home-done abortions, such as coat hangers or attempting to funnel chemicals into their uterus.)
[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If she doesn't want it it's entirely her decision. There are enough unwanted kids in the world.
Oooh, there's an idea. Let's kill all the unwanted children!
</sarcasm>
[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, you're right. We should just allow them to born into shitty families, abuse and neglect. Ohh, or letting them fester in an orphanage where they will get no sense of self or opportunity is an even better idea...
"its bigoted attitudes demonize and alienate women" Explain what about this comic is bigoted. How dare men want the same choice a woman is afforded. If that is an offensive to women, take your privilege and go.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Streamwave 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 162 points163 points164 points (187 children) | Copy Link
[–]surfnsound 50 points51 points52 points (62 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points (50 children) | Copy Link
[–]Valendr0s 69 points70 points71 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]misnamed 10 points11 points12 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]PsychicChinchilla 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PsychicChinchilla -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chandon 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]banksnld 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ragnrok 6 points7 points8 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ragnrok 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 7 points8 points9 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jahonay 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]saracuda 7 points8 points9 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]saracuda 5 points6 points7 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 4 points5 points6 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]saracuda 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]saracuda 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]saracuda 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]effarve 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DJWhamo 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]utterdamnnonsense 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]xcydal 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points (62 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 6 points7 points8 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]darkamir 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]darkamir 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]numb3rb0y 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]canijoinin 80 points81 points82 points (65 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ragnrok 64 points65 points66 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]canijoinin 22 points23 points24 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]IlliniJeeper 7 points8 points9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SystemOutPrintln -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]om_nom_nom 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]IlliniJeeper 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]om_nom_nom 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patti234 18 points19 points20 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ragnrok 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sp0radic 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChipWhip 17 points18 points19 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]canijoinin 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ViP_Suite 1 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 25 points26 points27 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ViP_Suite 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chandon -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chandon 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chandon 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]canijoinin -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ishmael999 39 points40 points41 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]NickRausch 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TicTokCroc -7 points-6 points-5 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]xcydal 2 points3 points4 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]xcydal 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluthru 16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ishmael999 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]communicatrix 34 points35 points36 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oligobop 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]communicatrix 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]solidwhetstone -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TicTokCroc -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]troikaman 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IronWolve 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]numb3rb0y 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 15 points16 points17 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]lovedrunk 3 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+]RedAnarchist -7 points-6 points-5 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 4 points5 points6 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -5 points-4 points-3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedAnarchist 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LoveCurves 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points (43 children) | Copy Link
[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]PsychicChinchilla 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]elebrin -13 points-12 points-11 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]SenorSpicyBeans 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]banksnld 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (18 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]cooj -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cooj 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cooj 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cooj 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]elebrin -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thatusernameisal 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]therealbarackobama 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore 22 points23 points24 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shitposter2 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Torger083 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Deus_Imperator 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 9 points10 points11 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (16 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Starcast 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Tiby312 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]misnamed 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]PushTheLittleDaisies 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]womblefish 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]spagma -8 points-7 points-6 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wizzard13 9 points10 points11 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]mackey187 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wizzard13 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wizzard13 6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sillyhatsnthings 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dewisri 5 points6 points7 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Seel007 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]dewisri 2 points3 points4 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]DrunkenVillain 4 points5 points6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]dewisri -4 points-3 points-2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuonji 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dewisri 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpawnQuixote 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]venomous_harridan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]dewisri -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (44 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 11 points12 points13 points (40 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre -3 points-2 points-1 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lepetitmonstre 2 points3 points4 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]numb3rb0y 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]shuddleston919 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma -3 points-2 points-1 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]rokovoj 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CellarDorre 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]rokovoj -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]getting_old_not_wise 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Benny_the_Jew 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrbigfresh 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]boomguy 16 points17 points18 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuonji 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mammoth12 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]jonmlm -20 points-19 points-18 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]shadowboxer47 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jonmlm 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jonmlm 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jonmlm -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]OtherMikeP -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iheartbakon -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chiglet[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Chiglet[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Willie_Main -5 points-4 points-3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ABrown890 -3 points-2 points-1 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]superpony123 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ABrown890 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]superpony123 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]superpony123 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link