Male Equality - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Infinite_Loser · 07-21-2006, 12:23 PM

I would first like to say that I know that this article old, but I thought it was interesting. I did a search and didn't see anything on it, so forgive me if I'm just repeating something which has already been discussed prior.

Basically, my friend just showed this to me today. I actually found it quite funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580/

Quote:

NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

Feit’s organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Not expecting to win case
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

“What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is,” he said in a telephone interview. “Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.”

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay’s case.

“The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn’t want, but it’s less fair to say society has to pay the support,” she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn’t necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn’t afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Anger over Roe comparison
Jennifer Brown of the women’s rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men’s center comparing Dubay’s lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman’s right to have an abortion.

“Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want,” Brown said. “There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”

Feit counters that the suit’s reference to abortion rights is apt.

“Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences,” he said. “No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.”

“The problem is this is so politically incorrect,” Feit added. “The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”

Feit doesn’t advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit said. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.”

I do believe they lost their case, but I seriously hope this issue comes up again.

Basically, a woman has three options when dealing with the prospect of motherhood:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for.
3.) Have an abortion.

All are legal in the United States.

A man also has three options when given the choice to be a father:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Pay child support.
3.) Skip town.

In the United States, #3 is illegal, even though it's basically the same opt-out option as a woman's #3.

Does anyone think that a male choosing not to pay child support will be legalized in the United States anytime soon?

pig · 07-21-2006, 12:48 PM

I don't want to stifle current discussion of the topic, but here's some background information that I think might be relevant. linkylink

Ustwo · 07-21-2006, 12:48 PM

I recall when this came out, and thought it a good example of showing some of the sillyness about abortion.

While the logic behind the lawsuit amused me, I go with the two wrongs dont' make a right stance on this one. Just because your partner doesn't want her fetus destroyed doesn't nullify your part in creating said fetus.

Painted · 07-21-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I recall when this came out, and thought it a good example of showing some of the sillyness about abortion.

While the logic behind the lawsuit amused me, I go with the two wrongs dont' make a right stance on this one. Just because your partner doesn't want her fetus destroyed doesn't nullify your part in creating said fetus.

So when the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't, the father is shit outta luck? How is that in any way fair?

edit: I shoulda clicked the link first... sorry

kutulu · 07-21-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Basically, a woman has three options when dealing with the prospect of motherhood:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for.
3.) Have an abortion.

All are legal in the United States.

A man also has three options when given the choice to be a father:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Pay child support.
3.) Skip town.

In the United States, #3 is illegal, even though it's basically the same opt-out option as a woman's #3.

Does anyone think that a male choosing not to pay child support will be legalized in the United States anytime soon?

Actually, it's like this:
Woman
1.) Raise the child with father.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for. (With consent of father)
3.) Have custody battle with father, loser pays child support.
4.) Have an abortion.
5.) Work out an agreement with father that one keeps the baby and assumes all financial liability, the other has no rights or responsibilities afterward.

Man
1.) Raise the child with mother.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for. (With consent of mother)
3.) Have custody battle with mother, loser pays child support.
4.) Work out an agreement with father that one keeps the baby and assumes all financial liability, the other has no rights or responsibilities afterward.
5.) Be a loser and skip town/not pay support

There actually ARE women out there that pay child support to fathers. This is such an old and tired topic. Just a bunch of men that are bitter that women can have control over their own bodies.

You stuck your dick in her, now be an adult and pay the consequences. If you are really dead-set about not having kids, be proactive and sterilize yourself.

Quote:

“But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.”

Emphasis added.

Ustwo · 07-21-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Painted

So when the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't, the father is shit outta luck? How is that in any way fair?

edit: I shoulda clicked the link first... sorry

Its not fair, but as long as some people think of a fetus as no more than a tumor the father can't have any rights or it would nullify their argument.

Seaver · 07-21-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Just a bunch of men that are bitter that women can have control over their own bodies.

Wow... it would be difficult to make that further from the truth.

Infinite_Loser · 07-21-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Just a bunch of men that are bitter that women can have control over their own bodies.

So what you're saying is that men should basically have no rights what-so-ever.

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, a man can't prevent her from having an abortion. So why should a man be forced by a woman to be a father if he doesn't want to? That seems like a double standard to me.

(I don't want to turn this into a topic about abortion, but I scoff at the "It's my body, so I'll do whateve I want to it!" argument. The day that a woman becomes capable of having a baby by herself is the day I'll accept that argument.)

Anyway, I personally wouldn't skip out on child support if I ever had a child, but I do agree with the underlying logic of the lawsuit.

Willravel · 07-21-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

So what you're saying is that men should basically have no rights what-so-ever.

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, a man can't prevent her from having an abortion. So why should a man be forced by a woman to be a father if he doesn't want to? That seems like a double standard to me.

(I don't want to turn this into a topic about abortion, but I scoff at the "It's my body, so I'll do whateve I want to it!" argument. The day that a woman becomes capable of having a baby by herself is the day I'll accept that argument.)

Anyway, I personally wouldn't skip out on child support if I ever had a child, but I do agree with the underlying logic of the lawsuit.

Agreed on all points. The body is that of the woman, but the responsibilty of the child should be split evenly between the procreators. It takes sperm and ovum to create a human being. If I could have carried my daughter for 9 months, I swear to God I would have. Just because I wasn't given that option doesn't mean I, as a man, should have less rights. I have no problem with women doing manual labor, even though the average man is stronger than the average woman. I don't think it's fair to exclude or mistreat someone based on their gender.

I think that the responsibility should be split on everything 50/50.

Getting to Kutulu... Both genders are responsible for procreation, male and female. If a man has a child and doesn't take responsibility, then he is a child who should have a vesectomy until he's mature enough to live with the consequences for his actions. Likewise, if a girl goes out and has unprotected sex, gets pregmnant, has an abortion, and all that jazz, she should have her tubes tied until she can be mature enough to life with the consequences of her actions. Children (and by that I mean people who can't act like responsible adults) should NEVER have sex. Until contraceptives are have a 100% success rate, people should stop acting like wild dogs and learn to show some restraint.

I also am a little weary from all the condemnation coming from women about dea beat dads. Most dads aren't dead beat dads. I do everything I possibly can to make my daughters life wonderful. I wiould do anything for her.

Another thing that's been bothering me: If women had control over their bodies, wouldn't they avoid the whole abortion process by not shagging some guy? Where is that control under these circumstances? I can understand circumstances such as rape, incest or retardation, but most abortions have nothing to do with those things. Most of the time it's the old 'caught up in the moment' thing...but I digress. This isn't about abortion.

AngelicVampire · 07-21-2006, 04:51 PM

As a woman has 100% of the control of the situation does she not also bear 100% of the responsibility?

As far as I remember of the mothers who pay child support a greater % are "deadbeat parents" than fathers. Also if child support is enforced should the mia parent not also be guranteed access rights? I just can't see how being forced to support kids you aren't allowed to see is in any way fair or a good atmosphere for the kids, many mia parents would still support but mandatory seems odd without the other side of the equation balancing.

Gilda · 07-21-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Does anyone think that a male choosing not to pay child support will be legalized in the United States anytime soon?

No, nor do I think it should be.

I said everything else I wanted to say about men's reproductive rights in the linked thread.

Gilda

krwlz · 07-21-2006, 10:26 PM

Well, I think the first logical step here is to implement a system that forces single mothers recieving child support to spend it on.... the child.

I know a girl who used to work in an office where she answered a phone all day long answering questions from people recieving and owing child support.

She said it was disgusting how many women blow the child support money on whatever. Go shopping for new clothes when it comes in, make car payments, if the man in question makes enough money, support both her and the child on it without working...

She, who I never would have expected this out of before she worked there, by the end claimed for one, 100 times more women blow the support money, than guys who don't pay up. And for two, because of this, she had more respect for the "Dead Beat Dads" out there, than the mothers they're paying support to.

I think once we get that whole system ironed out, theeeeen we can tackle male reproductive rights. Gotta start at the top, one problem at a time.

soccerchamp76 · 07-21-2006, 10:38 PM

The whole rape/incest argument is nonsense because they don't make a dent in the number of cases of "normal" pregnancies.

So, with that being said, most women will say that the guy 'stuck his dick in her, he has to pay the consequences'. Well, the girl consented to 'have his dick in her' and so her argument becomes baseless.
It is true that the inequality in rights comes from the fact that the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months while the father does not.

The main argument is that, in the original case, the women lied to the man and said she was unable to become pregnant. She goes ahead and carries the child, against the father's will, and makes him pay child support. In other words, she trapped him.

krwlz · 07-21-2006, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soccerchamp76

The whole rape/incest argument is nonsense because they don't make a dent in the number of cases of "normal" pregnancies.

So, with that being said, most women will say that the guy 'stuck his dick in her, he has to pay the consequences'. Well, the girl consented to 'have his dick in her' and so her argument becomes baseless.
It is true that the inequality in rights comes from the fact that the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months while the father does not.

The main argument is that, in the original case, the women lied to the man and said she was unable to become pregnant. She goes ahead and carries the child, against the father's will, and makes him pay child support. In other words, she trapped him.

Let's make the guy pay 1.5* for 9 months... hell make it 18 months to compensate for the pregnancy, then he's off the hook.

Kittie Rose · 07-25-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

So what you're saying is that men should basically have no rights what-so-ever.

Can we PLEASE get some kind of forum rule against this form of arguing? It's very close to trolling, quoting someone's argument and then telling them exactly what it isn't in a blatant attempt to frustrate them, but insisting it is anyway. Complete Strawman.

Ustwo · 07-25-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

Can we PLEASE get some kind of forum rule against this form of arguing? It's very close to trolling, quoting someone's argument and then telling them exactly what it isn't in a blatant attempt to frustrate them, but insisting it is anyway. Complete Strawman.

Taking a quote out of context is also very bad form. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson on posting from the Gay Marriage thread but apparently not after this and your post in the comics thread. Since you made no point here I assume you just wanted to attack the poster (again) and have nothing to add to the discussion.

abaya · 07-25-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If women had control over their bodies, wouldn't they avoid the whole abortion process by not shagging some guy?

Yep, that bothers me too. I think I posted quite a bit on that very topic, in some long-gone abortion thread. I'm very pro-choice for women, but I emphasize that the "choice" should be coming BEFORE the pregnancy. "Choice" after the pregnancy already happened is, frankly, irresponsible. But I know it happens, heat-of-the-moment, etc etc, and I think the right to "choose" should be preserved. But the man AND woman are still both responsible for the conception in the first place, and that is why both ought to be equally responsible for the financial costs of the child... no matter who raises it.

Hence, I don't agree with the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by soccerchamp76

The main argument is that, in the original case, the women lied to the man and said she was unable to become pregnant. She goes ahead and carries the child, against the father's will, and makes him pay child support. In other words, she trapped him.

True: the woman lied to the man. False: the man was trapped. If the man TRULY did NOT want to have children, it is STILL his responsibility to use a condom every single time. It does not matter what the woman is saying about her physical condition, use of birth control, tubes tied, etc... if the man DOES NOT want children, the only responsible thing to do is to use a condom (or get a vasectomy).

Sidenote: I do think men should have a say in a woman getting an abortion. But if the woman is forced to give birth to the child purely because of what the man wants (and I assume he plans to raise it), I think he should have to compensate her somehow because of the work of carrying a child for 9 months. That should be all set in stone ahead of time, if necessary... how much he will compensate her, etc. But that will probably never happen.

Kittie Rose · 07-25-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Taking a quote out of context is also very bad form. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson on posting from the Gay Marriage thread but apparently not after this and your post in the comics thread. Since you made no point here I assume you just wanted to attack the poster (again) and have nothing to add to the discussion.

I wasn't just attacking him, I was pointing out an attempt at trolling. "So men should have no rights at all?" is an utterly ridiculous thing to say and blatantly an attempt to aggrivate his opposition.

But of course, as long as people have his back, it's not trolling, it's just an "opinion". But when someone has a problem with that, then you're flaming. Pathetic.

That quote was in no way out of context. He did force on his opposition the position that men should have no right in any parenthood related decisions such as the ones mentioned when he knew it wasn't true. That's an aggressive strawman and a form of trolling. Not an "Opinion".

I'm sorry, but if you continue to attack me and defend him, then I have no respect for you. All I'm trying to do is point out obvious misconduct that gets unnoticed due to forced neutrality. He's blatantly trolling and using the "It's my opinion card" to get away with it, and you're playing into his hands wonderfully.

Seaver · 07-25-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

That quote was in no way out of context. He did force on his opposition the position that men should have no right in any parenthood related decisions such as the ones mentioned when he knew it wasn't true. That's an aggressive strawman and a form of trolling. Not an "Opinion".

Actually for it to not count as a troll you must post your view of a fair situation. By not posting any alternative plan, by default you support the current situation. One in which a man has no right to decide on any point of the child rearing process outside of conception.

If a woman with a man becomes pregnant and decides she does not want to become a mother she's pro-choice. If a man is with a woman who becomes pregant, and doesnt want to become a father, he's a deadbeat.

That's what it comes down to at the moment. While I in no way want to make an atmosphere where it is easy to skip out on fatherhood, this is gross inequality.

The only arguments I have heard from women on the issue which argue for the status quoe are the EXACT arguments people make for pro-life. It's the "keep it in your pants" argument, while valid why should only men face an unavoidable consiquence of it and not the other?

ESPECIALLY considering in this case.

Frosstbyte · 07-25-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The only arguments I have heard from women on the issue which argue for the status quoe are the EXACT arguments people make for pro-life. It's the "keep it in your pants" argument, while valid why should only men face an unavoidable consiquence of it and not the other?

Not to turn this into a legality of abortion discussion, but that's a nasty little kink in the whole discussion and one that I'd not considered. I don't have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said. I agree that there's a gross discrepancy, but I'm having a hard time trying to come up with a solution that makes sense. More thoughts when I've had more time to think about it.

krwlz · 07-25-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

I wasn't just attacking him...
... and you're playing into his hands wonderfully.

While we understand that no one likes to be baited and slammed...

I guess I want to be sure I know what you're saying... And that's that you still have nothing constructive to add to the thread? And just wanted to point out what you consider to be a disgusting unfairness?

Well, in hopes that it will appease you, I'm going to apolagize for everyone who has "trolled" in this thread.

Back to the subject...

After comming back and re-reading this whole thread, I think I kind of want to retract some of my former opinions here.

The previous poster is right, in that there is no right answer... Though, keep it in your pants if you don't want a kid is about the most logical that's been presented to date.

Men should in my opinion have a say in the abortion... Consent from both, not the option to force an abortion.

Please understand that while I disgree with a lot of the child support system and issues, were I to be placed in that situation, I would NOT need a government agency telling me to care for my child. I would fight tooth and nail to have equal custody, at worst.

An aside, since it's care for the child that the support system is addressing, does the government, or agency or whatever, count money spent directly on the child, as opposed to money handed to the mother?

Meaning, say I have a kid, and the girl and I split, but every other week, I show at her house with groceries, or buy all the kids clothes, or whatever... Does that count? Or if I do that, would I still have to pay the mother a given amount?

AngelicVampire · 07-25-2006, 01:48 PM

A passing thought, why not automatically consider the man not to be a the father unless they opt in? Ok it is kinda odd however then the mother knows the guy wants to be a father and the whole process can be resolved nicely rather than having mothers name fathers and then the whole mess we have right now.

Edit:
Heck, if the father opts in you automatically have joint custody etc as its a shared parenting, otherwise custody is split appropriately.

Frosstbyte · 07-25-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

Meaning, say I have a kid, and the girl and I split, but every other week, I show at her house with groceries, or buy all the kids clothes, or whatever... Does that count? Or if I do that, would I still have to pay the mother a given amount?

I believe that child support must come in the form of a check to the custodial parent (mothers can pay child support to men, though men are almost never granted custody which is another discussion entirely). I think showing up with groceries and buying clothes in the eyes of the court are nice extras that you chose to do as opposed to trying to aggregate all those little things together to be the equivalent of paying a check.

Family law isn't my specialty, though, so if someone knows for certain, feel free to speak up.

Infinite_Loser · 07-25-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

Can we PLEASE get some kind of forum rule against this form of arguing? It's very close to trolling, quoting someone's argument and then telling them exactly what it isn't in a blatant attempt to frustrate them, but insisting it is anyway. Complete Strawman.

Read the rest of my post and not just what you want to read. Anyone can take a single sentence and stretch it out of context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

That quote was in no way out of context. He did force on his opposition the position that men should have no right in any parenthood related decisions such as the ones mentioned when he knew it wasn't true. That's an aggressive strawman and a form of trolling. Not an "Opinion".

Quite the opposite. I believe that men should have some rights in the issue of fatherhood, as opposed to the no choice they have now. A man can't force a woman into motherhood against her will, yet a women can force a man into fatherhood against his will. I don't agree with that. It takes two to make a baby, so both should get some type of equal say in the issue of parenthood. It shouldn't be 100 - 0 in favor of the woman.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that all men should turn into deadbeats and skip out on their child support, nor do I believe in the "Eye for an eye" view (You know, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). I do believe, though, that men should be given a bit more say in the issue of parenthood.

Impetuous1 · 07-25-2006, 06:32 PM

Sorry, but that's total BS. If that guy didn't want to get her pregnant, than he should have worn a condom every time. Just to be sure. What a moron.

Okay, now as to what I believe. I think that all parental responsibility, financial, care, and love of the child should be split 50/50. It takes two to make a child. Every one should be able to know both their parents and have the support and yes, resources, that both sets of parents can provide.

If fathers of children are allowed to opt out of having any fiscal responsibility for the child, why not the woman too? I mean, what if the only reason she got pregnant was because he wanted a boy. Then she gives birth to a girl and he want's nothing to do with the baby? Why shouldn't the mother then be allowed to leave the kid at the father's doorstep saying you wanted a child. Now you've got one. This line of reasoning leads to places like China that have a low female to male ratio. Where sex selection is practiced through ind exposure (to the elements) of female infants.

Toaster126 · 07-25-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impetuous1

Sorry, but that's total BS. If that guy didn't want to get her pregnant, than he should have worn a condom every time. Just to be sure. What a moron.

I wouldn't be calling anyone a moron when you imply wearing a condom prevents pregnancy.

Ustwo · 07-25-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Not to turn this into a legality of abortion discussion, but that's a nasty little kink in the whole discussion and one that I'd not considered. I don't have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said. I agree that there's a gross discrepancy, but I'm having a hard time trying to come up with a solution that makes sense. More thoughts when I've had more time to think about it.

Thats whats so fun with this idea, it exposes many of the pro-abortion arguments for the sophistry they are.

Willravel · 07-25-2006, 09:28 PM

So Ustwo is against abortion? And Willravel is against abortion? Huh. I guess when you discuss politics long enough, everyone eventually has some common ground.

Seaver · 07-26-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

If fathers of children are allowed to opt out of having any fiscal responsibility for the child, why not the woman too?

Um... how? The woman has an option with abortion, the man does not have any option.

Quote:

Sorry, but that's total BS. If that guy didn't want to get her pregnant, than he should have worn a condom every time. Just to be sure. What a moron.

So answer my question. This is the exact same argument that pro-lifers give. When the exact same people who support pro-abortions give this argument.

How is it ok that only men have to "keep it in their pants" when women have the option of a way out?

Impetuous1 · 07-27-2006, 08:37 PM

Women can opt out of financial responsibility by: abandoning the kid, putting them up for adoption, leave the kid at their dad's doorstep and taking off. Men, if they really don't want to ever have to provide financially towards a child, and can honestly say they do not want a child, can get a vasectomy. Who said anything about men having to "keep it in their pants"? One of the consequences of having sex is the possibility of having a child. If you can't accept that then either don't have sex, use a condom (yes, I know it's not 100% effective but it's damn well better than trusting someone's word that they can't get pregnant) or get snipped. You can't trust others to look out for your interests. You can only trust yourself to do that. BTW, I'm not a pro-lifer.

analog · 07-27-2006, 09:06 PM

My answer to this debate has always been thus: Until a woman can spontaneously impregnate herself without the aid of a man's sperm, the responsibility for the pregnancy falls squarely on the shoulders of two people. It doesn't matter who is carrying it, they are equally responsible for its existence.

Women can give a baby away for adoption, and women can have an abortion. A man, being equal partner in the creation of the fetus, has no options whatsoever. That is inequality.

And I'm tired of all the "if you didn't want to be a daddy, you should have kept it in your pants" bullshit talk. The woman, unless RAPED, is exactly as much at fault for the conception as the man, but the man has no options should conception occur. That, too, is inequality.

And not only does the woman have all the options, but she's the only one who can make the decisions to keep or not keep the baby. If the woman doesn't want it, and the man does, the man is totally fucked. In the reverse situation, the man is still fucked. Now, i'm not AT ALL suggesting that the man should have to give permission for an abortion or adoption... but you must recognize that inequality.

krwlz · 07-28-2006, 05:08 AM

So us as guys are fucked if we do, and fucked if we don't, lol. Where woman are concerned (In modern day) has it ever been any other way?

Impetuous1 · 07-28-2006, 05:11 AM

I don't think it's an "inequality" in the sense that there's nothing you can do about it. It's nature.

Ustwo · 07-28-2006, 05:21 AM

Luckily guys the solution to this is obvious.

Don't fuck trashy or batshit insane women, and never a trashy batshit insane one.

The hard part of course is figuring out the good ones from their insane sisters, and thats the true key to happiness.

Ustwo · 07-28-2006, 05:21 AM

Magic double post.

Toaster126 · 07-28-2006, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Luckily guys the solution to this is obvious.

Don't fuck trashy or batshit insane women, and never a trashy batshit insane one.

The hard part of course is figuring out the good ones from their insane sisters, and thats the true key to happiness.

Some of us maintain that all women are crazy; it's just a matter of degrees.

Ustwo · 07-28-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

Some of us maintain that all women are crazy; it's just a matter of degrees.

Crazy sure, but there is crazy and there is batshit insane.

Crazy: They expect you to enjoy going to their aunts for the day.
Batshit insane: They burst into tears and throw things at you when you say you would rather not go to their aunts for the day.

Seaver · 07-28-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Don't fuck trashy or batshit insane women, and never a trashy batshit insane one.

Yeah but they never turn psycho until AFTER the sex. Why? cause generally they're so good in bed they know you'll have a harder time leaving.

Menoman · 07-28-2006, 11:27 AM

too many people saying responsibility falls on the shoulders of 2 people.

Yet they then give full authority to the female in the decision for both of their lives.

little sense here please?

side note: go up and read Analog's post.

That is someone with their head on straight.

pig · 07-28-2006, 11:38 AM

sounds like what we need is vagina in a can.

07-21-2006, 12:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	I don't want to stifle current discussion of the topic, but here's some background information that I think might be relevant. linkylink __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

07-21-2006, 12:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I recall when this came out, and thought it a good example of showing some of the sillyness about abortion. While the logic behind the lawsuit amused me, I go with the two wrongs dont' make a right stance on this one. Just because your partner doesn't want her fetus destroyed doesn't nullify your part in creating said fetus. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

07-21-2006, 10:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	The whole rape/incest argument is nonsense because they don't make a dent in the number of cases of "normal" pregnancies. So, with that being said, most women will say that the guy 'stuck his dick in her, he has to pay the consequences'. Well, the girl consented to 'have his dick in her' and so her argument becomes baseless. It is true that the inequality in rights comes from the fact that the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months while the father does not. The main argument is that, in the original case, the women lied to the man and said she was unable to become pregnant. She goes ahead and carries the child, against the father's will, and makes him pay child support. In other words, she trapped him. __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

07-25-2006, 06:32 PM	#25 (permalink)
Impetuous1 Insane Location: Arizona	Sorry, but that's total BS. If that guy didn't want to get her pregnant, than he should have worn a condom every time. Just to be sure. What a moron. Okay, now as to what I believe. I think that all parental responsibility, financial, care, and love of the child should be split 50/50. It takes two to make a child. Every one should be able to know both their parents and have the support and yes, resources, that both sets of parents can provide. If fathers of children are allowed to opt out of having any fiscal responsibility for the child, why not the woman too? I mean, what if the only reason she got pregnant was because he wanted a boy. Then she gives birth to a girl and he want's nothing to do with the baby? Why shouldn't the mother then be allowed to leave the kid at the father's doorstep saying you wanted a child. Now you've got one. This line of reasoning leads to places like China that have a low female to male ratio. Where sex selection is practiced through ind exposure (to the elements) of female infants. Last edited by Impetuous1; 07-25-2006 at 06:42 PM..

07-28-2006, 05:21 AM	#34 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Luckily guys the solution to this is obvious. Don't fuck trashy or batshit insane women, and never a trashy batshit insane one. The hard part of course is figuring out the good ones from their insane sisters, and thats the true key to happiness. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

07-21-2006, 04:51 PM	#10 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	As a woman has 100% of the control of the situation does she not also bear 100% of the responsibility? As far as I remember of the mothers who pay child support a greater % are "deadbeat parents" than fathers. Also if child support is enforced should the mia parent not also be guranteed access rights? I just can't see how being forced to support kids you aren't allowed to see is in any way fair or a good atmosphere for the kids, many mia parents would still support but mandatory seems odd without the other side of the equation balancing.

07-21-2006, 10:26 PM	#12 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	Well, I think the first logical step here is to implement a system that forces single mothers recieving child support to spend it on.... the child. I know a girl who used to work in an office where she answered a phone all day long answering questions from people recieving and owing child support. She said it was disgusting how many women blow the child support money on whatever. Go shopping for new clothes when it comes in, make car payments, if the man in question makes enough money, support both her and the child on it without working... She, who I never would have expected this out of before she worked there, by the end claimed for one, 100 times more women blow the support money, than guys who don't pay up. And for two, because of this, she had more respect for the "Dead Beat Dads" out there, than the mothers they're paying support to. I think once we get that whole system ironed out, theeeeen we can tackle male reproductive rights. Gotta start at the top, one problem at a time.

07-25-2006, 01:48 PM	#22 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	A passing thought, why not automatically consider the man not to be a the father unless they opt in? Ok it is kinda odd however then the mother knows the guy wants to be a father and the whole process can be resolved nicely rather than having mothers name fathers and then the whole mess we have right now. Edit: Heck, if the father opts in you automatically have joint custody etc as its a shared parenting, otherwise custody is split appropriately.

07-25-2006, 09:28 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So Ustwo is against abortion? And Willravel is against abortion? Huh. I guess when you discuss politics long enough, everyone eventually has some common ground.

07-27-2006, 08:37 PM	#30 (permalink)
Impetuous1 Insane Location: Arizona	Women can opt out of financial responsibility by: abandoning the kid, putting them up for adoption, leave the kid at their dad's doorstep and taking off. Men, if they really don't want to ever have to provide financially towards a child, and can honestly say they do not want a child, can get a vasectomy. Who said anything about men having to "keep it in their pants"? One of the consequences of having sex is the possibility of having a child. If you can't accept that then either don't have sex, use a condom (yes, I know it's not 100% effective but it's damn well better than trusting someone's word that they can't get pregnant) or get snipped. You can't trust others to look out for your interests. You can only trust yourself to do that. BTW, I'm not a pro-lifer.

07-27-2006, 09:06 PM	#31 (permalink)
analog Banned	My answer to this debate has always been thus: Until a woman can spontaneously impregnate herself without the aid of a man's sperm, the responsibility for the pregnancy falls squarely on the shoulders of two people. It doesn't matter who is carrying it, they are equally responsible for its existence. Women can give a baby away for adoption, and women can have an abortion. A man, being equal partner in the creation of the fetus, has no options whatsoever. That is inequality. And I'm tired of all the "if you didn't want to be a daddy, you should have kept it in your pants" bullshit talk. The woman, unless RAPED, is exactly as much at fault for the conception as the man, but the man has no options should conception occur. That, too, is inequality. And not only does the woman have all the options, but she's the only one who can make the decisions to keep or not keep the baby. If the woman doesn't want it, and the man does, the man is totally fucked. In the reverse situation, the man is still fucked. Now, i'm not AT ALL suggesting that the man should have to give permission for an abortion or adoption... but you must recognize that inequality.

07-28-2006, 05:08 AM	#32 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	So us as guys are fucked if we do, and fucked if we don't, lol. Where woman are concerned (In modern day) has it ever been any other way?

07-28-2006, 05:11 AM	#33 (permalink)
Impetuous1 Insane Location: Arizona	I don't think it's an "inequality" in the sense that there's nothing you can do about it. It's nature.

07-28-2006, 05:21 AM	#35 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Magic double post. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

07-28-2006, 11:38 AM	#40 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	sounds like what we need is vagina in a can. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style