| Blogs > firehand101 |
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
I think up to a certain point (until the fetus is safely abortable, i dunno 3 months or something?) the male father gets to choose whether he will care for the baby or not, so he gets a say in the matter as well. I suggest this as I see many males get a woman pregnant and have their next 18 years tied down because the decision that results isn't up to him. Wouldn't it be fair to give them a say also?    | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
As woman can opt-out of having a child, man get the same chance. Obviously a man can't force a woman to have/not have a baby, so his "abortion" is to completely decline any interaction with the baby (he loses all parental rights, aswell as duties like child support) This egalitarian propostion makes a lot of sense, but many people will label you as a woman hater for it. "the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex" makes no sense whatsoever | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9154 Posts
don't stick your dick into a girl if you aren't shooting blanks and if you aren't prepared to have to support a child. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:09 lichter wrote: don't be a fool; wrap your tool Yep, that should do it. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On November 27 2014 12:22 GoTuNk! wrote: What you are saying is called man abortion or financial abortion As woman can opt-out of having a child, man get the same chance. Obviously a man can't force a woman to have/not have a baby, so his "abortion" is to completely decline any interaction with the baby (he loses all parental rights, aswell as duties like child support) This egalitarian propostion makes a lot of sense, but many people will label you as a woman hater for it. "the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex" makes no sense whatsoever the man takes on the responsibility when he sticks his dick in the woman, genius it makes sense because if you don't want to have a fucking child then don't do the thing that creates the child, in what universe does this not add up to you | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
One implication of abortions is the woman's right to choose, and I'm 100% in favor of this. It's her body, it's her choice, and she should be able to do what she wants with it. However, if the man wants the baby, and she changes her mind (or simply doesn't want it), then the guy's just fucked and he has to let the woman terminate the pregnancy on the valid yet harsh notion that the woman's body is her own. Sure, her body is her own, but isn't the pregnancy at least in some way a little bit theirs? If the pregnancy doesn't belong to both adults who fucked (as evidenced by the fact that the man has no say in the termination/non-termination of the pregnancy), then why does the pregnancy, when it becomes a child, suddenly belongs to the man, financially and in other ways? The question is not simple, but it seems to just be kind of like that. On one hand you have the fact that a woman's body is obviously her own, but there is something profoundly fucked up that comes from that undeniable given. Her body is inseparable from the pregnancy. So a pregnancy, caused by two people, now belongs 100% to only one of them. So in the end it's essentially unfair. Biologically, it's unfair. It's her body, therefore the man is fucked when it comes to what happens of the pregnancy he participated to. She gets to gauge the financial and emotional burden of aborting vs. not aborting. Whatever she does, it's a LIFE CHANGING DECISION OF MASSIVE IMPORTANCE. She gets too choose between 2 things, generally: 1- Having a child who will grow up to adult life and live all kinds of adventures, sadnesses and joys, etc. Like all of us. OR 2- Terminating a pregnancy with all the downsides of this, both to her emotionally and to her body. And the upsides (financial, freedom, SLEEP!). I would argue that you can hardly deny the fact that the man in this case is stripped of his say in a decision and it makes sense. But it's sad as fuck, too. People in this thread are saying that when you have sex it's your responsibility, and there's a possibility she'll get pregnant... But the responsibility between the two adults is completely unreasonably disproportionate. As a woman, you get a choice. As a man, the decision is thrust upon you. It's not the same. And so what's the solution? To put it plainly, there isn't one. You certainly can't dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies, that would be the most immoral "solution" of all. So what of a financial abortion? I think it's not a simple question, morally. In a way it counterbalances, to an extent, the fact that the woman gets to choose whether she aborts or not. Many women get a chance (if I can say it like that) to abort when their pregnancy occurs at a bad time in their life (during their studies or whatever). Mistakes happen -> abort -> problem fixed. Men don't have a say. If your gf puts holes in your condoms, sorry, you're fucked. If it's an accident, you're fucked all the same. She's very inconvenienced but not necessarily fucked. Given the importance of women's say in whether they got to abort or not, it's hard for me to say that financial abortions would be morally wrong, due to the context. However, I find that the idea that you could blackmail a woman into aborting a child that she wants to keep by saying her you'll cut the financial ties frankly sickening. But there's something there in principle in that men are completely helpless after the fact. But anyway I think that the whole concept is unenforceable. Surely the man would only get to financially abort a child during the "abortable" period of her pregnancy. So what if he's not made aware of the pregnancy during those 6 months? How would we rule either way? It may be his fault they didn't talk, or her's. There are plenty of reasons why this would be a massive legal mess. However by far the biggest problem for me is that the woman gets to abort even if the man doesn't want her to. It's unavoidable, and there is no other way.... but now that is some proper suckage. And I think that the idea that your future child may be yanked from you and you as a man are 100% powerless against is a lot more fucked up than having to pay for a child that you facking made. The bottomline sadly is the following: You are fucked. You just are. Do what you can with what you're given and reduce your chances of being fucked by the unfortunate, unfair way of things (regarding this particular matter). Wrap your willy if you don't want kids (or get a vasectomy), and find a reliable smart woman who wants kids if you want them too. Long winded post, I rambled a little... Better than a lazy fucking one-liner from self-proclaimed moral authoritiahs. Good night | ||
|
Fission
Canada1184 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:09 lichter wrote: don't be a fool; wrap your tool +1 | ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3292 Posts
never send in your soldier without a helmet | ||
|
Onekobold
244 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
telling a woman whether or not to have a kid after getting her pregnant in the first place doesnt seem right. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Also cut the abstinence crap. It doesn't work and it's based on a thoughtless ideology. People don't like to hear it but the right for abortion is a tradeoff. There is a tradeoff between the mother's right to decide what happens inside her own body vs the fetus's right to live. The mother's rights aren't absolute. As far I know not even the most liberal countries don't allow extremely late abortions. The same kind of logic should apply to disowning your future children: there's a tradeoff between the kid's right to be cared for by their biological parents and the parent's right not to be financially crippled by a situation that he had less control over than the other side. As it is a tradeoff I have no sympathy for people who want to avoid manageable amounts. Stop whining and deal with it. It's an unfortunate situation and in the end not everyone's going to be happy. So don't complain that you didn't get exactly what you wanted. However I do think people shouldn't be put in a situation where they are forced to pay amounts that's financially crippling. It's a tradeoff and the kid's right to have a comfortable childhood doesn't trump the father's to have any life at all. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24678 Posts
| ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:46 Aveng3r wrote: Its not like a man doesnt have a say in whether his sexual partner has a kid or not. wear a condom. Condoms don't work 100% of the time. I don't think it's fair that the man can get tied down financially for such a long time but at the same time the woman's rights to her body and the kid's rights to a decent upbringing supersede the man's. It sucks but that's just the risk you take doing awesome sexy times. | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
Turns out government aid for ALL children makes keeping an otherwise unplanned child a more popular choice. This topic makes me realize that I don't know if child support from the father is even an issue here... (will have to look into it.) On November 27 2014 19:09 Yorbon wrote: I was thinking about this; what about pregnancy after a man is raped by a woman? Still the woman's body and choice. Probably more a matter of if the child goes into foster care if the father doesn't want custody (assuming a rape conviction with jail time takes place). | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On November 27 2014 18:35 SatedSC2 wrote: ITT: Lots of people who think that contraception is 100% effective. Pulling-out master race reporting in. | ||
|
Espers
United Kingdom606 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:09 lichter wrote: don't be a fool; wrap your tool and if she gets pregnant anyway? the man deserves to be weighed down for 18 years? | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On November 27 2014 20:44 Espers wrote: and if she gets pregnant anyway? the man deserves to be weighed down for 18 years? That's the discussion at hand. Can we handicap a man into paying child support for a child he didn't really want to have? Accidents happen, the women is as much responsible for the child as the man. But if it is her decision A) to keep the child and B) if the father has to pay support. After conception, in some countries, the man loses every right to decide his own future. I've heard multiple stories of mothers who are lazy and live mostly off the fathers' money. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Lest you want to be eaten alive by bloodthirsty feminists. So better buckle up, put your helmets on, cover yourself, or whatever metaphor you want to use, and pray it doesn't go haywire. | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
In general it's rather easy: you do not want to become a father, use a condom. If it happens, take responsibility. I did not use a condom and have a daughter now - and I can't say I'm unhappy  . Once you get the idea that with a child everything changes and do not judge those changes, you're fine. Because "everything changes" just means that "everything gets different", but it doesn't get better or worse. You just start facing new things and change your priorities. But that's nothing you need to be afraid of. | ||
|
Haulvern
United Kingdom72 Posts
This is the breakdown and why people have had this discussion. The discussion is held in a controlled environment where a abortion or birth would NOT hurt the mother in any way and on the assumption that abortion is justified and legal under all circumstances. Children are conceived and born under four general circumstances. 1. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, both parties wish to keep the child. ----> Best case, happy ending. 2. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, neither parties want the baby. ----> Abortion, happy ending for both parties. Now comes the grey area. 3. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, women wishes to have the child, man doesn't ------> Man forced to pay child care. Now if the child was conceived by rape of the MAN, this is totally unethical and has just happened to a man in the states. Forced to pay for a child he has never met and was conceived when he was raped. Also what if the women for example lied about birth control? 4. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, man wishes to keep the child, women doesn't. ---------> Baby aborted, man left heart broken. Now of course in this situation, its the women choice if she keeps it and the man shouldn't have a say in it. However this leaves inequality between the sexes and is where the idea of the "finical abortion" comes in. Obviously NO WOMEN should be forced to have a abortion or give birth under ANY circumstances. The idea of a financial abortion, gives the man in scenario three a chance to opt out before the legal abortion limit. In this case he gives up all rights, becoming a sperm donor and will not have to pay child fees. This also allows a women to make a personal informed decision. In the real world things are more complex than this, I will not share my personal opinion this is just a larger rundown of the OP's main point. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 27 2014 22:22 ZenithM wrote: Well, as much as I understand the issue at hand and the pain and burden it can cause, those are not good times to make claims to our rights, as men :/ Lest you want to be eaten alive by bloodthirsty feminists. So better buckle up, put your helmets on, cover yourself, or whatever metaphor you want to use, and pray it doesn't go haywire. Meh, what are they going to do, protest me to death on Tumblr? Sometimes you have to be honest and bring up new aspects to a problem. It might be that men are privileged in some if not most areas, but that doesn't make our grievances in some aspects of our lives any less real. And to say that our grievances are counterbalanced by our advantages would be insulting to say the least. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
Oh, wait. They are. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 01:10 Nebuchad wrote: Sometimes I wish women were like people that we could actually talk to, so that couples could, I don't know, decide beforehand whether they want a child or not, and what they would do in the event of a pregnancy. Oh, wait. They are. I like your reasoning. Also rainbows and unicorns it's like disneyworld in dat noggin y'all. Edit: To make myself clear, abortion is often something that happens because of unexpected events. You can't plan unplanned things. | ||
|
Thax
Belgium1060 Posts
On November 27 2014 11:03 firehand101 wrote: Wouldn't it be fair to give them a say also? No. Use a condom or just keep your dick out of people you can get pregnant. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On November 28 2014 01:11 Djzapz wrote: I like your reasoning. Also rainbows and unicorns it's like disneyworld in dat noggin y'all. Edit: To make myself clear, abortion is often something that happens because of unexpected events. You can't plan unplanned things. Unexpected =/= unexpectable | ||
|
sqrt
1210 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
And that's a totally unrealistic way to look at life, honestly. Accidents happen, you have to consider what happens after. It's so stupidly simplistic to just say "prevention is everything, nothing else matters". | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On November 28 2014 01:37 Djzapz wrote: And that's a totally unrealistic way to look at life, honestly. Accidents happen, you have to consider what happens after. It's so stupidly simplistic to just say "prevention is everything, nothing else matters". prevention =/= communication | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
No... but the point is the effect so communication acts as prevention... I mean that's obvious... Based on your last 2 answers I'm guessing you're probably not worth my time though, or anyone's time really. Sarcasm in your first post, then dumb one liners containing two words each... It's fucking sad that this has become acceptable on forums. Step up your game or go back to 4chan where you belong. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On November 28 2014 01:03 Djzapz wrote: Meh, what are they going to do, protest me to death on Tumblr? Sometimes you have to be honest and bring up new aspects to a problem. It might be that men are privileged in some if not most areas, but that doesn't make our grievances in some aspects of our lives any less real. And to say that our grievances are counterbalanced by our advantages would be insulting to say the least. Most feminist trends of thought actually just say that: we don't have the right to even voice our grievances, after dominating for so long in gender roles, and because our grievances are nothing compared to what women endure. It sounds silly, but I'm 100% you would have every feminist lobby and whatnot on your ass if you were to express the idea that a man has a say in whether or not the abortion should happen / he should help raise the child. And I'm sure it would actually significantly impede any real/legal discussion. Edit: Also Nebuchad: Arguing =/= trolling ;D | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:00 ZenithM wrote: Most feminist trends of thought actually just say that: we don't have the right to even voice our grievances, after dominating for so long in gender roles, and because our grievances are nothing compared to what women endure. It sounds silly, but I'm 100% you would have every feminist lobby and whatnot on your ass if you were to express the idea that a man has a say in whether or not the abortion should happen / he should help raise the child. And I'm sure it would actually significantly impede any real/legal discussion. I'm not arguing that men should have a say on whether or not an abortion should happen, I'm strongly opposed to that idea. I'm saying that we should be able to express our grievances though. The problem is that there are reasonable ways to voice our grievances and many MRA groups get shit on by feminists because they go about it in absurd and unreasonable ways. But I think I tend to be reasonable. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:00 Djzapz wrote: No... but the point is the effect so communication acts as prevention... I mean that's obvious... Based on your last 2 answers I'm guessing you're probably not worth my time though, or anyone's time really. Sarcasm in your first post, then dumb one liners containing two words each... It's fucking sad that this has become acceptable on forums. Look, it's not that hard. Obviously the fact that a girl can decide to keep a child whether you want it or not is a big concern to you. So talk to said girl about it before you have sex with her. If you don't like the answer, don't put yourself in the situation. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:00 ZenithM wrote: Edit: Also Nebuchad: Arguing =/= trolling ;D I know, I just have trouble respecting points of view that contain an us vs them mentality in the matter of genders. Most of the time that leads me to attack feminists, but in cases like these I must stay consistent. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:07 Nebuchad wrote: Look, it's not that hard. Obviously the fact that a girl can decide to keep a child whether you want it or not is a big concern to you. So talk to said girl about it before you have sex with her. If you don't like the answer, don't put yourself in the situation. Oh I get it, the notion that there are other people evades you... Alright so I'll give you a quick rundown of my perspective. I don't discuss these kinds of issues thinking about my personal gain and my personal issues with them. I talk about these things because of the repercussions they have on society and morality as a whole. I'm not (always) completely egocentric, and in this particular case I think about the big picture, see? So you talk about how I personally might avoid issues but that's worthless to me, it's not the point. I can talk to a girl before I have sex with her, maybe she lies, maybe she says the truth, maybe she changes her mind, this perhaps helps me personally and all is good because talking is better than not talking, great. But this does nothing about society as a whole. What are you going to do? Broadcast "talk to the girl" and suddenly the important social problem is fixed? This isn't about you and me. Open your eyes. On November 28 2014 02:11 Nebuchad wrote: I know, I just have trouble respecting points of view that contain an us vs them mentality in the matter of genders. Most of the time that leads me to attack feminists, but in cases like these I must stay consistent. My point of view doesn't include an "us vs. them" mentality. It's not a battle. It's a complex system of interactions. I'm not in any kind of fight, I'm just discussing ideas. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:20 Alzadar wrote: So what is the big picture? Man impregnates woman, woman has baby, man decides he doesn't want the baby. What happens to the child then? Because the baby is the one who had no say, we care more about what happens to them. The big picture is not talking about individual occurrences and saying that this particular one instance of a woman being impregnated could have been avoided, but rather looking at all of society and seeing that it doesn't matter that you can look at one individual case, because the real world is a bunch of different cases with different reasons and different ideas. The problem cannot be fixed by inventing ONE ideal situation and saying SEE YOU CAN JUST TALK TO HER and therefore I've SOLVED the social problem. You haven't solved shit. You've invented a scenario. I can adopt it and make my life better perhaps, but the whole world won't. So the problem actually remains. It's as dumb as saying see I can stop criminality by erasing criminals. Don't have criminals. See, we've solved it. We can solve public health issues by telling people to eat healthy food and exercise. Crisis averted. Put me in charge of the government and we won't even have problems anymore. I've got all the solutions: positive thoughts. We'd all be better off if every family had on average 2.5 children instead of the current 1.6, it'd be better. Poof, another problem fixed. You see how bringing up an ideal scenario does nothing? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
But the alternative is forcing a: single mothers to raise children without monetary support (which hurts the child just as much as the mother)- and allowing guys to take no responsibility, b: forced abortions. Overall, I'm fine with the woman being the one who makes the decision, although I can see how I'd feel differently if I had impregnated someone who wasn't fine with killing off the fetus. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:32 Djzapz wrote: The big picture is not talking about individual occurrences and saying that this particular one instance of a woman being impregnated could have been avoided, but rather looking at all of society and seeing that it doesn't matter that you can look at one individual case, because the real world is a bunch of different cases with different reasons and different ideas. The problem cannot be fixed by inventing ONE ideal situation and saying SEE YOU CAN JUST TALK TO HER and therefore I've SOLVED the social problem. You haven't solved shit. You've invented a scenario. I can adopt it and make my life better perhaps, but the whole world won't. So the problem actually remains. It's as dumb as saying see I can stop criminality by erasing criminals. Don't have criminals. See, we've solved it. We can solve public health issues by telling people to eat healthy food and exercise. Crisis averted. Put me in charge of the government and we won't even have problems anymore. I've got all the solutions: positive thoughts. We'd all be better off if every family had on average 2.5 children instead of the current 1.6, it'd be better. Poof, another problem fixed. You see how bringing up an ideal scenario does nothing? It would appear that you read my first sentence and nothing else. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:59 Alzadar wrote: It would appear that you read my first sentence and nothing else. No it was also an answer to the previous guy I had been arguing with, sorry for not making it clear. | ||
|
Onekobold
244 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:11 Scarecrow wrote: Condoms don't work 100% of the time. I don't think it's fair that the man can get tied down financially for such a long time but at the same time the woman's rights to her body and the kid's rights to a decent upbringing supersede the man's. It sucks but that's just the risk you take doing awesome sexy times. Yeah I can agree with that. If the man was taking reasonable measures to prevent conception bu it happens accidentally and the man isn't in a position to provide support.. Can you really force that on him? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 28 2014 04:04 Onekobold wrote: pretty sure that abstinence is the best way to not have a kid Really? I thought vasectomy was even better. And I can think of a few more effective methods too if the only goal is to avoid pregnancy. Point is that trying to avoid one possible outcome at any cost while ignoring the damage you cause along the way is silly. Worse, even if abstinence was a good idea, it would still be bad advice. That's because there are other methods of protection that are almost as effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies are far more likely to be followed by your intended audience. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On November 28 2014 02:32 Djzapz wrote: It's as dumb as saying see I can stop criminality by erasing criminals. Don't have criminals. More like 'Don't do crime'. General advice that is often given to people who want to stay out of jail. Does that mean that everyone who hasn't done crime hasn't ended up in jail? No, it doesn't mean that. When you establish a system of rules, most of the time people can get fucked over because of it, that's just a fact. Doesn't mean the general advice, or 'ideal situation' as you like to call it for no specific reason, has no value whatsoever. | ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
On November 28 2014 06:44 hypercube wrote: Really? I thought vasectomy was even better. And I can think of a few more effective methods too if the only goal is to avoid pregnancy. Point is that trying to avoid one possible outcome at any cost while ignoring the damage you cause along the way is silly. Worse, even if abstinence was a good idea, it would still be bad advice. That's because there are other methods of protection that are almost as effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies are far more likely to be followed by your intended audience. I wish a social trend would start that everyone person gets a vasectomy/tubes tied and just freezes their sperm/eggs and then only people who wants kids have them. I mean, the government would try to stifle that as quickly as possible since birth rates would nose dive and that's terribad for the economy | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 28 2014 07:52 Nebuchad wrote: More like 'Don't do crime'. General advice that is often given to people who want to stay out of jail. Does that mean that everyone who hasn't done crime hasn't ended up in jail? No, it doesn't mean that. When you establish a system of rules, most of the time people can get fucked over because of it, that's just a fact. Doesn't mean the general advice, or 'ideal situation' as you like to call it for no specific reason, has no value whatsoever. Yeah you can't regulate the shagging too much though. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
I think first and foremost I support the rights of the child to a decent life, and that his/her basic necessities outweigh the financial freedom of the father. But if the father has serious financial difficulties then he should get a break and instead the government would need to step in with regular payments. Also talking to your girlfriend and wearing a condom is helpful but the point is that they don't always work for various reasons already mentioned. I think the broader issue is that, even if the father made a mistake or wasn't intelligent enough to plan ahead, the question is whether the setup is fair in spite of the fact that an error was made. You don't fine people $10,000 for forgetting to buy a train ticket, for example. And certainly you can't expect all the people in the world to suddenly become intelligent enough to plan for these things in the ideal way, so you're forced to deal with the issue in a practical sense - is the 'punishment' fair? This type of question definitely needs to be answered in context and with specifics. Its hard to imagine how you assign a price to the well-being of a child; but in some countries that have very strong welfare programs, it may cost less for the father than in others. In all cases though I think I agree with hypercube that the rights of the child come first, up to a point (i.e. the father is in severe financial distress). | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
It also is sucky for men to be largely left out of the decision process. As with women, they made their choice when choosing to have sex, unprotected or otherwise. After that, however, women hold most of the power. Nevertheless, I choose to side with women again; it's just cleaner and overall more necessary. There is no middle ground, other than one that requires a lot of proving things, probably in court. My thinking here is that the woman and man would have to go to court and present arguments for/against abortion, keeping the baby, "financial abortion," and more, while proving whose life gets shafted worse by what decision. That's just so complicated it's easier to say, "suck it men, you have it easier than women in a lot of other ways." Of course that's not fundamentally fair, but nothing would be. I also say it's more necessary as women are generally more at risk. Consider a man who sleeps with 10 women, and a separate woman that sleeps with 10 men. Only the first set of people can result in 10 pregnancies. Also enter the typical "women have been historically disadvantaged," argument, as well as the fact that men put women on pedestals. The odds just are not in favor of men on this. The overall balance would be more skewed if it favored men, and if you tried to split it down the middle, the mess wouldn't be worth the attempt at fairness. p.s. that's not to say there isn't already law trying to split the issue down the middle to some degree, and I'm guessing it's quite complicated. The cost of child support is one of the simpler possible compromises. | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On November 27 2014 14:47 Djzapz wrote: However by far the biggest problem for me is that the woman gets to abort even if the man doesn't want her to. It's unavoidable, and there is no other way.... but now that is some proper suckage. And I think that the idea that your future child may be yanked from you and you as a man are 100% powerless against is a lot more fucked up than having to pay for a child that you facking made. The bottomline sadly is the following: You are fucked. You just are. Do what you can with what you're given and reduce your chances of being fucked by the unfortunate, unfair way of things (regarding this particular matter). Wrap your willy if you don't want kids (or get a vasectomy), and find a reliable smart woman who wants kids if you want them too. Long winded post, I rambled a little... Better than a lazy fucking one-liner from self-proclaimed moral authoritiahs. Good night Yes, I see a big problem with the specifics of enforcement as well. Thank you for taking the time to write your post, it is very much how I view the situation as well On November 28 2014 00:51 Haulvern wrote: This topic has come up a few times before but the OP did not put it across correctly. Some refer to it as a "financial abortion" . This is the breakdown and why people have had this discussion. The discussion is held in a controlled environment where a abortion or birth would NOT hurt the mother in any way and on the assumption that abortion is justified and legal under all circumstances. Children are conceived and born under four general circumstances. 1. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, both parties wish to keep the child. ----> Best case, happy ending. 2. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, neither parties want the baby. ----> Abortion, happy ending for both parties. Now comes the grey area. 3. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, women wishes to have the child, man doesn't ------> Man forced to pay child care. Now if the child was conceived by rape of the MAN, this is totally unethical and has just happened to a man in the states. Forced to pay for a child he has never met and was conceived when he was raped. Also what if the women for example lied about birth control? 4. Both people consent, women falls pregnant, man wishes to keep the child, women doesn't. ---------> Baby aborted, man left heart broken. Now of course in this situation, its the women choice if she keeps it and the man shouldn't have a say in it. However this leaves inequality between the sexes and is where the idea of the "finical abortion" comes in. Obviously NO WOMEN should be forced to have a abortion or give birth under ANY circumstances. The idea of a financial abortion, gives the man in scenario three a chance to opt out before the legal abortion limit. In this case he gives up all rights, becoming a sperm donor and will not have to pay child fees. This also allows a women to make a personal informed decision. In the real world things are more complex than this, I will not share my personal opinion this is just a larger rundown of the OP's main point. I hoped people would understand that this was my point, but I appreciate you notifying me that it was unclear. I admit it was a pretty lazy post, but the idea was really important and I just had to say something lol On November 28 2014 15:02 Ansinjunger wrote: I also say it's more necessary as women are generally more at risk. Consider a man who sleeps with 10 women, and a separate woman that sleeps with 10 men. Only the first set of people can result in 10 pregnancies. Also enter the typical "women have been historically disadvantaged," argument, as well as the fact that men put women on pedestals. . Doesn't this mean the man is more at risk, because this results in x10 alimony payments? I think you unknowingly crushed your own point | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On November 30 2014 09:29 firehand101 wrote: Yes, I see a big problem with the specifics of enforcement as well. Thank you for taking the time to write your post, it is very much how I view the situation as well I hoped people would understand that this was my point, but I appreciate you notifying me that it was unclear. I admit it was a pretty lazy post, but the idea was really important and I just had to say something lol Doesn't this mean the man is more at risk, because this results in x10 alimony payments? I think you unknowingly crushed your own point The guy can run out of money but not run out of sperm. In both scenarios, pregnancy still happens to women and is more than a minor inconvenience. More to the point, a parent raising a child is sacrificing a lot more than the cost of child support. Sorry for late response in a thread that was on its way to die, but my Internet was out since Friday morning. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:12 Mindcrime wrote: i think you posted this on the wrong forum http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights I subbed there for about a month. Those guys are just as bad or worse than the feminists. This topic is a tough one, there really isn't much you can do about it. So the only remedy is simply prevention and stack your odds in your favor before hand. IE; make sure she's on BC and taking it properly, make sure you condom, etc. However, an alternative solution would also to be to change the way the laws of divorce and child care are extremely biased towards the women and financially rape men. I understand that it's completely unfair as it is now, but there is logic behind why it is that way. It's vastly more important for a child to have a mother than a father. And women don't earn as much and aren't as agressive/assertive when it comes to making tough choices and taking risks. They generally play the safe route, which sometimes isn't helping their bad situation, so they need help. It's the ultimate in white knighting of society. Also the divorce industry isn't really about anything but money and raping both parties of their funds and overall makes everything worse. They can get away with this by the shitty laws they created since a lot of the judges are ex lawyers and have conflict of interests etc etc. Check out the docu Divorce Corp. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
