MRA's: Fighting for Men or Fighting Against Women?

[Shie]

I disagree with both Feminists and MRMs on all that they stand for. The notion that your natural rights are innate is silly and unfounded by reason.

They should both shut up and follow the traditional gender roles assigned to them, at least that's what you've preached in your threads.

Precisely, less bickering.

[Geilinor]

Why should they have to pay exactly.

They should pay because they had a direct role in the birth of that child.

A woman wouldn't have to if she decided to give the child to the state.

That shouldn't even be an option because that's a waste of funds.

Why are you so fucking terrified of letting men have the same option as a woman?

Men and women are not the same entities and for them to have the same options is a recipe for no accountability.

It's blatantly sexist, and it's baffling that this is acceptable in the modern era.

No, the MRA stance is blatantly sexist because it accepts abortion as a given.

Abortion is a given in the modern-day United States, UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

[Llamalandia]

No no. That's not what I said.

Whether intended or not, abortion gives women the ability to decide whether or not they want to be a parent, post-conception. Why do you not want men to also have this capability?

Answer my actual question, if you please.

Simple really. I see the reproductive process as being a complete thing, not separated into pre and post conception. The fact a woman has a bit longer to consider it is simply a product of biology.

Let me ask you this, if the baby popped into existence a few moments after conception, would you still be arguing for paper abortions? We live with the consequences of our choices. Don't like it? Get a vasectomy or don't have sex.

Hey abortion is terrible, don't want a kid? Get tubal ligation take the pill get an IUD use a diaphragm use a condom, use an emergency contraceptive, but hey no abortion for you. It's either both parents get to decide post conception or neither do if you truly want to claim equality between the cisgender sexes. (Sorry transpeople aren't really capable of the traditional sorts of reproduction relevant to this particular debate yet)

[Fartsniffage]

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

If MRAs really want this to stop then they should shut the fuck up about paper abortions and start fighting for free child care, higher pay for women, health insurance in part time job (stupid fucking US) and getting rid of at will employment so the mothers of these children can earn enough that they don't need the fathers income to raise the kid.

I don't see why there can't be all of those. Paper abortions, free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law. None of you people are thinking in your zeal to prove the other one wrong.

And once the rest is in place I wouldn't really have a problem with paper abortions. But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible. Fuck that.

[Aurora Novus]

Ahhh, yes. And the bigotry begins pouring out. Because wome--men exist only to raise children, right? Fuck wome--men who don't want to raise kids.

But go on, tell us what you really think. Fuck men, am I right?

Not so much. I tried fucking men but it really didn't do much for me so I stuck with women.

Oh you.

[Shie]

They should pay because they had a direct role in the birth of that child. That shouldn't even be an option because that's a waste of funds.
Men and women are not the same entities and for them to have the same options is a recipe for no accountability.

No, the MRA stance is blatantly sexist because it accepts abortion as a given.

Abortion is a given in the modern-day United States, UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

The amount of clinics are decreasing in America.

[Geilinor]

I don't see why there can't be all of those. Paper abortions, free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law. None of you people are thinking in your zeal to prove the other one wrong.

But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible.

That's not what I'm advocating. If this was a topic about child care or healthcare, I'd bring it up.

[Gauthier]

They should both shut up and follow the traditional gender roles assigned to them, at least that's what you've preached in your threads.

Precisely, less bickering.

And this makes you disagree with MRAs how?

[Tahar Joblis]

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

If MRAs really want this to stop then they should shut the fuck up about paper abortions and start fighting for free child care, higher pay for women, health insurance in part time job (stupid fucking US) and getting rid of at will employment so the mothers of these children can earn enough that they don't need the fathers income to raise the kid.

I don't see why there can't be all of those. Paper abortions, free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law. None of you people are thinking in your zeal to prove the other one wrong.

Well, personally, I've already endorsed free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law, but none of that will lead to the removal of involuntary legal paternity, which means I still need to advocate for that if I want anything to get done on it. And, frankly, welfare programs that specifically target mothers for support are in place in the US, and provide more support to single mothers than child support from involuntarily assigned fathers does.

And, in the US, the further policy complication is that child support to mothers on welfare goes straight to the state instead of to the mother, which reduces the father's ability to contribute less formally, meaning that even the policy of mandatory child support from guys who want to be fathers (but have no share of custody) backfires for those most in need, since it reduces the fathers' abilities to contribute informally (and a fair number of those want to contribute).

The status quo is all kinds of fucked up when it comes to paternity in the US, and it really can and should be addressed directly. We don't need to fix everything else first, and fixing everything else still won't fix this.

[Ostroeuropa]

Simple really. I see the reproductive process as being a complete thing, not separated into pre and post conception. The fact a woman has a bit longer to consider it is simply a product of biology.

Let me ask you this, if the baby popped into existence a few moments after conception, would you still be arguing for paper abortions? We live with the consequences of our choices. Don't like it? Get a vasectomy or don't have sex.

Hey abortion is terrible, don't want a kid? Get tubal ligation take the pill get an jus use a diaphragm use a condom, use an emergency contraceptive, but hey no abortion for you. It's either both parents get to decide post conception or neither do if you truly want to claim equality between the cisgender sexes. (Sorry transpeople aren't really capable of the traditional sorts of reproduction relevant to this particular debate yet)

Not to mention that this, again, completely fucking ignores that women can just lie and say they don't remember the father, then put the child unilaterally up for adoption.
Either he needs to come up with a solution to stop that, or he needs to give men an equivalent power to refuse parental responsibility.
This constant deflection is typical from these people who oppose LPS, and they never fucking answer this point.

Why are you so terrified of giving males the same power that females currently have?

[Kelinfort]

Simple really. I see the reproductive process as being a complete thing, not separated into pre and post conception. The fact a woman has a bit longer to consider it is simply a product of biology.

Let me ask you this, if the baby popped into existence a few moments after conception, would you still be arguing for paper abortions? We live with the consequences of our choices. Don't like it? Get a vasectomy or don't have sex.

Hey abortion is terrible, don't want a kid? Get tubal ligation take the pill get an IUD use a diaphragm use a condom, use an emergency contraceptive, but hey no abortion for you. It's either both parents get to decide post conception or neither do if you truly want to claim equality between the cisgender sexes. (Sorry transpeople aren't really capable of the traditional sorts of reproduction relevant to this particular debate yet)

Then paper abortions with increased childcare, healthcare, and state support. Easy.

[Fartsniffage]

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

You know what? Fuck unwilling mothers. The gals have the options to prevent the conception of a child, they didn't take them. Once the child is conceived then it requires a uterus to survive and that is the responsibility of the mother.

Gee, Misters Prime and Alternate Universe Fartsniffage, it doesn't seem fair to say that just because you don't use a condom, you should get smacked with involuntary obligations so serious. I mean, we're talking serious life-changing consequences, especially considering the knock-on effects of social stigmatization & crap like that.

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't see why there can't be all of those. Paper abortions, free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law. None of you people are thinking in your zeal to prove the other one wrong.

And once the rest is in place I wouldn't really have a problem with paper abortions. But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible. Fuck that.

So you do, in fact, support LPS.
Fine, great. Congratulations on no longer being a part of the problem.

[The Lone Alliance]

They have some things right but some things wrong.

I have no stance on them, I have no interest in aiding them and I have no interest in condemning them, though I find the fact that they're either pissing off or scaring SJW and Radfems simply by existing amusing.

[Llamalandia]

I don't see why there can't be all of those. Paper abortions, free child care, higher pay, better health insurance, and change in employment law. None of you people are thinking in your zeal to prove the other one wrong.

And once the rest is in place I wouldn't really have a problem with paper abortions. But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible. Fuck that.

So what tax everyone else to subsidize women who obviously aren't ready to be mother, just cause they want kids? Yeah, I'm kinda ok with that. As long as its capped at some point, can't have people having like twelve kids and dumping that all the govt.

[Shie]

Precisely, less bickering.

And this makes you disagree with MRAs how?

I'm arguing against the rights they assign to themselves arbitrarily. I don't think the government should enforce the will of MRAs or Feminists.

[Geilinor]

Gee, Misters Prime and Alternate Universe Fartsniffage, it doesn't seem fair to say that just because you don't use a condom, you should get smacked with involuntary obligations so serious. I mean, we're talking serious life-changing consequences, especially considering the knock-on effects of social stigmatization & crap like that.

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

A paper abortion could be had even before the child is born.

[Dyakovo]

It doesn't address the problem. It gives males a parallel power that females have.
If a woman isn't married and doesn't wanna be a parent and gives birth, she can lie and just put the child up for adoption unilaterally.
A male has no such opt-out of parenting.
LPS would provide males that option, and in addition, would mean the females would not need to lie about the father and could name him, but then use LPS.

Without LPS, females may be forced into an abortion to protect their financial interests. Or they may forcefully seperate a child from it's willing father, etc.
It's a societal good to provide LPS, and provides females more options as well as males. As it currently stands, they may be forced into abortions or forced to "Orphan" their child in order to protect their financial interest from the male who could sue for child support, etc.

As for the courts, someone else can probably grab the relevant links soon enough. (I'm a bit busy. Sorry.)

Question. Is child support in the US based on the names of the parents on the birth certificate?

Yes. If you assert on a legal document that you are one of the parents of the child, then legally you're one of the parents.

[Kelinfort]

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

A paper abortion could be had even before the child is born.

Taht would make sense, as it gives both parties the same amount of time for an actual abortion.

[Llamalandia]

Gee, Misters Prime and Alternate Universe Fartsniffage, it doesn't seem fair to say that just because you don't use a condom, you should get smacked with involuntary obligations so serious. I mean, we're talking serious life-changing consequences, especially considering the knock-on effects of social stigmatization & crap like that.

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

Again that's fine if both parties have for knowledge of the child and have an opt out (ie abortion for women, paper abortion for men). Post partum it may be fair to say the calculus us changes I can concur with that.

[Gauthier]

And this makes you disagree with MRAs how?

I'm arguing against the rights they assign to themselves arbitrarily.

Which are the rights given to men in the traditional roles you're itching for them to follow. Again, what makes you different from the MRAs?

[Ostroeuropa]

A paper abortion could be had even before the child is born.

Taht would make sense, as it gives both parties the same amount of time for an actual abortion.

My view is de-facto LPS.

The child is born. The birth certificate is offered, and both parents can say

"mmm... nah, i wont sign."

The child is born without legal parents. Only by signing the document do you become the parents. Once signed, the child is yours, and you cannot simply walk away. You now have a responsibility to it.
Unless you can prove you signed under false pretenses I guess, like if the child isn't biologically yours, or the mother signed expecting the father to, then he said "Nah."

[Jocabia]

Simple really. I see the reproductive process as being a complete thing, not separated into pre and post conception. The fact a woman has a bit longer to consider it is simply a product of biology.

Let me ask you this, if the baby popped into existence a few moments after conception, would you still be arguing for paper abortions? We live with the consequences of our choices. Don't like it? Get a vasectomy or don't have sex.

Hey abortion is terrible, don't want a kid? Get tubal ligation take the pill get an IUD use a diaphragm use a condom, use an emergency contraceptive, but hey no abortion for you. It's either both parents get to decide post conception or neither do if you truly want to claim equality between the cisgender sexes. (Sorry transpeople aren't really capable of the traditional sorts of reproduction relevant to this particular debate yet)

I agree. We need exact equality. Therefore, when women die in pregnancy, we must kill the men who got them pregnant. If she ends up with a scar, he gets a scar. If she can't drink while pregnant, neither can he.

Or maybe, that would be a stupid and ridiculous attempt to pretend like the biology of pregnancy and birth doesn't exist. You can't fix the difference in the male and female roles in gestation with a piece of paper.

And that's not even getting into the rights of the child once born, which the paper abortion doesn't address and a real abortion doesn't have to address.

[Edlichbury]

Who doesn't care about rape victims, and why do you keep implying it?

I don't why Edlich keeps coming back to paper abortions and rape.

So please quote a single fucking time I mentioned paper abortions because I haven't. Meanwhile, I keep coming back to rape because of the admission by Ostro, who apparently is an expert on MRAs and a great supporter but totally not one, that MRAs don't care about female victims of rape so long as the attacker is male and his initial comment that he cares about female victims of rape provided that they have female attackers, a comment which he decided to clarify only after others noted the implication.

But hey, sue me for giving a damn about female rape victims unlike - again according to the expert Ostro - MRAs.

[Aurora Novus]

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

I do believe good sir that the growing entity in the mother's womb is distinctly harmed by being killed.

The difference is, you're willing to end a life in support of a mother's rights, but you're not willing to mildly incovinience society with some taxes in support of a father's rights. Because fuck fathers, right? All they do is just sleep around and walk out on their ki--their "responsibilities", yeah yeah. That's the ticket. Think of the ki--your responsibilities.


The is the same trotted out argument with a new face. "Think of the children" is one of the worst fucking crocks of bullshit ever thought up by bigots.