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

[Condunum]

Not according to anti-abortion activists. They would say irreparable harm has been done to a child. Look, Alternate-Universe Fartsniffage doesn't agree with you on that. He just uses the exact same arguments as you do to defend the status quo in his universe.

Except that if the woman doesn't want to step up, neither parent has to, as she can give the child up for adoption. And if states actually start cracking down on giving up kids for adoption without fingering a father and getting his consent, then we'll see women using the safe haven laws for that reason.

Your description simply has nothing to do with reality here, but what I'm focusing on here is your argument for why men should be held responsible. The simple fact is that when you're saying responsibilities are assigned at conception (or consent-to-become-a-parent), that's exactly a common anti-abortion argument; and that's the argument you're offering. You're saying that having sex means it's cool to burden you with life-changing obligations. This is what anti-abortion activists say.

But he's not saying that. He's saying responsibility is assigned at birth for the results of that birth, i.e. a child. That child has two parents and it has rights to two parents unless a child advocate chooses to exercise the rights of that child in another way. In the case of giving a child up for adoption, the state acts as the advocate and makes that choice. In the case of a paper abortion, no one is acting as the child advocate. No one is even taking the needs of the child into account. At all.

But you know this. And continually pretending that men should get to sever the rights of the child arbitrarily and without consequence is nonsensical. There is no comparable right that women have. None. Pretending that a real abortion is similar is ignorant and you know it.

Why are we pretending that a mother putting her child up for adoption against the wills of the father is somehow better than the father or mother waiving liability?

[Aurora Novus]

Which you're trying to perpetuate by the use of the term deadbeat dad.

Yes. I am.

If it's okay to use the term "Deadbeat dad", may I also use the term, "Irresponsible slut"?

[Llamalandia]

Which you're trying to perpetuate by the use of the term deadbeat dad.

Yes. I am.

Why no one here is to trying to perpetuate a stereotypic slur of women who abandon their children? Do you care about equal rights or women's rights?

[Dyakovo]

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."

Actually there was a court case which decided that if a man signed a document agreeing to pay child support even though he had no knowledge he wasn't the father at the time he's still liable for the payments. Kinda messed up isn't it.

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

[Ostroeuropa]

But he's not saying that. He's saying responsibility is assigned at birth for the results of that birth, i.e. a child. That child has two parents and it has rights to two parents unless a child advocate chooses to exercise the rights of that child in another way. In the case of giving a child up for adoption, the state acts as the advocate and makes that choice. In the case of a paper abortion, no one is acting as the child advocate. No one is even taking the needs of the child into account. At all.

But you know this. And continually pretending that men should get to sever the rights of the child arbitrarily and without consequence is nonsensical. There is no comparable right that women have. None. Pretending that a real abortion is similar is ignorant and you know it.

Why are we pretending that a mother putting her child up for adoption against the wills of the father is somehow better than the father or mother waiving liability?

Because of sexism, ofcourse. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck

[Llamalandia]

Yes. I am.

If it's okay to use the term "Deadbeat dad", may I also use the term, "Irresponsible slut"?

Of course not two wrongs =/= 1 right.

Also two schlongs don't make a baby.

[Jocabia]

You really want to make the argument that fatherhood carries the same social stigma as unmarried motherhood? Being a deadbeat dad maybe....

I would argue that being a deadbeat dad is more stigmatized than single motherhood, right now. And the "deadbeat dad" who never wanted to become a father in the first place has a place at the very center of the discussion on involuntary paternity... whether "deadbeat" is referring to being behind on child support payments, or absent from the mother & child's life. (I've heard the label and stigma applied, rightly or wrongly, to both situations...)

Regardless of whether he wanted to become a father, he became one. That is not true when an abortion occurs. He is a father. And the child has the right to support from both of its parents unless another party chooses to advocate for the child and determine it is in the best interest of the child to change the application of those rights. You keep trying to make a comparison by creating a contract that has NO equal in any case whatsoever.

Abortion does not amount to a contract on behalf of a child, because there is no child. A paper abortion ONLY applies in the case of a child. Who is the child advocate in the case of paper abortion? And don't say no child exist yet, because that's like saying I can sell a child into slavery provided it's prior to birth. The document you advocate for has no effect until a child exists. It is dependent on the existence of a child. It requires it. You can't discuss a contract determining the fate of a child's rights without a child advocate taking part.

[Llamalandia]

Actually there was a court case which decided that if a man signed a document agreeing to pay child support even though he had no knowledge he wasn't the father at the time he's still liable for the payments. Kinda messed up isn't it.

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

Yeah problem is i this case which I need to look up a link for if I recall correctly the guy was borderline retarded and didn't even understand what sex was mor did he have it with the woman as I recall.

[Tahar Joblis]

Not according to anti-abortion activists. They would say irreparable harm has been done to a child. Look, Alternate-Universe Fartsniffage doesn't agree with you on that. He just uses the exact same arguments as you do to defend the status quo in his universe.

Except that if the woman doesn't want to step up, neither parent has to, as she can give the child up for adoption. And if states actually start cracking down on giving up kids for adoption without fingering a father and getting his consent, then we'll see women using the safe haven laws for that reason.

Your description simply has nothing to do with reality here, but what I'm focusing on here is your argument for why men should be held responsible. The simple fact is that when you're saying responsibilities are assigned at conception (or consent-to-become-a-parent), that's exactly a common anti-abortion argument; and that's the argument you're offering. You're saying that having sex means it's cool to burden you with life-changing obligations. This is what anti-abortion activists say.

But he's not saying that. He's saying responsibility is assigned at birth for the results of that birth, i.e. a child.

For the results of that sex act. Because the sex act is what involves the father.

That child has two parents and it has rights to two parents unless a child advocate chooses to exercise the rights of that child in another way. In the case of giving a child up for adoption, the state acts as the advocate and makes that choice. In the case of a paper abortion, no one is acting as the child advocate. No one is even taking the needs of the child into account. At all.

Which is exactly what anti-abortion activists say about abortion. The main difference is that anti-abortion activists generally consider it to be a child back before birth, whereas you're waiting until it's born to call it a child. In both cases, you're saying that because you had sex with a person, you are obligated to the consequences of that.

I was actually a participant in an anti-abortion / paternal surrender thread here on NSG where a pro-choice poster accidentally energetically agreed with a pro-life poster because the former didn't realize the latter was talking about actual physical abortions, not "paper abortions," and the rhetoric was not terribly specific.

But you know this. And continually pretending that men should get to sever the rights of the child arbitrarily and without consequence is nonsensical. There is no comparable right that women have. None. Pretending that a real abortion is similar is ignorant and you know it.

There are, in fact, three comparable rights that women have to legal paternal surrender.

• The right to abortion is superior to, and therefore includes as a consequence, a right to voluntary maternity.
• The de facto right to give a child up for adoption regardless of the wishes of the father is a de facto right to voluntary maternity.
• Safe haven laws also provide an implicit right to voluntary maternity.

Legal parental surrender mitigates, rather than eliminating or reversing, the gap between men's and women's rights on this subject.

[Fartsniffage]

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

You've merely internalized the misandric arguments and sentiments. You don't hate males. You just oppress them. You're comfortable because you are a stereotype. You don't notice that those of us who aren't a stereotype are not happy with you and others forcing us to act like one or punishing us when we don't.
Cut it out.

I'd given up on this thread and was just reading through but I had to reply to this.

You're fucking hilarious. I'd say you were a troll at this point but I've been reading your schtick for long enough that I honestly think you believe it.

[Jocabia]

Yes. I am.

If it's okay to use the term "Deadbeat dad", may I also use the term, "Irresponsible slut"?

It's telling that you think "dad" and "slut" are equal terms.

[Aurora Novus]

Actually there was a court case which decided that if a man signed a document agreeing to pay child support even though he had no knowledge he wasn't the father at the time he's still liable for the payments. Kinda messed up isn't it.

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

Agreeing to a contract under false pretense should be illegal, and is in pretty much every other situation.

[Seriong]

What are MRA's arguing in favor of specifically? I don't know what their core tenants are.

You claim you're not like an MRA and you don't even know their platform follows The Traditional Roles you're preachy about.

Just. Wow.

You're not an MRA and yet you still make ignorant claims about its platform.

[Fartsniffage]

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

I'm getting the idea that you're hostile towards fathers because of personal experience.

My parents are still married and I have an extremely close relationship with both of them. Swing and a miss.

[Seriong]

Actually there was a court case which decided that if a man signed a document agreeing to pay child support even though he had no knowledge he wasn't the father at the time he's still liable for the payments. Kinda messed up isn't it.

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

So, if you're fed inaccurate information, with no legal way to find the correct information, it's still binding, because who cares about their rights?

[Fartsniffage]

Yes. I am.

Ok. So long as you admit it.

A prick is a prick. No need to sugar coat it.

[Ostroeuropa]

You've merely internalized the misandric arguments and sentiments. You don't hate males. You just oppress them. You're comfortable because you are a stereotype. You don't notice that those of us who aren't a stereotype are not happy with you and others forcing us to act like one or punishing us when we don't.
Cut it out.

I'd given up on this thread and was just reading through but I had to reply to this.

You're fucking hilarious. I'd say you were a troll at this point but I've been reading your schtick for long enough that I honestly think you believe it.

Nice to know you consistently managed to avoid my question before you left. I'm sure that's very intellectually honest of you.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes. I am.

Why no one here is to trying to perpetuate a stereotypic slur of women who abandon their children? Do you care about equal rights or women's rights?

Perhaps because the subject under discussion is fathers who don't want to pay towards the raising of their children?

[Llamalandia]

You've merely internalized the misandric arguments and sentiments. You don't hate males. You just oppress them. You're comfortable because you are a stereotype. You don't notice that those of us who aren't a stereotype are not happy with you and others forcing us to act like one or punishing us when we don't.
Cut it out.

I'd given up on this thread and was just reading through but I had to reply to this.

You're fucking hilarious. I'd say you were a troll at this point but I've been reading your schtick for long enough that I honestly think you believe it.

I assure you he's not a troll, just bit zealous about mra threads.

[Aurora Novus]

If it's okay to use the term "Deadbeat dad", may I also use the term, "Irresponsible slut"?

It's telling that you think "dad" and "slut" are equal terms.

In that context they are. "Deadbeat dad", or more specifically the "dad" part, refers to a guy who's a flirtatious vagabond, who simply sleeps around and doesn't take responsibility for what happens afterwards.

So if it's okay to call fathers who have sex, get women pregnant, and then don't take responsibility of the child "deadbeat dads", then surely it's okay for me to call mothers who have sex, get pregnant, and have an abortion "irresponsible sluts".

Curious though that for some reason that makes you uncomfortable. I wonder why you're so comfortable with the term "deadbeat dad"?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why no one here is to trying to perpetuate a stereotypic slur of women who abandon their children? Do you care about equal rights or women's rights?

Perhaps because the subject under discussion is fathers who don't want to pay towards the raising of their children?

No.
It's fathers no do not wish to be legally fathers. They wish to abandon all responsibility and rights to the child, just like women can. (Except currently, a woman can give up those rights for BOTH parents. This would allow them a way to do it for just themselves too.)

[Aurora Novus]

Why no one here is to trying to perpetuate a stereotypic slur of women who abandon their children? Do you care about equal rights or women's rights?

Perhaps because the subject under discussion is fathers who don't want to pay towards the raising of their children?

You mean like mothers who decide they aren't ready to be mothers and get abortions?

Wait a minute...

[Dyakovo]

The MRAs get their way if both genders follow Traditional Roles like you've decreed. Where's the difference?

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

[Fartsniffage]

I'd given up on this thread and was just reading through but I had to reply to this.

You're fucking hilarious. I'd say you were a troll at this point but I've been reading your schtick for long enough that I honestly think you believe it.

Nice to know you consistently managed to avoid my question before you left. I'm sure that's very intellectually honest of you.

There was no question in that post.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nice to know you consistently managed to avoid my question before you left. I'm sure that's very intellectually honest of you.

There was no question in that post.

Merely in a bunch of the other ones.