This double standard on "Pro-Choice" has always bugged me (i.imgur.com)

MensRights

1382 ups - 477 downs = 905 votes

166 comments submitted at 22:27:15 on Jan 25, 2014 by ANum8

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 124 Points
  • 23:45:51, 25 January

The idea of "getting" a woman pregnant is a fallacy--unless you rape a woman against her will and then keep her away from any opportunity to receive an abortion, she is consenting to pregnancy by remaining pregnant. She has contraception, the morning-after pill, RU-486 (the abortion pill) in certain regions, and surgical abortions once the fetus is too large for an effective pharmaceutical abortion procedure. And that's just during the pregnancy--she can also choose to give the baby up for adoption, leave the child with social services at any point, or even just abandon the child at registered "Safe Havens" whenever she likes, free of legal complications.

At NO point either before, during, or after pregnancy is the woman ever NOT in control of her reproductive choice. Sure, republicans are trying to get rid of abortion, but that's a moral/religious stance which need not be shared by all. So long as women's organizations keep up the fight, women will continue to have complete and sole control over their reproductive choice.

So what about men?

  • [-]
  • khanyewest
  • 71 Points
  • 00:30:05, 26 January

This is an argument that doesn't have an alternative, though. Start with the premise that if a woman is pregnant and does not wish to be pregnant, then she should have other options. A reasonable position, considering the dangers of pregnancy, the damage done to the body, and the fact that no human being has a right to your your body for nine months. If you disagree with that, that's another debate entirely.

So, if a woman is pregnant and doesn't wish to be pregnant, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy. A man will never have this problem. Sure, he has all of the problems that come with children after birth - supporting, raising, sacrificing. But if a woman wants to end her pregnancy, biology wins. A man cannot take over the pregnancy for her. That's the real issue: a fetus is tied to the woman. It follows that the reproductive rights of the woman take precedence over the man - before birth. A man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, nor can he forbid her to, because the fetus is latched to her body, not his.

After birth, there should be an "opt-out" for both the man and the woman. But prior to birth it would be cruel to give men rights over a fetus that would subsequently give them rights over a woman's body.

  • [-]
  • Megazor
  • 39 Points
  • 01:34:42, 26 January

The only logical step is to keep the same rights for women and also enable opt out for men.

The choice is hers if she wants to be a single mother.

  • [-]
  • Giyika
  • 42 Points
  • 02:53:41, 26 January

I am a big proponent of the 'financial abortion'

  • [-]
  • IOIOOIIOIO
  • 13 Points
  • 04:46:02, 26 January

Using that phrase needlessly puts a person's right to choose when and whether they'll become a parent into conflict with a woman's right to choose when and whether she'll abort/gestate a fetus.

The right to choose (not) to be a parent should not be conflated with abortion rights. It only confuses the issue and makes it seem like it's impossible to be pro-choice and pro-reproductive-equality at the same time.

  • [-]
  • Giyika
  • 9 Points
  • 05:30:54, 26 January

There's no conflict. Have the kid or not, but both parties should get a choice

  • [-]
  • IOIOOIIOIO
  • 3 Points
  • 05:54:49, 26 January

That is my point. There is no reason we cannot achieve equality in parental rights.

Calling it 'financial abortion' invites people to argue with you about abortion rights (which are irrelevant) rather than keeping the focus on fixing inequalities in parental rights.

  • [-]
  • Giyika
  • 3 Points
  • 06:14:42, 26 January

I'm not interested in a semantics argument

  • [-]
  • pauselaugh
  • 3 Points
  • 07:05:03, 26 January

You started a semantics argument by referring to a tangential issue with a term "in quotes" meaning "i'm saying this but it means something else."

Abortion has zero to do with 'the right to be a parent.'

They're separate issues completely, conflating them actually disservices your argument.

Again, you will not convince anyone that your impregnation of a woman somehow gives you a special right to not be responsible for the child, because she didn't terminate it or otherwise absolve herself of responsibility for it.

  • [-]
  • IOIOOIIOIO
  • 2 Points
  • 07:02:56, 26 January

Then you should avoid misleading sloganing like 'financial abortion'.

Again. That is my point.

  • [-]
  • Giyika
  • 1 Points
  • 08:08:10, 26 January

Nothing misleading about it. You understand completely what it means and the similarities between the abortions make it clear

  • [-]
  • IAmAJerkAME
  • 1 Points
  • 07:03:47, 26 January

So call it, "Postnatal Abnegation".

  • [-]
  • IOIOOIIOIO
  • 0 Points
  • 08:24:44, 26 January

How about don't reference pregnancy/abortion at all?

I.e., a man has no authority to force parenthood on a woman because that would violate the right of every person's to choose (not) to be a parent.

All that who gestates the fetus, biological inequality, bodily autonomy, medical privacy, et all. business has ZERO interaction with this argument. Reverse the genders and nothing significant about the logic changes.

  • [-]
  • pauselaugh
  • -2 Points
  • 07:01:52, 26 January

Sure, I should get a choice over if a woman grows my child inside of her? Uhhh, no.

  • [-]
  • generalchase
  • 3 Points
  • 07:36:17, 26 January

Not what was said. What was said if a man doesn't want to be a father he should have the right to walk away from all parental responsibilities. Like a woman can at anytime.

  • [-]
  • jman4220
  • 1 Points
  • 06:23:17, 26 January

While I agree, that phrase just tastes awful. Haha.

  • [-]
  • hermes369
  • 3 Points
  • 04:47:12, 26 January

Or. You could marry someone it turns out never loved you in the first place, make her "choice" and divorce you, and retain primary custody because you don't earn as much as she does, or haven't won the uterine lottery such that you don't have to worry about things like car payments, mortgages, gas, cell phone bills, and on and on.

I'm just bitter.

I will say there is a difference between a woman choosing to abort an entity that relies solely on her for it's existence and a guy, presented with a breathing human, co-created by him, and his saying, you know what? Fuck it.

I don't know, maybe mandatory child support for however long was the gestational period? Some things in life just aren't fair. What I'd like is a birth control pill for men. It'd be really interesting to see how the feminists would respond to that.

  • [-]
  • Grapeban
  • -24 Points
  • 01:43:00, 26 January

Though if she does choose to be a single mother, I'm sure MRAs will be there to remind her that all social ills can be traced by to fatherless children.

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 19 Points
  • 02:10:42, 26 January

Hey--personal accountability doesn't stop at pregnancy; if people want to be parents, that doesn't mean you can't call them bad parents. And if people choose to have kids when they clearly don't have the resources, maturity, or desire to raise those kids appropriately, it's totally fair to call those irresponsible people out on it.

What a financial abortion should be about is a way for a man to disagree with a woman about keeping an accidental pregnancy without, as khanyewest said up above, forcing the woman to submit her reproductive choice to the man. If an accidental pregnancy occurs, a woman has the right to keep that pregnancy or terminate it--full stop. But that doesn't mean that a man should then have to give up HIS reproductive choice to HER. It may be that the two are a loving couple and he will stay with her and choose to raise the child together; it may be that it was a drunken hookup and he barely knows the mother, so staying with her might be undesirable for a number of reasons. His choice should be to opt-in or opt-out.

Now, a wrinkle comes in when SHE wants to terminate the pregnancy but HE doesn't; at that point, as khanye points out, biology trumps parental desire and a woman cannot be forced to carry a fetus to term for someone else against her wishes. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't come to some arrangement, say that she would carry the baby to term in exchange for financial support in the same way surrogates have babies for couples who can't conceive. That can all be hashed out individually, and I'm all for bodily and reproductive rights, but those rights and those choices should not require the involvement of others, backed by legal and police action to force compliance (or punishment for non-compliance).

  • [-]
  • jonserry
  • 1 Points
  • 09:13:40, 26 January

Okay I have a question/comment and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but when two people have sex they're acknowledging the chance of pregnancy. They both should realize that if he doesn't pull out in time, or the condom breaks, etc.. That the woman could get pregnant. So I think that makes each equally accountable if she gets pregnant. And I know I wouldn't want to give a portion of my paycheck to a child I didn't want for 18 years but I think that's A LOT different than asking a woman to kill her child (I'm pro choice but I mean after 22 days it has a heartbeat and I consider that a person so as much as she has a right to choose. After that she is choosing to abort a life). And then if she doesn't want to do that you leaving her hanging when you went into having sex with her knowing it was a possibility. I don't get how that's really unfair.

Maybe that's not a question but I don't get it

  • [-]
  • Grapeban
  • -16 Points
  • 02:17:57, 26 January

No, but we shouldn't force a man to give up thing for a mother. However, we should force a man to give up a certain amount of his wealth for the child he created. Because a child in society requires support, and that support can come from the parents or the state. I'd be happy to substitute the state for the father, but I can tell you have seen many, many MRAs who are vehemently opposed to that idea.

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 14 Points
  • 02:45:26, 26 January

> No, but we shouldn't force a man to give up thing for a mother. However, we should force a man to give up a certain amount of his wealth for the child he created.

contradicts

> Because a child in society requires support, and that support can come from the parents or the state.

Who do you think will "force" men to give up their income for children they don't want and didn't consent to having? Unicorns? No--the state.

So either way, you're looking at state intervention into the lives of others; only with giving reproductive choice to men, you are making state intervention a passive force rather than an active thief. Men who opt out of fatherhood can still pay their taxes, and the burden of children can be disbursed among the entire taxpaying structure, lessening the impact on any individual's pocketbook. That increases the earning power and potential of that man, thereby increasing the wealth and resources the state can use (hopefully) to take care of the mother's bad choices.

Her responsibility is her own, his responsibility his; he isn't forced to personally finance her bad decisions, and she isn't obliged to use the state as a collection agency to garnish his wages or throw him in prison if he can't afford to cough up enough money. The custody collection racket is a terrible source of corruption and graft; the custody officials meddle in family affairs because they can skim the profits for their own coffers, the courts increase litigiousness to fund their own vampiric existence, the prison system amps up the pressure to pay so that they can fill the jails with slave labor that they don't have to pay to make our cheap goods, and the military rewards those for-profit prison systems with sweetheart contracts so that our fighting men and women can go into battle with the best equipment slave labor has to offer. Yep. That's the system you're championing. Are you sure you want to keep that position?

  • [-]
  • TheEthicalMan
  • 6 Points
  • 02:12:56, 26 January

> I'm sure MRAs will be there to remind her that all social ills can be traced by to fatherless children.

What a bizarre presumption. Advocating letting boys be boys has nothing to do with the genders of the parents or the presence of a father, and that still wouldn't be a prescription for "all social ills."

Just bizarre.

  • [-]
  • HeNeverLies4
  • -22 Points
  • 02:47:33, 26 January

That makes no sense considering men cannot give birth. Rules in the work place should be unisex. Not child bearing laws.

That's like saying when the mother of your child goes in to labor you should receive the same treatment she does. The premise is ridiculous.

  • [-]
  • palmer_amaranth
  • 5 Points
  • 03:27:46, 26 January

Right, because pregnancy is something that happens to a woman. Not one single woman ever consented to sex in world history.

Not every guy wants to be a father. Imagine if he could make that known in no uncertain terms in time for the woman to get an abortion should she so choose. Even better, imagine if the government got a clue and realized that paying for abortion cost less than welfare.

Did you know that crime correlate strongly with poverty? And that single parenthood correlates strongly with poverty? Meaning that single parenthood correlates strongly with crime? The relationship isn't precisely causative. It's more like it requires a combination of things in order to have any measurable causative effect. But, what if we could make a big dent in one of the big factors? What if we could significant reduce single parenthood?

The fact that so many obvious and cheaply implemented solutions to crime and overpopulation are cast aside because dumbasses like you can't get past your prejudices is going to be the death of civilization in under 200 years. Who gives a fuck if it's the same treatment so long as it improves society? Fucking idiots, that's who.

I've really got to stop paying attention to this shit. Nobody wants a better future anymore. They just want to be "right".

  • [-]
  • AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT
  • 11 Points
  • 02:57:36, 26 January

Not following your thought process at all. Care to elaborate?

It feels like you're saying men shouldn't have rights, in /r/MensRights.

  • [-]
  • HeNeverLies4
  • -11 Points
  • 03:01:54, 26 January

I'm saying you are asking to be treated equally with women. Not fairly. They bear the children for 9 months and go through hell and pain that we will never know. I believe they should have the right to do with it what they please.

  • [-]
  • sweetcrosstatbro
  • 7 Points
  • 03:18:15, 26 January

Nobody is disagreeing with that. They are saying that a man should be able to financially abort meaning take no financial responsibility for the mother and child.

  • [-]
  • rthanu
  • -6 Points
  • 04:50:37, 26 January

A horrible idea really.

  1. It's basically an attempt to coerce an abortion

  2. Men could opt out and incur the same benefit of having a biological offspring with no investment other than having sex. This is a hugely abusable situation that trumps any injustice of a financial penalty for living with the exact outcome sex is existing for.

Yes it is a double standard but it has to be. I'm pro choice, but we all have to live with the fact that having sex means that there has to be an acceptance and expectation that a child could result from the act. The natural course is to let the embryo develop, but the woman can choose to prevent it from using her as a host to develop. That is and should be the only reproductive decision that can be made. It has nothing to do with men's rights. 3.

  • [-]
  • luxury_banana
  • 4 Points
  • 05:20:53, 26 January

It's only to be seen as an "attempt to coerce an abortion" if you believe women are entitled to men's income and you admit your feminist ideology that women are "strong and independent and don't need no man" is 100% bullshit. Any way you cut it, the current status quo is special treatment under the law as women have plenty of legal rights men do not.

>Men could opt out and incur the same benefit of having a biological offspring with no investment other than having sex. This is a hugely abusable situation that trumps any injustice of a financial penalty for living with the exact outcome sex is existing for.

Sounds a lot like government handouts for women who have children they cannot afford, but let me guess: It's somehow, conveniently acceptable in that case. Again, this is special pleading. Equal or even equivalent rights under the law are alien to you, it seems.

These non-arguments are old hat. Get a new trick.

  • [-]
  • rthanu
  • -3 Points
  • 06:06:15, 26 January

A woman is not entitled to the income, but the child is. If the woman allows the embryo to develop into a child, it is the legal responsibility of the biological parents to provide for the child, it's as simple as that. We do have equal rights. Mother and Father both are responsible for the child. Men also have the right to disallow an embryo from developing into a child. Edit Apologies. My point being that men and women have parallel rights to not let an embryo use the parent's body directly to grow itself into a child.

Feminism what? Way to attribute something about me that I did not even come close to insinuating. You want to follow rules of logic, do not infer the uninferrable please.

As for government handouts, they are intended to exist for the child not the mother. Whether they are abused is a different argument altogether.

  • [-]
  • Ding_batman
  • 3 Points
  • 07:04:09, 26 January

>we all have to live with the fact that having sex means that there has to be an acceptance and expectation that a child could result from the act.

Both men and women live with this possibility, but only women have the opportunity to opt out if a pregnancy occurs. I am pro-choice. Both women and men should have a choice as to whether they want to be a parent or not.

  • [-]
  • rthanu
  • 1 Points
  • 07:17:36, 26 January

If a woman gives birth to the child and the state recognizes both the father and mother of the child as such, then she does NOT have the right to chose not to be a parent to the child. The exception being both the mother and the father chose to simultaneously give up the rights to being a parent and pass responsibility to the state or another party.

She only has the right to not allow it to physically feed on her. This is an important distinction that can be treated differently than financial support by the law. We have equal rights in both of these manners.

  • [-]
  • SwordfshII
  • 1 Points
  • 08:14:54, 26 January

>I'm pro choice, but we all have to live with the fact that having sex means that there has to be an acceptance and expectation that a child could result from the act.

So women don't realize this? Takes two to tango or hump.

> The natural course is to let the embryo develop, but the woman can choose to prevent it from using her as a host to develop.

But men can't prevent the mom/baby from using him as a money host?

> That is and should be the only reproductive decision that can be made. It has nothing to do with men's rights. 3.

No. Just no.

  • [-]
  • MisterHousey
  • 13 Points
  • 03:04:33, 26 January

and men should have the right to not provide, if they don't want to.

  • [-]
  • Megazor
  • 3 Points
  • 03:34:44, 26 January

No say-no pay!

Pretty much self explanatory.

  • [-]
  • SwordfshII
  • 1 Points
  • 08:12:24, 26 January

Isn't feminism all about equality.... Not fairness?

Women preach equality, and on this issue MRA would be happy to have it (also on custody, draft, CS... Infact most things)

  • [-]
  • SwordfshII
  • 1 Points
  • 08:06:08, 26 January

The "dangers" of pregnancy are less than the danger of a cold out the flu... Seriously look up the death rates if you don't believe me

  • [-]
  • Arakin
  • -17 Points
  • 03:09:56, 26 January

This post is so full of nonsense it's like impossible to find somewhere to start. Your premises are all fucked, your conclusions are completely false...it's like did you just step out of logic 101's first two weeks of class?

  • [-]
  • khanyewest
  • 2 Points
  • 04:25:03, 26 January

Which part do you not agree with? It's pretty clear: men cannot have control over a fetus while it is still attached to and dependent on a woman's body. If a woman wants to keep a child and a man wants her to have an abortion, he's exerting his control over her uterus. And if a woman wants to have an abortion and a man wants her to keep the child, he's also exerting his control over her uterus.

Sucks but hey we can make babies in test tubes now so once that's mass produced you won't need a partner anyway.

  • [-]
  • microActive
  • -2 Points
  • 04:26:47, 26 January

good points, lots of adjectives

  • [-]
  • unkleman
  • 1 Points
  • 07:33:35, 26 January

> Sure, republicans are trying to get rid of abortion

I am pretty sure most of the world has regulations on abortions, only in America does that mean you "war" against women.

  • [-]
  • SpazticLawnGnome
  • 2 Points
  • 07:34:44, 26 January

With this logic aren't men also consenting to a pregnancy by having sex? Because that's what the purpose of having sex is, to reproduce.

  • [-]
  • karma_horror
  • 2 Points
  • 08:23:18, 26 January

I have had sex many times and never with the purpose of reproducing

  • [-]
  • jonserry
  • 1 Points
  • 09:15:20, 26 January

Okay I have a question/comment and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but when two people have sex they're acknowledging the chance of pregnancy. They both should realize that if he doesn't pull out in time, or the condom breaks, etc.. That the woman could get pregnant. So I think that makes each equally accountable if she gets pregnant. And I know I wouldn'twantto give a portion of my paycheck to a child I didn't want for 18 years but I think that's A LOT different than asking a woman to kill her child (I'm pro choice but I mean after 22 days it has a heartbeat and I consider that a person so as much as she has a right to choose. After that she is choosing to abort a life). And then if she doesn't want to do that you leaving her hanging when you went into having sex with her knowing it was a possibility. I don't get how that's really unfair. > Maybe that's not a question but I don't get it

  • [-]
  • Bandit_Queen
  • -1 Points
  • 05:12:06, 26 January

Condoms, vasectomies, sodomy, outercourse, and abstinence. There's actually a bigger stigma against women who decide to abort, and the majority of people in this generally religious, non-liberal world are against it. If your sexual partner becomes pregnant, it's both yours and your partner's financial and moral responsibility, unless she decides to give the child up for adoption. You'd be selfish if you decide to make the taxpayers cover for you, and inhumane to let your and your partner's poor reckless decisions affect an innocent child's life, your own biological child. Men and women should have equal rights, but they're still two very different groups of people. This is not a fair equivalent comparison.

TL;DR: Quit trying to make excuses to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of your and your partner's actions, and stop trying to redirect fault to solely on women and society.

The primary purpose of sex is to procreate, so a one-night stand resulting in a baby should not be a surprise. Every man is fully aware that there is a likely chance that his partner will keep the baby if she falls pregnant long before having sex. Be a man or remain a boy and don't have sex. People with your way of thinking shouldn't have sex.

  • [-]
  • Ding_batman
  • 3 Points
  • 06:43:54, 26 January

And here we have it.

>The primary purpose of sex is to procreate

Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. I can guarantee most of the times people have sex is for enjoyment. No wonder your argument is so screwy. I mean as far as I know the only places that believe "There's actually a bigger stigma against women who decide to abort...", are the same places that believe "The primary purpose of sex is to procreate...".

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 4 Points
  • 06:10:25, 26 January

> Condoms, vasectomies, sodomy, outercourse, and abstinence.

...none of which address my point, which is that in the case of accidental pregnancy, men should have the right to decide NOT to be legally obligated to provide for the pregnancy and resulting child that they did not consent to have. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy or child-rearing, for men or for women.

> There's actually a bigger stigma against women who decide to abort.

Whose stigma is bigger? Does that really matter?

> If your sexual partner becomes pregnant, it's both yours and your partner's financial and moral responsibility, unless she decides to give the child up for adoption.

No--you didn't read my post, and your passive language betrays your unwillingness to address my ideas. Sexual partners don't magically "become" pregnant, either one or both partners disrupt prophylactics (birth control methods), or those prophylactics fail, or both partners are not using prophylactics. At that point, STAYING pregnant is ENTIRELY the woman's choice. So why should the man be dragged along if he doesn't choose to be a father? If the woman has the right at any point before, during and after pregnancy to decide not to be a mother free of legal complications, why can't the man decide the same?

> You'd be selfish if you decide to make the taxpayers cover for you

Misguided, and economically unsound; technically, it would be MORE selfish to make a SINGLE SOLITARY man pay the entire sum of support a child would need as opposed to the highly disbursed micro-payments a whole taxpayer population would need to support that child. Why bankrupt ONE MAN ALONE when you would only need pennies a day from a whole country? Bankrupt one man, you make THREE people reliant on government aid; use taxes, you make three people--the man, who can be productive and pay taxes; the mother, who has enough support to raise her child and/or work; and the child, who has enough resources to grow into a productive adult--productive members of society. Who's the selfish one in this equation again?

> and inhumane to let your and your partner's poor reckless decisions affect an innocent child's life, your own biological child.

Emotional appeal. Sure, it might be a bad idea to let your poor, reckless partner have a child, but is that YOUR problem or HERS? After all, she IS an adult, right? She CAN make her own decisions, right? If she's a perpetual adolescent to be coddled, I could understand sacrificing everything you have to make sure you protect her from herself, but let's not abandon feminism just yet; maybe SHE HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN BAD DECISIONS. Of course, you could always petition for custody, but society frowns on males as primary caretakers of children. I guess that childish reckless idiot of a woman will have to do, eh?

> Men and women should have equal rights, but they're still two very different groups of people.

[citation needed] I hear this all the time--men and women are just so different! How? Men have penises, women have vaginas; women gestate babies, men grow big muscles and their head hair sometimes falls out. Men are slightly taller and women slightly shorter. Other than those barely noticeable physical differences, men and women are both people, both conscious and rational individuals who should be held accountable for their decisions. To say that one group should be held accountable for the decisions of another group is to say that one group is either responsible FOR that other group, or that it is enslaved to that group. Are men supposed to be responsible for women, or are they enslaved to women? Those are your options, because you're arguing to take away men's fundamental right to reproductive choice, the choice NOT to be involved in a pregnancy over which they have NO control. They CANNOT choose, but they are still obligated to serve. What gives?

  • [-]
  • karma_horror
  • 1 Points
  • 08:56:44, 26 January

I like you. This makes a lot of sense. Honestly, I'm embarrassed to admit that I had never put much thought into this beyond "it's so unfair". I accepted this fate because of biological differences. Although a male pill doesn't directly address any of your above points, practically speaking it would go a long way towards giving men more control over their situation, before things "heat up". I really thought one would be available by now.

I'm an imperfect man, and few things in this world scare me more than getting a call from a near-stranger months after the fact to be informed that I've essentially been used as a sperm donor and will soon be used as a long-term financial donor. I realize that many apparently better people than myself would consider me to be an idiot for not always taking perfect measures, saying I'm too irresponsible to be having sex. That, however, is as realistic and practical as preaching abstinence to teenagers.

You're right though, there is a better (re: more fair) way.

  • [-]
  • pauselaugh
  • 0 Points
  • 07:00:33, 26 January

Getting a woman pregnant is a fallacy? Semantics much?

I'm pretty sure if my sperm impregnated her, that is what is referred to as "getting her pregnant."

I ask you, yes, so what about men? Try not to sound completely ridiculous when trying to state that a man has a right to something growing inside of a woman simply because they started the biological chain reaction.

  • [-]
  • advicevice
  • -3 Points
  • 05:16:24, 26 January

The father has the right to take the child if the mother doesn't want it. You seem to have forgotten that point.

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 11 Points
  • 05:53:30, 26 January

Not necessarily--some court decisions have actually sided with Child Protective Services over fathers or not even bothered to inform a parent of his possible custody options upon the loss of the mother as a viable custodial parent.

But even without those exceptions, I'm not forgetting anything; but you're impugning that somehow I'm not being honest and logical by wanting men to have the same opt-out options as women. If men want to opt out, they probably want to opt out--unlike Disney movies and Tumblr posts, actual men sometimes want to be parents and sometimes don't. Nobody should be forcing men to be fathers any more than we should be forcing women to be mothers.

  • [-]
  • advicevice
  • -4 Points
  • 06:42:30, 26 January

That's not the way it works and there is no logical alternative. There's four options after the child is born:

1 Mother wants baby, Father wants baby

2 Mother wants baby, Father doesn't want baby

3 Mother doesn't want baby, Father wants baby

4 Mother doesn't want baby, Father doesn't want baby

If the parents don't agree, one of them is on the hook for raising it and the other child support. The only reason you're whining is the father doesn't have the option of abortion, of which there is no logical alternative. You can't make a woman bring a baby to term any more than you can force her to abort it.

Bitch about fairness all you want, this is life. It isn't fair.

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 4 Points
  • 06:56:28, 26 January

Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we should not seek to INCREASE fairness, or simply randomly DECREASE fairness for any particular group purely out of pique. If we're really going to say there's "no logical alternatives" to men having to consent to pregnancy, then why can women, who actually have to gestate the fetus, simply abandon their responsibilities whenever they choose? Surely women, as biologically connected to having a baby as one can get, should be more "on the hook" for supporting that baby than someone whose entire undertaking in the realm of pregnancy was a single shot of jizz. Right?

> The only reason you're whining is the father doesn't have the option of abortion, of which there is no logical alternative.

Wrong: legal paternal surrender.

  • [-]
  • advicevice
  • -3 Points
  • 07:04:08, 26 January

Oh, I get it, you're retarded.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -2 Points
  • 05:33:45, 26 January

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 7 Points
  • 05:49:10, 26 January

...and lo and behold, there is immediate and vociferous political pushback any time anti-abortion legislation comes up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WendyDavis(politician)#2013_filibuster

Like I said, so long as women's groups and pro-women's rights individuals keep doing their job, women will continue to have complete and sole reproductive choice. But it's ACTUALLY dishonest to say that in order for women to have complete and sole reproductive choice, men's reproductive choice must be taken away. An emergency on your part doesn't necessitate a panic on my part; if women CHOOSE to remain pregnant, then they should be CHOOSING to accept the consequences of possibly raising that child alone. Unless you think men should just be enslaved upon pregnancy... you don't think that, do you?

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 05:55:49, 26 January

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • mean0dean0
  • 3 Points
  • 06:21:27, 26 January

> My only point is that abortion is not a choice when you don't have the option of having one.

One choice among many! So many options of birth control, so little time!

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-overview

And let's not forget giving the child up once it is born, or even just leaving the damn thing at a bank or another "Safe Haven"; in Nebraska, you can even wait until the kid's old enough to understand why you're abandoning it!

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859405,00.html

Or the old standby, abstinence:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/topics-issues/abstinenceonly/132?task=view

Did you have anything substantive to add to the ACTUAL discussion of legal paternal surrender, or did you want to come up with some more ancillary objections that don't address the main topic?