Someone once said, “Never discuss politics or religion.” Obviously they never had a discussion about abortion, which manages to raise the hostilities of both at the mere mention of the word. And a whole lot more.
We got an example of this recently on the pages of this website when I submitted, despite being personally opposed to the practice, that the editorial position here would be that an anti-abortion agenda would not be acceptable for article submissions, and would not be included in the revised mission statement to come in the future.
I got called a baby killer (figuratively). And that by someone I’d grown quite fond of over a period of years.
Whatever abortion is, it is not something people take lightly.
It’s a potential tinder box on minor issues, much less one as incendiary as abortion. So after having taken some time to digest the reactions and consider the future of this site, I want to take the opportunity to clarify policy and rationale. I do this knowing that fires are still smoldering and subject to instant flare up.
The question that I took into consideration for this as foundational was, “Does anti-abortion activism, as opposed to sympathies with those efforts, enhance or diminish efforts to advocate for men and boys?”
My personal opinion leans heavily on the side of diminishment. First there is the problem of political affiliation. As already stated in the rough draft of the policy I wrote, the AVfM position on mainstream politics is clear. They won’t be part of the equation here except to point out that all popular political groups are misandric and antithetical to the cause.
Abortion is highly polemicist, with the mainstay of its opponents squarely on the neoconservative religions right.
Socons, as we call them. It’s a group with more nuts than a pecan orchard, and most of them would love nothing more than to have all men chained into a state sanctioned marriage (between one man and one woman, of course), which is to say they would ultimately make slaves of all of us.
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.
My personal opinion is that the MRM should not officially embrace causes that will attract mainstream political ideologues. My personal decision is that AVfM won’t, for sure. It will be more in keeping with policy here to run them off with a stick. I think I take that position for sound reasons. During my time as Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily, I was accused, regularly, of being a right wing demagogue. To be fair, I was accused of being a leftist sycophant from the other side as well.
It’s what happens when you refuse to join the circus or follow the thinking of people who educate themselves on sound bites from cable news channels. But, I digress.
Then there is the matter of LC4M. As long as women have unencumbered power and authority over abortion it also gives them equally hegemonic dominion over men for the bulk of their adult lives. In fact, child support is the primary instrument by which state functionaries assume and maintain iron fisted control over the lives of men in western culture. We have an entire father’s rights movement necessitated by the fact that millions of men have had their lives eviscerated, their freedom forfeit, their assets garnisheed, even where paternity fraud has been proven and acknowledged by the courts.
If a man is even in the general vicinity of a pregnant woman, his life can and will be completely undone. The only possible solution to this, however unlikely, is the cause of reproductive rights for men. And however doomed that cause may be, it at least can be a vehicle to start educating men to regard their sperm as property every bit as sacred as their blood. And it is a path that Karl Rove and his chivalrous ilk are not going to walk on right into our public identity.
I want to point out, though it hardly seems necessary, that the editorial policy of this site doesn’t stop anyone from throwing abortion directly into the faces of feminists wherever possible. I know it won’t stop me. Feminist hypocrisy with abortion is one of many intellectual and moral weaknesses they are inextricably bound to. They can be savaged with the issue at any time they bring it up, and even when they don’t.
But the point here is smart activism, not the most strident or flag waving; certainly not the most pigeon holing. Someone on this site, I believe it was the illustrious Dr. Snark, recently commented that we needed to be philosophical chameleons. I agree with that assessment entirely.
Abortion is a universally polarizing and defining issue, one that can be used to dismiss, anyone, at any time, as a religious zealot bent on the control of women. That comes the territory when your main cause happens to be anti abortion, but it is not like the MRM needs any more of that.
So it will not be a defining cause of AVfM, or of the MRM in my opinion. In that light, I see no value in chaining myself, or this site, to anti abortion activism, and a good many reasons not to. I know, for those who feel deeply about this issue, this will not suffice as an explanation. Nor, for some, would any explanation do that did not result in a mandate for me to be in the street, waving a “BABY KILLER!” sign and frothing at the mouth.
So if there are to be some fireworks on this, let it be now. I will do my best to keep my mouth shut and enjoy the show. And any readers that cannot abide by this, I understand. I wish you well, and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of men and boys. I just can’t, won’t actually, join you on this one.
Tags: Abortion, Editorial Policy, Miscellaneous
659 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Murray Pearson:
Shrek6:
iimnotmrabut:
Ben James:
napocapo69 (@napocapo69):
Turbo:
If it helps, I can tell you the position that I have officially arrived at on abortion: I don’t care. Make it legal, make it illegal. Either way, it’s not my problem. I concentrate on convincing and educating men to make sure an “oopsie” doesn’t make it their personal problem either.
I personally believe the ONLY ‘official’ MRM position on Abortion is this:
Men’s rights in this regard should directly mirror those of women, whatever those rights happen to be.
Period.
There’s far too much to be said about a pro-life anarchist’s views on abortion, so I’ll let non-anarchist actor James Woods do it for me, in his response to Barbara Boxer as to whether he favored abortion:
”I do if people like you have it.”
B. R.,
I tried to rig the system to give you 1,000 thumbs up, but it wouldn’t work.
Words o’ wisdom from Prophet Carlin:
Every woman I have known who had an abortion had it out of pure selfishness.
One of them elected to not abort only one of her children – the father was rich and she collected a large settlement.
All of them were strident white feminasties.
“As long as women have unencumbered power and authority over abortion it also gives them equally hegemonic dominion over men for the bulk of their adult lives.* In fact, child support is the primary instrument by which state functionaries assume and maintain iron fisted control over the lives of men in western culture.* We have an entire father’s rights movement necessitated by the fact that millions of men have had their lives eviscerated, their freedom forfeit, their assets garnisheed, even where paternity fraud has been proven and acknowledged by the courts.
If a man is even in the general vicinity of a pregnant woman, his life can and will be completely undone.
The only possible solution to this, however unlikely, is the cause of reproductive rights for men.* And however doomed that cause may be, it at least can be a vehicle to start educating men to regard their sperm as property every bit as sacred as their blood.”
This, to me, is the key piece of the argument for men’s reproductive rights. Men are routinely dragged into parenthood after being lied to about the fertility status of their partners, male victims of statutory rape have their bank accounts emptied and turned over to the ones that sexually exploited them so they could get pregnant, and men get letters in the mail every day saying “you’ve been a daddy for ten years now and you didn’t even know it, HA HA, so you owe me $75,000 in back payments for child support”.
All of these scenarios are abhorrent and no man should be held to a responsibility to which he did not agree to or was unable to consent to; but they are in the most brutal of ways. Yet every day, thousands of women walk into clinics and have a tube stuck into their wombs having something with it’s own heartbeat sucked out of them, deposited in a bag with a biohazard symbol on it and thrown into an incinerator only to walk out as if nothing ever happened. Women fought hard for this “right to chose”. We have to fight too!!
Before any woman can demand any kind of court ordered child support from a woman she must produce a writ of consent signed by both her and the father in which both his responsibilities AND RIGHTS are recognized by both parties so long as the child is BIOLOGICALY HIS!
By rights I mean a default assumption of equal time with the child and no money changing hands. As long as the father is willing to spend at least half the time with his kid and take equal financial responsibility and he can document it then he should not have to pay a single dime of child support to the mother. It also means that there should be an accounting system so that if he does pay child support it is actually going to the child and not the new boyfriend’s drug habit. The assurance that the father is biologically his can be had by a simple DNA test so mommy better be sure that she gets the real daddy to sign or else mommy is going to be in trouble with daddy’s lawyer.
This solution is SOOO simple and I think it should be the holy grail of the MRM because it would fix nearly every problem that men face with reproductive and parental rights as well as paternity fraud. And of course I thought it up so it has to be the answer.
@Bob O’Hara:
This is not historically accurate (insofar as the U.S. law on abortion is concerned). Abortion opponents “fought hard” in order to enact abortion-restricting laws at the state level. Then in 1973, seven men in black robes struck down all of those laws in one stroke. There never was a national mandate to legalize abortion. Therefore, the right to abortion in the U.S. was not established by any movement of women to legalize abortion. Women did NOT “fight hard for the right to choose.” What happened is the Supreme Court trampled on the democratic will of the people.
In addition, how do you address the rights of the child? During gestation, he can be deprived of his future through the violence of a suction catheter (compare this to an unwilling or unaware father who is deprived of his livelihood through a custody order and/or through a child support order). For those children who escape the violence of an abortion and make it all the way to birth, they can be deprived of their future by being abandoned both by their mother and by their father. If this happens, they are more likely to experience behavioral problems, emotional disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and also to sire more offspring that will repeat the cycle. How will the existence of such fatherless (and possibly motherless) children affect society (and thereby men as well)? The answer is through their own perpetration of various forms of crime, including violent crime. Most violent crime is inflicted by male perpetrators upon male victims. And so if you favor the legality of parents (both mothers and fathers) to abandon their children, then you’re only planting the seeds for the eventual harvest of social chaos.
In my opinion, it’s much better if (A) both parents are obligated with equal responsibility retain equal authority over their children, which eliminates child support from the equation, or (B) the father is vested with total authority over his children and their mother, but also obligated to provide for both. Equality describes (A) and Patriarchy describes (B). But LCFM describes social chaos, as I described in the paragraph above.
I like Bob’s solution. It covers the bases of male reproductive rights without entangling the MRM in the religious right’s web.
Willie survive.
Do you have mens rights or a religious agenda at heart when you say
“A) both parents are obligated with equal responsibility retain equal authority over their children, which eliminates child support from the equation, or (B) the father is vested with total authority over his children and their mother, but also obligated to provide for both. Equality describes (A) and Patriarchy describes (B)”
?
At the risk of being called a “baby killer” I will state that I believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants one. I also believe that men should the right to choose not to become parents by abdicating the responsibility, or by accepting it should they so choose. while I believe that human beings should be treated justly, fairly, and equitably, beyond that I make every reasonable attempt not to impose my own sense of morality upon others.
I have a post scheduled to appear on my site on Monday wherein I discuss the necessity for the MRM to avoid the charge of misogyny. I view it as the primary weapon of feminists used to silence and marginalize dissenting voices. In this vane it is a decidedly bad idea to speak against an issue that many view as the defining issue of feminism. I’m not stating that an MRA cannot also be against abortion, just that the MRM and abortion are two seperate issues that should not be combined.
“And of course I thought it up so it has to be the answer.”
Bloody small world it is. I am in the same exact situation!
@Eoghan:
I have a men’s rights agenda at heart. A “religious political agenda” seems like an oxymoronic term to me; political force is the exact opposite of spiritual conviction. And so I am making an argument here in favor of men’s rights.
In terms of my position on LCFM, just remember the primary point that I was making. Fatherless children are more likely than children of intact families to grow up and perpetrate violent crime against men primarily, and they are also more likely to become a class of people who are dependent upon State assistance (which depends on taxing laborers, and guess who those people are). We don’t have to wait until LCFM becomes a legal reality in order to predict the outcome of such a public policy; we can see the outcome by looking to the inner city where fatherlessness is at its highest. Most of the child support obligors in the inner cities are either unidentified or unemployed, and so they’re not paying child support anyway. Even if they faced zero penalties for not paying child support (or were never obligated to pay it in the first place), we would still be left with a dependent class of people who would of course later become voters in a rising tide of political opponents who would ultimately reinstate whatever prior policies might have been struck down by LCFM.
@ Willie Survive
“What happened is the Supreme Court trampled on the democratic will of the people.”
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. the primary fundtion of the Supreme Court is to uphold that constitution. Any law in conflict with that constitution is to be stricken down regardless of whether it was passed by a democratic majority or not. The Court is there to act as a counter balance to a legislature that might act to erode constitutiional freedoms and an executive office that might act to circumvent those freedoms. In Roe v. Wade, the Court decided that the laws prohibiting abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy and therefore struck them down. It is not “[trampling] on the democratic will of the people” as you put it. It is instead upholding the supreme law of the land that guarantees the democratic will of the people.
TDOM
@TDOM:
Not all decisions by the Supreme Court are necessarily justified nor warranted. That’s why there is a debate in the U.S. on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees whenever one comes up for confirmation. We don’t just rubber-stamp a Senate confirmation on any Supreme Court nominee; rather, we subject such nominees to an expectation that they faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution and not try to manufacture policy, as crafting policy is the job of the executive and legislative branches of government. And so your argument that Roe vs. Wade is a justified Supreme Court decision, merely because it was the Supreme Court that made it, falls flat on its face in light of these realities.
@Willie Survive
First of all thank you for educating us on the events surrounding Roe V. Wade. That, of course is very pertinent.
However, since that time, massive lobbying campaigns have been waged to ensure that abortion remains legal. Would you deny that?
Of course I agree that both parents should be held responsible, that would be ideal if having unprotected sex was giving proper consent to be a parent. But having sex is NOT giving consent to being a parent! With a woman’s ability to lie about being on birth control, or engaging in sex with a mentally immature (or retarded in some cases) male and also with the now unilateral power to decide whether or not both parties become parents it is totally nonsensical to assume that having sex is giving consent.
Yet, this “if you didn’t want to be a daddy then keep it in your pants” bigotry is the same thing that will come out of an ardent pro lifer’s mouth when a man complains that he was tricked into being a father when he didn’t want to be.
As to your assertion that implementing a legal instrument like this in reproductive law would mean millions of ferial children running around half naked in the streets never learning to speak proper English because “dad wouldn’t man up and sign on” please let me point out something in return:
Look at your typical single mother by choice in today’s society. She is responsible for virtually all of the children born out of wedlock today, which is currently around 40% of all newborns. She is generally uneducated and has few prospects of being productive in life unless she works hard to better herself. As of now we have a system that encourages her to find the nearest numbskull to knock her up so she can make him her wage slave for the next 18 years. She often does this with more than one man so she can augment her income.
What if we told her, and all women, that if they wanted to be a mom that has security available for her children provided by a man that she was going to have to, HEAVEN FORBID, find a man who is able and willing to be a father and do something to make it worthwhile for him to be the father of her child as opposed to that of any other woman? I can only think that the number of fatherless children would drop precipitously following such a legal event. Families would be stronger as they would be wanted by both parents. Men would have more say over their futures and the futures of their children. And most of all it would force women to assume responsibility for the “choices” they make; responsibilities that they are totally shielded from now due to mandatory child support and abortion.
Of course I understand that there is an unborn child here and I have always found abortion to be a horrific and outrageous privilege that we have given women. But if we are going to allow one gender the ability to choose then we must allow the other choice as well. One reason being that the HUGE differential between men’s reproductive and parenting rights (actually non extant, we have only responsibilities) and those of women has caused the massive problem of fatherlessness and the other, and most important reason, being that this differential flies in the face of the 14th amendment and every concept of equal treatment under the law. We are talking about plain fairness here.
This state of affairs has been handed to men and we must make women take responsibilities for their choices. Choices that we don’t have.
@ Paul
“Bloody small world it is. I am in the same exact situation!”
I know you like lots of MRAs have proposed a choice for men but did you ever come up with the idea of an actual legal document giving consent? I seem to remember you proposing a legal abdication of responsibility. There is a crucial difference. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Well, first, Bob, I love your idea. A consent form is something I had never considered. It was in my mind to go the route of unilateral abdication of responsibility. I still like it because it applies whether someone gets a form signed or not, and eliminates questions of legal competency, fraud and deception when signing legal documents.
You have great ideas here, though, and I would like to hear them more vetted. If you ever choose to write a piece on this, please consider me for rights to run it, along with wherever else it may be posted.
Thanks
We are seeing more and more examples of women WANTING to be solely responsible for children and using men as sperm donors, even in long term relationships.
So what about when a woman gets pregnant and HE WANTS to be a father to his child. Could she say “oh no, you never signed a paternity agreement so therefor you have no paternal rights”?
(fna “John M”. I changed my moniker as we had too many “John”s
Willie Survive
Where does “the father is vested with total authority over his children and their mother, but also obligated to provide for both”, if not from religious text and social controls that were necessary in the past?
Also, LCFM .. I think would shake up perceptions and encourage more personal responsibility and drive up birth control and abortion, it would certainly drive down paternity frauds like entrapment.
Bob O’Hara is the man!
So.
Are we mostly agreed that given that women have the right to abort, then the MRM must demand that some legal bit of paper must be signed – soon after pregnancy – by the prospective father in order for the law to be able to deem him to be responsible for the child?
This seems quite straightforward to me.
But what happens if he wants to sign this legal commitment whereas she does not want him to?
This bit, I am still unclear about.
How about he doesn’t sign it? What is the point of requiring his signature to hold him responsible for the child if she has any say in it at all?
Abortion was originally intended for rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. At least that’s what I think Roe v Wade was about. But through incremental shifting, it is now accessible to any woman who feels like it.
Naturally, I reel at such subversive methods to circumvent public opinion/judicial decisions when they lean towards murder. So I think I have an issue with abortion in how it was presented to the public and later snuck in under cover of night, so to speak.
It is long overdue to have this issue brought before the people again via the highest court in the land (which thankfully still leans to the right).
As for having this issue hobble the men’s rights movement, I believe it should be filed away and more pressing issues dealt with.
@Bob O’Hara:
I don’t think that you are considering all of the repercussions. Child support is not the only means of income that single mothers rely upon. We also have public assistance programs of various sorts, both at the state and federal levels. A single mother can utilize a buffet of public programs and benefits without ever receiving a dime in child support, and so your prediction that LCFM would have a net sociological effect of reducing illegitimacy and preserving intact families is speculative at best. Certainly, any financial gravy train that is enforced or administered through the government is likely to influence life decisions, including the decision by single women to get pregnant. You can only dry up that wellspring of public largess by cutting it off systematically, and that means every program, in 51 jurisdictions (federal + the 50 states). It’s not going to happen. Unless the magnet of *all forms* of public assistance is severely curtailed, it won’t have a significant effect on reducing the prevalence of single motherhood. Child support is not their only source of income. But increasing the supply of needy children almost certainly will result in the expansion of government programs, and this will result in a net increase of government authority and reach, and that is not good. LCFM is no panacea at all.
Choose? You mean the choice to dismember one’s offspring. Let’s be clear about that; abortion dismembers a human life in order to terminate it.
In the UK, they have actually crafted public policy that effectively allows women to commit homicide against their intimate partners, in the presumption that such female perpetrators were really only victims of their male victim’s alleged “patriarchal terrorism and intimidation.” We’re talking about homicidal violence here. If I took your argument about reciprocity re: abortion to its logical conclusion, then it would seem to me that you would be more likely to advocate in the U.K. for the mutual right of men and women to murder each other both. The PRIMARY injustice is the violence itself, rather than the impunity of one sex of perpetrators. Justice would be to legally prohibit the violence for all would-be perpetrators, which also has the benefit of ensuring reciprocity.
@ Eoghan,
I think it is quite possible that LC4M would result in LESS abortions. When women are given every bit of legal accountability that should come with their legal rights, my guess is that they will take birth control a little more seriously.
No ticky, no laundry.
Paul i know this post is old and so is the article i think but the thing it makes me think of is up here in canada they deduct the child support right off off the mothers support cheque so men are subsidising the support for the government thats why the govt has a vested interest in making the men pay and have the maintenance enforcement agencies collect with more power than the police i believe if you cut this support off most of the problems in the courthouse would be minimized and it would reduce child support in general because they cant say all the money is going to the child if they reduce the support for the mother when she recieves child support dollar/dollar this can be seen in their own tables of what a single woman makes compared to what one with a child makes they know it supports the mother as well thats why they deduct it, if you take this away from the govt i think you would find they would lose alot of interest in other areas,, right now i know that they are the ones taking guys to court the lawyers represent the support agency not the mother or the child and that they can and will deny support if the mother cant come up with the fathers/any man`s name, and the mother isnt allowed to legally sign away any infants right to child support because its not in “the best interests of the child”
@ Bob,
I believe Denis brought up the idea of a legal document giving consent to parenthood.
@Lovekraft:
The main plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade was Norma McCorvey, who indeed claimed at the time that she had been raped and was therefore victimized by her inability to legally obtain an abortion. But lo and behold, decades later she revealed that she had lied about being raped, and also changed her position on the issue of abortion (after having attained the outcome that she was seeking in the Roe decision; how convenient for her that in the end, she got both a clean conscience as well as the change in the law that she was seeking).
But the outcome of Roe vs. Wade was much more far-reaching than simply making abortion available to (purported) victims of rape or incest. It effectively legalized abortion all the way up to the 9th month of pregnancy. It set up a provision whereby it was up to the abortionist to decide if the mother’s “health” (not “life”) would be in jeopardy she were to be denied an abortion. And so there was not any real legal disincentive for an abortionist to perform an abortion even moments before the child was due to be born. There have been actual cases where in the 8th or 9th month, the mother’s womb were opened just like a Cesarean section, and the full-termed fetus was strangled to death; it’s all legal as long as the fetus technically remained in the womb, even if exposed to air through the Cesarean opening through the mother’s flesh.
Besides, you should know that only 3 percent of abortions are nominally due to rape, incest or the protection of the mother’s life. Only 3 percent. That means that the remaining 97 percent are completely elective rather than necessary.
@Paul
“How about he doesn’t sign it? What is the point of requiring his signature to hold him responsible for the child if she has any say in it at all?”
You’ve got me on this one. I do not understand what you are saying.
LOL!
@ Willie Survive
“Not all decisions by the Supreme Court are necessarily justified nor warranted. That’s why there is a debate in the U.S. on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees whenever one comes up for confirmation. We don’t just rubber-stamp a Senate confirmation on any Supreme Court nominee; rather, we subject such nominees to an expectation that they faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution and not try to manufacture policy, as crafting policy is the job of the executive and legislative branches of government. And so your argument that Roe vs. Wade is a justified Supreme Court decision, merely because it was the Supreme Court that made it, falls flat on its face in light of these realities.”
And ALL of the justices on the Supreme Court have been confirmed. Those who are not confirmed don’t get to be justices. In other words they have all been deemed fit. So I’m not sure how that invalidates Roe v. Wade or my argument. On the other hand, there is always room for dissent. A decision of the Court is rarely unanimous. Dissenting opinions are published and sometimes used to establish precident. I never stated that Roe was a correct interpretation of the Constitution, only a legitimate one. Whether we agree with the decisions or not, if the Supreme Court says it’s the law of the land, then it is the law of the land, unless that law is changed by congress. Sometimes this can be done by enacting new legislation that eliminate the conflict, other times it requires amending the Constitution itself.
TDOM
@TDOM:
Legitimacy is not necessarily conferred by the act of prevailing. If that were true then the MRM would have no legal polices to complain about, since they were all enacted by duly elected representatives.
What about men that want to be fathers to their children, but she says “no way… you never signed the agreement so you have no rights. This child is all mine!”
Fathers would then be denied visitation, denied acknowledgement as fathers on birth certificates, denied giving the child a surname, etc.
The child may even later be legally adopted by her new spouse without the biological father’s consent.
I see it as chaos for those that would choose to be fathers to their children.
@Eoghan:
If you oppose that outcome than just say so. The point is that it is one alternative among at least two that depart from the legalized-child-abandonment model that is en vogue by some in the MRM.
Mandatory genetic testing for the purposes of determining paternity would accomplish the same thing, and would have the added benefit of protecting the rights of willing biological parents. Technology to the rescue.
@ Paul, yes it could do, it would certainly drive up personal responsibility and the paperwork and legal costs involved would be a deterrent for men.
I like this post and Im looking forward to TDOM’s article on Monday, these IMO are conversations that we need to be having.
Ok, sleep for me, good night all.
A man in my immediate family has a daughter (his only child) who had two abortions when she was in her teens. She was assured by older women it was perfectly normal to get an abortion since she was unable to care for the child. It was just blob of tissue and a simple medical procedure would remove it, they told her. After one of the procedures, the abortionist put the dead baby in a jar and left it in front of the girl and walked out of the room.
During this time the father was unable to intervene for reasons beyond his control.
Life’s cicumstances for her never allowed for having another baby. Although always fertile and with a strong motherly nuturing way, the situation never presented itself where she could have her own baby who she could care for properly. She desired a baby more than anything.
Years have gone by and now she is unable to have a child. The father, who is close to her, tells of a certain sadness or emptiness that never leaves her, as she feels that she has killed the only children she could ever have. She has brought up, a time or two to her father, that she saw her dead baby in a jar.
And, there is always a certain sadness which never leaves him.
She was about 17 years old.
Please, no in depth analysis. Just remember it, and multply it,
Which of the following positions most clearly dascribes your own poaition on the issue of abortion?
Should never be legal—————————————————————-17%
” only be legal when life of mother is in danger————————-14%
” ” rape and incest———————————————31%
62%
” be legal any reason during first three months——————————21%
” ” six months———————————4%
” ” any time———————————10%
10%
3% Don’t know/ refused
The Polling Company April 21-24. 2005
N=1000 MOE; +/- 3%
Only 10% of Americans agree with ROE- But feminist control makes it the law of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Risking speaking out in a moment of arrogance- if you are talking about me, Paul, neither of are perfect, and there is no respect lost coming from this end.
Sorry for the mess, the total of the second group should read 35%
@Paul
I like the consent to be a father. I like the legal abortions but you forgot two very male-centric things:
1) The effects of abortion on the male whose offspring was dismembered and disposed of without ceremony. The men affected need to talk about this for cathartic reasons.
2) The fact that an unwanted abortion should constitute EXTREME emotional abuse and allow for a no-fault divorce without alimony! How’s killing your baby for a punch in the face?
Thank you.
If a woman has an abortion to save her own life, she is as much a coward as a soldier who throws down his weapon while defending his country (family) and runs away. If that baby has a chance of survival that is at least as great as her own, she is throwing that baby under the bus to save herself. I don’t think any of us would sacrifice our babies to save ourselves … would you?
It’s cowardly … COWARDS!! I know it is shaming language, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually, I’m not even sure it is shaming language more than it is truth!
@ Harry
LOL!! That is because I misread the question and answered from left field. Sorry. In going back over it I have an answer that I hope will make more sense.
She should not have a choice in whether he signs or not. If the child is his, and he wants to be a father to it, then what would be the rationale for her to stop him?
The way things currently are, she is the sole arbiter on whether or not to carry the child and have it. Once the child is born, fathers do have a right to access to them, whether she wants it or not.
So nothing there would change.
Did I do better? LOL!!
Guess it’s past my bedtime- the third line in The Polling Company poll should read; MOTHER’S LIFE AND RAPE AND INCEST.
BTW- I contacted The Guttmacher Inst ( a major polling organization in abortion issues) and inquired as to the number of abortions which are caused by rape and incest. The response was “less than one percent”‘ I enquired further as to how they determined that figure, and the response was “we ask them”.
Add that to a fib, or two, and you guess what the true number might be.
@Angry Harry
“But what happens if he wants to sign this legal commitment whereas she does not want him to?”
She has no say! It is his baby!!!! Have you heard of Putative Father Office?
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3374
Of course, he would have to be notified that she is pregnant and the state would have to make this office easy to find. Of course, he would have a certain number of days (after finding out he sired a cub) to claim fatherhood. If he does not, it is all hers to do with as she pleases. If paternal fraud or deception occurs, all contracts will be null and void upon the father’s notice that his baby was born (regardless of the date).
In the case of marriage, the father would not be required to sign any such putative father rights until the live birth of his infant is accomplished. After said live birth, the father would hold at least 50% of the custody over his child with the mother not infringing in this right under penalty of imprisonment and full loss of custody.
Sounds reasonable? Oh yeah, any false claims of child abuse will also forfeit custody of said child to the plaintiff.
And NO CHILD SUPPORT!! I am vehemently opposed to child support!!
PE: “She should not have a choice in whether he signs or not.”
I am not sure the others will see it that way. If she is solely responsible for deciding to bring the child to life, then the baby is a result of her unilateral decision to not abort. The baby fully belongs to her. She may not even inform the father of pregnancy.
PE: “If the child is his, and he wants to be a father to it, then what would be the rationale for her to stop him?”
More women want to be in full control. Many can support children on their own and want nothing to do with the father. They see him only as a sperm donor.
I said it before, but personally, I think the right to influence our children (regardless of what the mother wants) is one of the most important “rights” MRAs should hold on to. I am not in favor of handing off our children to them.
As I said, I am not engaging in the “debate” here, but I will point out that men who choose not to die for their “country” (yeah, right, it’s for the country) are NOT COWARDS.
This mentality ends up with our boys dead, maimed and psychologically destroyed for corporate interests.
Counselling of women/girls seeking abortion is among the many functions of Right to Life organizations.
Testimony from the mgr of the state RTL facility, shows many of these seekers, when asked why they want an abortion, responded “because it’s legal”.
@Paul,
I’m talking invasion. Not “gettin’ our oil back from the ragheads”. If you truly are defending your family, you run, they die, you are a coward.
Since I know how anti-war the people here are, how’s this for an analogy. A bear arrives in your campsite. You can choose to fight off the bear and possibly die (allowing your family to escape) but instead you choose to throw your child at the bear so you can live. How’s that for cowardly? How is it much different dying in child birth than defending that same child from a rampaging bear? In both scenarios, one has given the ultimate sacrifice for the chance that their child may survive.
I’ll say “With all due respect”, but that is going to get old so I am going to assume that you know I mean it or at least imply it.
Regards
“I’m talking invasion. Not “gettin’ our oil back from the ragheads”. If you truly are defending your family, you run, they die, you are a coward.”
In other news: In the Land of Oz, Dorothy gets fitted for new shoes.
Seriously, when was the last time anything like your scenario happened?
The bear analogy is too silly to comment on. Sorry.
The respect remains as well.
lol, I just thought of something
You know that crap about if a man is boyfriend with a woman who has kids from a previous relationship, for a certain amt of time, he has to pay child support even if the kid isn’t his.
would that also apply to lesbians?
Lesbo A has a kid from before she was carpetmunching
Lesbo B became her Girlfriend
and they stay together for several years and eventually split
does Lesbo B have to pay child support for Lesbo A’s kid??
hmm…
@ McCue
Your analogy doesn’t work. Right now, she has the right to abort or do anything else she wants. He has a legal right to access to the child, if she let’s it live- and he knows about it.
In the scenario I was discussing it is stipulated that other than LC4M provisions, the law remains the same.
Anything else opens up a myriad of speculation, leaving us with an endless array of “what if’s”
“That’s why there is a debate in the U.S. on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees whenever one comes up for confirmation. We don’t just rubber-stamp a Senate confirmation on any Supreme Court nominee; rather, we subject such nominees to an expectation that they faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution…”
“Legitimacy is not necessarily conferred by the act of prevailing.”
So on the one hand you argue that senatorial confirmation is necessary to ensure faithful interpretation of the Constitution, then when a decision is handed down that you disagree with, it is illegitimate. What is the point of having a constitution if the decisions of those charged with interpreting it are not legitimate?
“If that were true then the MRM would have no legal polices to complain about, since they were all enacted by duly elected representatives.”
Simply because I believe that a law is legitimate according to the Constitution does not mean that I believe the law is fair or just or that it should not be changed. Justice has very little to do with the law. There are plenty of unjust laws that are permissible under the Constitution and are therefore legitimate and enforceable. While I believe in small government with limited powers, I am not an anarchist. I believe that some govenrnment is necessary and that government must be constitutional.
TDOM
What about mandated father custody of all children? – bar unusual circumstances.
Much as I dislike the idea, it has many things going for it – society-wise.
@Angry Harry
Beautiful! Why hasn’t somebody thought of that before
http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf
Enjoy!
Damn! The form stripped off my fake tongue in cheek tags.
@whitney
I read it about 10 years ago.
How’s about answering the question?
@Paul,
It may seem ridiculous, but sacrificing a child to save one’s own life is pure selfish cowardice. I could make a million analogies, but I could never convince myself to save my own life over the life of any child let alone MY child. Anything else is pure, simple, selfish cowardice in the broadest sense of the term.
Remember that episode of Seinfeld when George smelled smoke and knocked over small children and an elderly woman to escape what he thought was a fire and save his own hide? The blatant misandry of that show aside, he was viewed (rightly so) as a coward.
The women folk may not be so deserving of our lives in today’s society, but the children hold a sacred place.
@Angry Harry,
Sorry, I thought that was a rhetorical question
I have commented several times and advocate almost daily on the benefits of automatic father custody. I believe this (and only this) is what could reverse the current trend toward the ghettoization of Western culture. We are only two generations behind the worst the ghetto has shown us so far. The rabbit hole is deep however and we don’t know if the plunge will stop before we are back in the stone ages observing feminine, orgiastic religions.
This trend we are seeing is the same thing that has befallen every major civilization since the birth of rational culture. Once the “progressives” (read feminists) get hold of the legislature, the birthrate drops and the culture is defeated by another through breeding alone.
Whitney, if the mother is going to die then wouldn’t the foetus also die? Or am I missing something?
I would also recommend everyone watch Idiocracy. The premise of the film is stupid people outbreeding smart people but we could just as easily change that to fatherless, unsocialized people outbreeding the properly socialized.
@Theodore Labadie,
If there is NO chance of the fetus surviving, it is an easier choice. Mind you I have my mind made up that I would not choose to kill my child because somebody told me it would not survive and I would surely die. If there is a chance the fetus could survive, it is pure selfishness. It’s like giving up on your child because there’s a good chance that he/she might not survive what you are lying down your life to protect them from so it’s best to just throw them in the fire to save your own skin. Like the children are disposable and as long as we survive, we can try again later. That’s nature and motherhood talking and not the much, much stronger bond of fatherhood.
The most dangerous place in America is in the womb. Should you survive that, the safest place in America is under the protection of your biological father.
Nobody would forgive a man for such an action and women should not be excused either.
@whitney
“I have commented several times and advocate almost daily on the benefits of automatic father custody.”
I think you are right.
In my more cerebral days – before my memory deteriorated quite noticeably – I used to think a great deal about what would need to be done regarding creating a decent society without all the social problems, and I could not come up with anything better than mandated father custody.
Furthermore, when (some 15 years ago) I was hanging around with some of the real old-time MRAs – now in their late 60s and upward – they used to keep impressing upon me that father custody was the best solution.
I resisted this for a very long time (10 years or so) thinking that their thinking was probably too much coloured by their (old) age;’ i.e. they were stuck in their old traditionalist ways.
But despite racking my brains over the issue – wanting to show them that there were better ways – I could never come up with anything better – not even close.
Sorry to dominate the thread at such an hour, but I’d like to inform the three people who thumbs downed my “No Child Support” comment that I was a single father and I raised my daughter for 19 years with no child support from her biological mother. I do not believe in child support. If you cannot afford the child, give it back to the father to whom it rightfully belongs.
Automatic father custody would not only drop the divorce cases drastically, it would also make the marriage contract effective again. We share our wealth and security for a family. Into the bargain, she gives her sexual loyalty (or at least pays lip service to it) forsaking all others. She is not a slave and is free to leave (penniless and childless) any time she likes. If she has money, perhaps she can take that with her although I think that dowry should stay with the family she promised. A man should never be forced to finance the destruction of his own family.
She is free to work and get an education if she so chooses. All things being equal except her being able to break a contract and still hold the other party responsible for HIS half of the bargain. Why is it called spousal support when they are no longer spouses? Why is he still called a husband when the only part of the husband job he gets is that of provider while she is free to be a wife to whomever she pleases?
We need to stop financing women’s ability to have her sexual freedom. If she wants sexual freedom, let her pay for it. Keep the children where they are statistically safest and 43% wealther; in the father’s home.
My sister was declared “dead” in utero. My mother was devastated and was on her way up the the OR for a D&C (Dust and Clean – gotta love the terms). She felt my sister move ever so slightly and fought tooth and nail for them to let her carry her to term. She could have become very ill or even died had my sister really been miscarried, but she was willing to take that chance to save the life of her child.
@ Whitney:
That was definitely not me who gave you a thumbs down.
re: on a man not giving his life for his child: “Nobody would forgive a man for such an action and women should not be excused either.” I agree. Women should not be excused but we are set up to make criticism of women unthinkable.
And applause from me for taking care of your child without help.
I had a programmer friend with a girlfriend, she got pregnant, left him for a lesbian and booked it to the other side of the country with her new lover. Zero consultation with the father. So, he left a great job and all his friends, moved across country and ended up supporting all four of them–his son, the ex and her lesbian lover. He hated it, but if he wanted to be in his son’s life that’s what he had to do.
I was just floored that the father could be so poorly treated and all the women I knew thought nothing of it. It’s women’s right to do whatever they want and screw the man, even if he’s a saint. And come to think of it, I know of a lot more saintly men than women these days.
I suspect that introducing the mandated father custody idea will make Paul’s brain go into overdrive for the next 48 hours or so.
LOL!
Now how do we go about getting mandated father custody and how will this affect false allegations of child abuse and rape?
That’s awful. Coercion is death. I have yet to hear a successful argument that convinces me that the unborn child is initiating coercion.
Equality, the feminist shibboleth. How unfair that women are paid
less than men. How unfair that women are held to a higher sexual
standard than men. Only when these two disadvantages are removed
will feminists cease their clamors. This will be when men have no role,
when patriarchy is abolished, when women are married to the state.
“The changes necessary to bring about equality,” says Ms. Friedan,
were, and still are, very revolutionary indeed. They involve a sex-role
revolution for men and women which will restructure all our institutions:
child rearing, education, marriage, the family, medicine, work, politics,
and economy, religion, psychological theory, human sexuality, morality,
and the very evolution of the race.
They involve, in other words, a return to matriarchy, a ghettoizing
of society, the adoption of feminist Carolyn Shaw Bell’s program for “a
special tax to pay for the total welfare benefits of families headed by
women, and sufficient to increase these benefits so as to wipe out the
income differential between poor children with only a mother and well-off
children with two parents. The tax would be leveled on all men.” In
other words patriarchy ought to finance its own destruction by paying
women to breed fatherless families—the ghetto pattern, but with higher
payments.
Carolyn Shaw Bell, “Alternatives for Social Change: The Future Status of Women,” in Women in the Professions (Toronto: D. C. Heath, 1975),
Oh Fuck It! Paul is right. The MRM belongs to MEN not some political movement.
We live in a ‘fuck and chuck’ culture because we are between a time when sex was considered purely for reproduction and freedom to see it as recreational. That’s your 2 sides.
You can’t make a ground movement on a standing political movement. Like it or not, it’s reality.
Now for some reality to readers.
A young man I had to deal with came home after seeing his baby on the ultrasound twice and after making plans to be a daddy and support his family to find his girlfriend telling him she aborted their baby. If that wasn’t enough, he came home a week later to find her in bed with a workmate of hers and stabbed the other young man (3rd party) in the face. My heart sank because this was a beautiful 18 year old man whose life was about to see prison.
She responded with sex with another man, he responded with “Why, why, why was I not good enough to talk to?”
We need men to talk and be open because they’re fucked if they don’t We (all of society) don’t need to be silenced. Let the man talk – whoever he may be of his own experience whether some political movement likes it or not.
I hope 10′s and 100′s and 1000′s of men start speaking out.
Ooops, I forgot to say, I take back my comments previously and say I want to hear a man’s voice, even if I don’t like it. I want to see lots of site being about “A man’s vioce”.
@ WS and BO
The legalities of the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision may be argued beyond all our lifetimes. And the opportunity to argue it, in such situations, is what our legal system is supposed to do.
The devastation comes from the provisions and wording of same, which feminists masterfully engineered.
So, they did “fight hard” to get the “choice” the way that they choose.
Angry Harry, it would be great if you actually work advocating for men in the family court. The majority don’t want ‘sole custody’. One of the lessons I’ve learnt is that mediocre men online are advocating for something mediocre men offline don’t want. The rich men don’t want it and the poor men are laughing at it.
@J
“The majority don’t want ‘sole custody’. … …”
Yes, I know – which is why I resisted the idea for so long.
@J
But, in most cases, of course, the likelihood of the situation of ‘sole custody’ coming up would be greatly reduced – if the fathers were the ones to take custody in the event of a break up.
@Paul
I don’t know if you ever read this, but I think that it was the first time that I wrote about using the topic of abortion as a defensive weapon, …
http://www.angryharry.com/esCanadianFeministsGettingWorried.htm
… when there was a threat to all our websites.
To Angry Harry,
**But, in most cases, of course, the likelihood of the situation of ‘sole custody’ coming up would be greatly reduced – if the fathers were the ones to take custody in the event of a break up.**
I don’t understand what you say?
Does not the likelihood of mothers getting sole custody also … blah, blah.
Are you forcing children onto men?
Ummm, I like the idea of men taking on the children. The only bad side I see is ‘women’s guilt’ but then I suppose if you taught then enough, lol, to not feel guilty….. maybe we can do this.
Harry!! ROTFLMAO!!
“And so here is my message to you Mszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Bouchard, and to all your revolting, bigoted, man-hating, sexist cronies …
Go F-u-c-k Yourself”
Just another reason I absolutely love your work. I had not read that article before, but while that particular threat is passed, your still have some ideas there that bear some serious consideration.
I personally think the idea of running a portal site of soft, or even hard core porn as a way to get MRM links out to a broader male audience is a really good idea. I look at it as using the weapons that are available to you for maximum effect. The MSM still acts like we don’t exist – unless they are bashing us – so why not set up a free porn site, push it through newsgroups and other free outlets, and start tapping in to the great, previously unaccessed numbers of males out there?
I think J has a valid point, and I am not sure how to address it. I got an email a few months back from Peter over at Dads on the Air in Australia. After a long, difficult fight for shared custody they found that the kids were ending up, guess where? In the company of the mother for comparable periods of time that they were spending under the managing conservator system.
In short, too many fathers did not want shared custody, they wanted the mom to care for the kids most of the time.
I realize there are some conditioning and social factors at play here, but I am not sure how to address the problem of custody/visitation if so many men would only turn around and become voluntary “Uncle Dads.”
Soooo what’s the verdict,. .(.not that I care because I live in the mess day in day out, lol).
***Now the the heavy weight division between Angry Harry and Paul Elam has taken a turn no-one expected though none disagreed with, and joined into the brand new say for the MRM.****
First-time commenter – I disagree with your position. I understand why you take it. And it makes sense for an MRM website and from an MRM position. And maybe that should be your primary, even your only concern. But life is not just about men’s rights. You are doing magnificent work here, and I find myself in agreement far more often than not. But not every issue should be framed as to whether or not it is good for men. Some questions are too important to be left to utilitarian considerations, or to be completely ignored. It already starts with the fact that the right to an abortion is such an important part of the feminist agenda. And you can see that it is somewhat important for us as well, when you see that lately, women choose in ever increasing numbers to abort their boys, and actively seek to have girls. Naturally, you are completely right that it is an extremely divisive issue. That is precisely why a clear and unequivocal position has to be declared. And it must not just be ‘what is good for thee, is good for me’. It is not a question of reproductive rights, and that we do not have them. It is a question of whether or not the unborn have any rights at all. And what are we doing here, if not fighting for the rights of the dispossessed? I do not expect AvfM to turn into an explicitely pro-life website. That is not its mission, and it should not be its focus. But it should also not be ignored, so that we can better push for our own rights only. Respectfully, just my five cents…
@ Henning
Thumbed up for clarity and thoughtfulness. Thank you for your opinion.
love you guys, sort it out.
@Paul
“while that particular threat is passed, your still have some ideas there that bear some serious consideration.”
Yes; that is why I took the liberty of posting the link to the article.
I think that it is **very** important – especially for people like you – from a defensive point of view against dangerous people like Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Bouchard – to let them know that we can always change our tactics, and really pound them if they try to attack us too vigorously.
That’s why I kept emphasising (in the other post) the importance of abortion from an MRA (rather than from an MM) point of view.
In other words, and for example, if angry harry was closed down on the grounds of something bogus – I wouldn’t put it past myself to start writing articles elsewhere about abortion.
And I know many MRAs who would do the same sort of thing.
Would I feel guilty? No. Because i would understand just how truly diabolical must be the forces gathering ‘out there’ if they could, and would, shut down sites such as ours.
Indeed, in such an instance, we would clearly not just be fighting feminism or government, but something much, much darker.
So we need to keep our options open, and we need to be able to access
the biggest psychological weapons that we can muster.
And I’m afraid that the topic of abortion has a certain clout to it.
Instead of Pro-Choice ~ it should be Pro-Birth Control!!!!!!!
Women have the right to opt for an abortion. Men need the right to opt out of being fathers! There is nothing equal when it comes to pregnancy/abortion. If the woman wants an abortion the man can live in peace. If the woman wants to have the child, the man’s life is changed forever.
Women should have the same feelings as the MRM! It shouldn’t be an argument between men & women, it is just a reality.
Now for the record I have never had an abortion. However, I make my opinions based on my knowledge of life. I can imagine it is not a walk in the park for any female. Although, being a mother I can argue, a few hours of feeling sick is no comparison to the life time I choose. I do feel if there were laws that held women more responsible, there would be fewer abortions. If the government controlled birth control and educated our children more, there would be less need for abortions. Mandate BIRTHCONTROL!
Our government controls when we can drink, drive, vote, etc. Where is the control on having babies? I am forced to wear my seat belt or I will have to pay the consequences. I do not have any consequences if I got knocked up. If I choose not to have an abortion, it is okay because I can abandon my baby at a local hospital, police or fire department. As long as I drive away wearing my seatbelt there will be no questions asked. I could also choose to give my baby up for adoption. Also, instead of getting the abortion I should have received I can kill my baby and get off on being temporality insane.
Why does abortion have to be about religion? I understand it too be only about religion when it is convenient. The unwed girls who get pregnant and refuse the option of abortion because, “it’s a sin” or “God would never forgive me” is a bunch of bullcrap. What about premarital sex??? They weren’t thinking about God when they were getting banged by the poor bastard that has no idea how his life is about to change! Yelling, “Oh God!” is not that same thing.
If women were held to bigger responsibilities when they get knocked up, trust me there would be fewer abortions. If women knew of all the consequences they had to face they would be more likely to be pro-birth control.
Abortion is greatly needed. We kill our dogs & cats because of over population. Animals with beating hearts those are able to survive on their own. Early stages of pregnancy the fetus can not survive on its own! Abortion is almost the same aspect. Why should women have a child she didn’t want? Take the Casey Anthony case. She was forced to have this beautiful baby girl, resented Caylee her entire life which leads to her murder. I am not defending Casey at all. I wish we still had public stoning because I would volunteer to throw the first stone. However, I am stating that if Casey had an abortion like she wanted too while her child was inside her womb not being able to live on it’s own, not being able to breathe on it’s own. The Anthony’s and the rest of America would not have to suffer the alterative.
What about women who are raped and get pregnant by their attacker? What about birth defects? I am sorry call me selfish, call me a monster, but I would not give birth to a baby knowing it had something medically wrong with them. What kind of life is that for this child? I do want to add that I highly respect parents who have special needs children.
Every day when I drive down one of our main streets, there are dozens of abortion protesters standing on the corner holding signs. Don’t these people have a life? They have nothing better too do then bother women who are trying to do “the right thing” Of course it makes me mad so I have to give them the finger as I drive by!!!
Bottom line ~ women need to be more responsible with their bodies. They aren’t going to stop having sex so they need Birth Control!!!
I’ve never liked the term “male abortion” for the equal reproductive rights men are seeking. This especially becomes true when you consider the hotbed topic that is abortion itself. I have always personally considered what men are seeking as more akin to adoption, then abortion. Your giving up the right’s and responsibility to the child and handing those over, in whole, to another person (the mother) to do as they see fit. unfortunately, I can’t think of a more fitting term, because “male adoption” doesn’t work.
I’m uncertain I like the idea of a “consent to paternity” contract. There are two primary ways of implementing it, and both have severe problems.
One method would be to require the prospective father to agree to becoming a father, but the problem with this method is in the case where no signature is given (because he refused to sign, or because a pregnancy wasn’t intended). the solutions are twofold, you can ether state that a child born without a fathers consent is the sole custody of the mother, and the father has no rights to it unless the mother agree’s (not appealing for hopefully obvious reasons), or, the father can come in at any time and claim paternity whenever he feels. This second option may sound reasonable, but that is only because it is to the fathers benefit. This method would allow a father to shirk his paternal responsibilities until he deemed himself ready, and then take what he feels is rightfully his. I can not condone that. When a woman chooses to keep the other party (father) in the dark about the pregnancy and subsequent child, until a time she deems fit, she takes full responsibility for the child until such time. If a man is keeping himself separate until he see’s fit, he is leaving the responsibility in the hands of the mother, and that’s an unreasonable stance to take, IMHO.
The other option for a paternity consent form, would be to have the father required to sign his rights/responsibilities away before sex, and this may sound reasonable, but this discounts the possibility of thinking you don’t want a child, but when the accident happens, becoming excited by the implications. This is a very common occurrence, and this kind of contract could become devastating for a father to be. But the solution, allowing the father to obsolve the contract when he see’s fit, would be unacceptable unless the mother was able to do the same thing (equality).
Both of these options have serious problems (as will most solutions).
The idea I have been in support of, would be more like an application for paternity that could be filed by ether the mother or the father, whenever ether party wish’s the father to acquire the rights and/or responsibilities (and they gain the other as a matter of course). this bypasses the common problem of the current “male abortion” concept of the mother just not saying anything to the father. The father would have the same kind of timeframe “from the moment he finds out”, that the mother had from the time she found out.
At any point, if the mother want’s the father to take responsibility (from that point on, no backpay), she can file for paternity, at which point, the “whatever services department” she applies to sends a notification to the father. The father then has 30/60/90 days to respond, ether absolving his responsibility, agreeing to it unconditionally, or agreeing to it under condition of rightful paternity (DNA test). Obviously, in the case of a separated couple, the sooner the better in order for the mother to make an informed choice. if she leaves it to long, she does so in the knowledge that she is not assured support.
Likewise, a father who wants a child could also apply for paternity (if he hasn’t already signed his rights away) and the mother could then agree or require DNA testing for confirmation.
As a matter of course, the birth certificate could include such an agreement for couples having children together (so as to not have to pay the additional fee’s of filing with the “whatever services department”, but still assuring the right’s and responsibilities are acquired). It should include a place for fathers to sign away their right’s, a place for fathers to accept their rights on condition of paternity confirmation (DNA), or a spot to accept the rights regardless of paternity (this third option would not negate the rights of the actual biological father unless he himself has already signed away those rights.
This, in combination with a shared custody default in family court (unless reason can be given in the best interest of the child to do otherwise), such as that proposed in Canada’s member bill c-422, would do a great deal towards equalizing the current situation. IMHO.
I don’t see how you can change the law to make mothers solely responsible for babies based on their decision not to abort, but then also say they have to share rights with the father once the child is born. I think once mothers get full responsibility they also get full rights. I am no legal scholar, but I don’t see how you can separate rights and responsibilities if it is based on her unilateral decision not to abort.
Most of the supporters of C4M are suggesting that if no contract is signed, then the default is that the man has no responsibility. For men that want to be fathers and care for their children, I am sure the oppositional argument will say that if he wanted to be a father then he should have had the contract signed before he had sex.
So, IMO, choice for men will be good for men who do not wish to be fathers but it will be devastating for men that do.
I don’t see how you can change the law to make mothers solely responsible for babies based on their decision not to abort, but then also say they have to share rights with the father once the child is born. I think once mothers get full responsibility they also get full rights. I am no legal scholar, but I don’t see how you can separate rights and responsibilities if it is based on her unilateral decision not to abort.
Most of the supporters of C4M are suggesting that if no contract is signed, then the default is that the man has no responsibility. For men that want to be fathers and care for their children (and the mother wont let them), I am sure the oppositional argument will say that if he wanted to be a father then he should have had the contract signed before he had sex.
So, IMO, choice for men will be good for men who do not wish to be fathers but it will be devastating for men that do.
Sorry for the double post. If administrator could delete the first one, that would be great
Beth Lang seems to get it
Seriously, the whole problem here is Birth Control and the irresponsibility women show by not using it. as of right now, Men only have two forms, Condom and vasectomy, with vasectomy not really being much of an option because of it’s being more or less permanent, while women have countless methods from removing ovaries, to a fruit flavored chewable, and even if they woke up the next morning with an “OH SHIT! WE DIDN’T USE ANY BIRTH CONTROL!!” They have pills for that too…and yet they’re still being “accidentally” knocked up. There needs to be some kind of accountability to the women who allow the process to even get to the point of “to abort or not to abort”
@Angry Harry
I’m pretty ambivalent with regards to abortion for many reasons that have already been better expressed by others. I don’t view it as a mainstream men’s rights issue, but I do view anti-feminism as a mainstream men’s rights priority. Your point on the utility of abortion as a big stick with which to bitch-slap feminists in debates (metaphorically of course) is one that I’ve taken to heart and I will be doing some research on abortion for that express purpose. Of course, the corollary to that, which Paul spoke to well, is that if the MRM makes abortion one of it’s mainstream issues (as feminism has done) it becomes an equally big stick to be used against us. I do not need to take a stand on abortion either way to point out the hypocrisy and problems with feminism’s gospel like stance on the issue.
The father has X number of days after he is informed of the birth of HIS child to apply for paternity. If there is no father signature on the birth certificate, he is absolved of all responsibility but also has no rights to the child.
What Beth does not understand is that shame is not enough for these girls to stop getting pregnant. It needs to be a really bad life choice and us refusing to support illegitimate children is the key.
There needs to be a stigma and a hardship involved. These girls need sexual mores and the progressives are simply breaking down these children’s natural defense against unwanted sexual advancements. The liberals in Ontario tried to pass a very progressive curriculum that would teach very young children about sex. This curriculum was only defeated because of the Christian and Muslim lobby groups.
We need to get our sexual mores back into place and put the onus back on the female to be chaste at marriage.
Another thing we don’t need Beth is more government regulation in our lives. What we men want is freedom to choose to be parents just like women get to choose to be parents. The government can get the fuck out of our lives for all I’m concerned.
The message young girls and women are getting is that their bodies are their own, and they can use it how they please. Which puts the onus, in cases other than rape, on them should an unplanned pregnancy occur.
Cake/eating. Women are told to be autonomous, but flee when this results in reprehensible action.
I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, “Women should be more responsible”. Being responsible is something adults do far better than young girls. I know, I have children conceived unintentionally. (their dad loves being their dad)
Also, even though men don’t have the same contraception as women, it doesn’t mean women’s is great.
@Carlos
“Of course, the corollary to that, which Paul spoke to well, is that if the MRM makes abortion one of it’s mainstream issues (as feminism has done) it becomes an equally big stick to be used against us. ”
Yes; but only up to a point.
Perhaps one has had to be on the receiving end of completely unjustified feminist-inspired attacks to appreciate what might be necessary in this war.
A decade ago, for example, this very site would probably have been taken down by the hosters fairly quickly – and *certainly* delisted from any major search engines that existed.
My first site was completely blocked all over the place; and the hosters took it off. And I can assure you that it was very, very mild in comparison to this site.
And bogus prosecutions – or threats of them – for hate speech, or whatever, could easily have taken place against people like me in the UK.
It all seems so unlikely now. But this is because times have changed, and because there are more of us.
But we are still not strong enough, in my view.
Indeed, it is only a few weeks ago that Google removed Spearhead from its advertising list and from three other MRA-related sites.
@ BL
It might be worth the effort to try and repeal or amend laws which encourage bad female behavior (and some male behavior, in this case, but not enough to make any measurable contribution). Some would argue that bad female behavior causes bad male behavior.
Have you noticed the correlation in timing and the implementation of Roe and VAWA, with rampant abortion, and unfair DV and family laws etc.?
What I’m suggesting would hopefully cover a whole range of problematic behavioral issues, instead of just focusing in on unwanted pregnancies.
Of course, I don’t see the pregnancy as the problem, but the irresponsible behavior of the women.
If a man has sex with an unknown or questionable woman, and he contracts an STD who is at fault? Do we look to the woman for blame and assistance for the man to cope with the disease she’s given him? He is expected to take responsibilty with what happens to “his body” (literally). Why not her?
We are in a culture which almost celebrates irresponsible female behavior. Abortion is a symtom (the worst) of that behavior.
“Abortion is greatly needed” you say?
Are you comparing human unborn babies to dogs and cats?
Is a non viable unborn baby not a human, and not able to feel pain?
Do you think mandatory birth control would get past the (much loathed) ACLU?
I deeply disagree with your indifference to the lives of the unborn, but I agree with using contriception prudently.
As far as mandatory birth control, it seems to me like a band- aid that doesn’t stick, at best.
Young girls are in a feminist dominated culture where they are taught by the the older girls, AKA feminists, to fulfill themselves, sexually or otherwise, without ever having to consider any consequences etc..
They can spread their legs and have fun without a care. Unwanted pregnancy? No problem, arrangements have been made. It’s hard for a teenage girl in heat to resist that. And it’s also damn unfair, even cruel, to do that to very young girls.
At the moment, states are given the power to implement restrictions in the case of minors seeking abortion. The options are parental/court notification/consent before granting an abortion to a minor. But after this administration signs FOCA, which he promised he would do, to the fem/abor lobby who supported his presidential campaign.
In other words; A 12 year old girl can walk into an abortion facility anywhere, anytime in this country requesting an abortion and she will, without counselling and explanations etc. of the “procedure”, get her abortion no questions asked on the taxpayers $. And no state, county, local etc. can pass laws to control or prevent it.
Big brother, excuse me, that’s big SISTER, will see to that.
BTW- not that it belongs here, but Dems approved, Repubs opposed.
Last sentence, third paragraph should read;
But after this administration signs FOCA into law, which he promised the fem/abo lobby who supported his presidential campaign, that he would do, any restrictions on abortion for minors will be banned nationwide.
@ Whitman ~ Mickey T.
First of all I would like to clarify my comment ~
I do not mean to compare a human life to a dog/cat’s life. Although, I do like dogs more than most people I have met. I was merely comparing the issues we have in our country. There is a pet problem and something is being done to correct it. I never said it was working. There is an abortion problem in our country and there needs too be a way to fix it. I agree the government needs to be less in our lives; however, we have a big problem. Parents are not teaching children morals!
Females aren’t taking the responsibility themselves so someone needs too. Our government controls most everything, why not something important for a change.
@ Whitman
(The father has X number of days after he is informed of the birth of HIS child to apply for paternity. If there is no father signature on the birth certificate, he is absolved of all responsibility but also has no rights to the child.)
Where the heck do you live??? Seriously, do you live on another planet? This statement is far from the truth. If this were true, men would not have half the problems they face today! If this were true I wouldn’t be fighting for equal rights for all men!
@Beth Lang
The thought of mandatory birth control is silly. The solution will be about responsible behavior on a personal level, not government involvement.
I also take issue for Beth Lang promoting abortion, when she herself had two children out of wedlock by two different men and collected government handouts and forced child support on the unwilling fathers.
Beth, based on your attitude and opinions, isn’t it you that should have chosen abortion instead of having children with no fathers as you could not support your kids on your own?
So you give abortion protestors the finger? Real classy. I think you deserve the finger for being such a bigot and lying (well at least hiding the truth) about your past and your decisions that are so contrary to what you are promoting now.
@ Angry Harry
“In my more cerebral days – before my memory deteriorated quite noticeably – I used to think a great deal about what would need to be done regarding creating a decent society without all the social problems, and I could not come up with anything better than mandated father custody.”
Mandated by whom? How enforced? Armed agents of the state? At gunpoint?
I stand solidly with Mr. Merrick on the issue of coercion. It is always and everywhere immoral, leading ultimately to enslavement and death.
Remove that one word from your post, and you have my wholehearted agreement. Moral suasion, peer pressure, preaching, education, counselling, exhortation – you get my point – would be ethically acceptable means of influence.
Regards.
It is my opinion that the primary focus of MRM should be the liberation of men and boys from the second class status that feminists and other ideologues have effectively mandated and achieved. Therefore, the abortion issue is not an issue for our cause.
Paul stated it well when he expressed concern that taking on the abortion issue will delute our issues. I couldn’t agree more.
@Andrew
“Mandated by whom? How enforced? Armed agents of the state? At gunpoint?”
Exactly!
What kind of huge force could make such a thing happen and then maintain it?
And would we want to live under such a force?
No thanks!
But there might be ways around this that you have not yet thought of.
I have a few ideas but cannot talk about them.
@Merritt
“Therefore, the abortion issue is not an issue for our cause.”
Don’t be so arrogant. Nobody defines ‘our’ cause.
Paul was talking about HIS website and about HIS views on the matter.
Furthermore, you might well not need to highlight an issue as a defensive ploy because you are unlikely to draw much in the way of fire, are you?
Some MRAs might need a bit more protection – if that’s OK by you.
@Andrew
The big problem is the children.
If the fathers are not there, then the rearing of the children is down to women and the state. And the evidence suggests that this is a very bad option – on NUMEROUS fronts; including the huge growth of the state.
And, of course, the men (fathers) will have to pay for all this.
Someone has to!
So, basically, you need to bring the fathers back into play.
The alternative is that the men go out to work to pay for all the children (most of whom are not theirs) – their education, health, justice system etc etc (i.e the state) and the mothers, and they are doing this in circumstances that must cost them at least twice as much as would be the case if they were all living with their own children – as fathers – and umpteen times as much for those men who are not fathers at all! – but still have to pay taxes like everybody else.
Furthermore, can we really sustain a society wherein women just have babies by whomsoever, and whenever, while the men troop out to work to pay for them – en masse, so to speak?
The evidence suggests that this just doesn’t work very well – with the men also not being very motivated to do much.
On the other hand, when men are allowed to be the heads of their households, they seem to do much more, the children get a better deal, the social problems diminish etc etc etc.
If this seems unfair on women; forget it.
Women have huge power in the family – no matter what the law says.
If the law said that you could cut off your woman’s head if she argues with you, while she is not even allowed to raise her voice, she would probably still rule the roost when it comes to the home and children.
Making the man the legal head does not, in practice, do anything more than help deliver a better balance of power.
If we don’t do something about the current situation, we will have millions of women just bearing children with fathers who do not need to bother about paying for them or being with them.
How is this sustainable?
Angry Harry
aborition is primarily a womans rights issue, thats its platform anyway. Its a big part of the global population control agenda, its necessary for the dual income family economy.
So Im at a loss as to why some think its a valid mens rights issue.
I can see how its a womans rights issue, a corporate issue, a health issue, a religious issue, a moral issue a “rights of the unborn issue”… I could easily say that its arrogant of people to use mens rights to advance their own seperate ideological positions.
To Mickey T,
****Young girls are in a feminist dominated culture where they are taught by the the older girls, AKA feminists, to fulfill themselves, sexually or otherwise, without ever having to consider any consequences etc..****
Golly gosh, I was about to tell you how wrong you are but then I thought about young girl’s magazines glorifying ‘fucking and chucking’.
But then, the majority of abortions in western cultures are by Asian women because they didn’t have sex education in their own country which tells me western women are infact learning about consequences. As a note, China has started sex education because of the spread of STDS in their country.
Personally, I think it’s important none iignore history and that many, many marriages were in fact shotgun marriages where men and women married because of pregnancies. I should look to see if we are better or worse off today.
Again with due respect, I think it’s as silly for men to tell young women how to do life as it is for women to tell young men how to do life. My greatest reason for this is that men tell young women young men are bad news, lol.
Best advice is for men to use whatever contraception they have available and them lobby for something better.
Great post J
IMO, this notion that mens rights is somehow about dictating to women and/or returning to mandatory gender roles prescribed in the bible is detrimental to the credibility of the movement.
@Eoghan
“aborition is primarily a womans rights issue, thats its platform anyway. Its a big part of the global population control agenda, its necessary for the dual income family economy.”
Your second sentence somewhat contradicts your first one in that you admit that men are affected economically by abortion.
I suppose it’s all a bit like the feminists complaining about men not doing enough housework.
But what has men’s propensity to do housework got to do with women’s rights? LOL!
If men do not want to do housework, why should they?
Nothing to do with women!
Nevertheless, feminists have got good mileage out of the issue for a good few years.
Furthermore, the fact that women can abort unilaterally whereas men cannot do so demonstrates more starkly just how impotent is a man when it comes to the question of blaming him for a child that he did not want to have.
Indeed, when a man hears a feminist wailing, “My body my choice” he often thinks, “Hmm. What about my choices in this matter? Where are my choices? How come my body has to go out to work as a result of her unilateral choices?”
My point being that there is some value to the issue from an MRA point of view.
Just like the housework issue is for feminists, perhaps.
i.e. something else to moan about in order to further the agenda.
However, just for the sake of argument, …
What if women were legally permitted to kill their children up to the age of three.
Would you still say that this had nothing to do with men’s (father’s) rights?
Well, for some people (about half the population, I think) there is no difference between a 14-week foetus and a three year old child.
Finally, I think that you need to distinguish between the MM, the MRM and what MRAs get up to in order to further their agenda.
For example, the issue of global warming has not much to do directly with men’s rights, but many MRAs are keen to highlight the recent scandals surrounding the issue in order to buttress their claims about the dishonesty of so many government officials and professionals; in this case, climate scientists.
Similarly, highlighting the corruption of politicians helps people to see that the powers-that-be are very often not to be trusted.
Nothing necessarily to do with men’s rights – but very important from an activist point of view.
Harry
I think abortion affects mens rights in the similar way that a man chosing not to reproduce, marry or live out side the system. It has an effect on women rights but its their their right to go and do it if they want.
The references to population control and the dual income economy were there to hint at the fact that the powers behind the global voluntary eugenics program contained in feminism are pretty much untouchable and any platform that seems to be about limiting womens reproduction rights will also be rejected by the majority of the population as regressive and oppressive, whats more it will attract and encourage the nuts on religious right. IMO Its best to stay away for womens reproductive rights altogether, if thats how they want them fine. We should focus on our own reproductive rights.
@Eoghan
I do not really disagree with you. You are saying much of what Paul says.
But I think that there are extra dimensions here which are being missed as per my various pontifications in this thread and in an earlier one.
But I must pick you up on a couple of extra things – for practice!
“any platform that seems to be about limiting womens reproduction rights will also be rejected by the majority of the population as regressive and oppressive”
I really think that you over-estimate this when it comes to abortion. I think that a significant percentage of the population is not happy about abortion – which translates to millions of men; and not necessarily religious nuts.
Many of these men will also be MRAs that are no different from us. They just happen to believe that abortion is immoral – especially if it is ‘their child’, I presume.
You can”t stop them being MRAs, or stop them arguing for men’s rights while arguing against abortion.
And it makes no sense to pretend that they are not part of the MM, nor contributing to it.
Furthermore, attitudes can change. You must remember that we are at the tail end of a huge propaganda onslaught by the feminists and their friends that has lasted for three decades. We are heavily imbued with it at the moment.
Who knows? In a few years time attitudes towards abortion might change completely.
Furthermore, if you look at much of the feminist propaganda you will notice how women are forever being portrayed as innocent victims, and men as bastards; e.g. think of the more gruesome domestic violence adverts.
They continually pull at people’s emotions to stir up hatred towards men.
“Look at what sh#ts those men are.”
Well, Eoghan, two can play at that game.
And I think that our enemies need to know this.
Finally, MRAs are forever posting up pieces about female paedophiles, female teachers who have had sex with their pupils, female murderers etc etc.
What have these things got to do with men’s rights?
Nothing.
But they do it to demonstrate to others that women are not as innocent as they are too often portrayed to be.
And I guess that for some MRAS the issue of abortion serves a similar function.
I’m with Type 5. How can you have an opinion on something you don’t even get to have a say in? Two of my girlfriends got pregnant and I said I’d support them until they could have the baby adopted, but they both opted for abortions. Their choice, no shame in my game.
@ KK
“How can you have an opinion on something you don’t even get to have a say in? ”
Do you ever have an opinion about the weather?
@Beth
“Where the heck do you live??? Seriously, do you live on another planet? This statement is far from the truth. If this were true, men would not have half the problems they face today! If this were true I wouldn’t be fighting for equal rights for all men!”
My statement was meant to show how it should be. Currently in many states, there is a putative father office where men can claim paternity if they so wish. I would take this idea and make it so the father has to claim paternity to be held liable for a child. I’d like to see it further enhanced so the child the gets moved to his custody as part of and heir to his estate.
Automatic father custody is what we should be fighting for.
@KK
You’re playing fast and loose with your sperm there pal. You might want to stop getting girls pregnant with babies you don’t intend on keeping. Once is an accident, twice is just plain sloppy. If you don’t learn to keep your DNA to yourself, you’re going to wind up financially ruined.
About abortion:
Men need to fight to have the same rights as women; to choose to be fathers or not after conception.
Men need to fight to have society recognize a father’s pain when his child is aborted against his wishes. We cannot stop women from doing it but we can highlight the pain that it causes.
Two things about men and men alone stand out in the area of abortion. Let the women have the right to their own bodies and in return, we get the right to our bodies (our labour) and the right to share the with whom we choose.
I also thing that automatic father custody could be attained by simply refusal of the state to support the female kinship. Let them work for a living and if their children suffer, show who is making them suffer without hating on men who work hard to support families.
@ Tic Toc
Go Fuck yourself! You know nothing about me or about my children. Your information is wrong! So before you make judgement Go Fuck yourself!
@Beth Lang
What we do know about your children is that you would have killed them if they were to have a birth defect. Look them straight in the eye and tell them that if you stand by it! You’re telling all the defective babies that you would have aborted them. Very nice! How eugenically maternal of you!
Is that really such a bad thing?
I have to side with Beth
What kind of a life is there for a child with a major defect? having to always be separated from the other kids, hospital visits, and the general ickyness of them (jokingbutnotreally)
I grew up with this guy who had brain cancer from an early age (maybe even born with it since I’ve known him since we were 10) he was a cool dude, but the shit he had to go though is not for the faint of heart one day, he’d go to the hospital, and the next time I see him, half his head is cut out. a lot of the things that we take for granted are just a dream for him and it sucks. I’d never want to put another human being through what he had to go through.
I know I’ll probably be downvoted for this, but I guess that’s what happens when you’re honest instead of being PC
So you think he would have preferred to be aborted? Did you ever look him in the eye and say “Man I would have aborted your sorry ass so you wouldn’t have to put up with this shit!”
You’re also making a personal judgement as to what is a major defect. Other people might have differing opinions. What about Little people? What about ugly people? The list goes on and I suppose if you can live with your decision to KILL an innocent to “SAVE” them from a life you don’t even know they might have appreciated then that is up to you. Imagine no midget wrestling or a world without Stephen Hawking. How on earth would the Wizard of Oz ever have been created if everyone had this eugenics in mind when having babies.
@ Whitney
Man you guys are worse than women! If a birth defect is detected early abortion is an option. What quality of life is it for the child and for the parents? If a women finds out there is something terribly wrong with her baby, why shouldn’t she have the right to abort it??? I am not promoting abortion…. It is an option and it is necessary!
(So you think he would have preferred to be aborted? Did you ever look him in the eye and say “Man I would have aborted your sorry ass so you wouldn’t have to put up with this shit!”)
Really???? I am not taking about every day life in raising a child and putting up with their shit!!! Come on don’t be silly now! I speak the truth ~ which most folks are scared to do!
You can not sit there and tell me if you knew your wife was carrying a baby that would never be normal…. never talk, walk, etc. you would not think about abortion? That is crap and you know it. Because what will happen to this child in the future? After you’re divorced and your wife takes off to be with another man, the child will put into a state run facility because you can’t put up with his shit!
Whitney I am on your side…. Can’t anyone have a decent debate without slamming the other??? I really thought men were different than women. Was I wrong?
I was present in a hospital when a late abortion was performed. The father was allowed to be present during the procedure and he came back and forth between the waiting room where his parents and her parents and other family members waited.
The baby was deformed and it was harming the mother. When taken out, he/she had the insides growing on the outside and no skin covering the brain. It changed my view because 1) this was their fdecision, not mine and 2) there are true medical reasons for abortion.
Personally I think feminists have taken the excuse ‘the well being of the mother’ to terrible heights. Having depressive thoughts is a part of hormones when pregnant, your husband losing his job isn’t the end of the earth and so on.
in the rules of civil debate, he/she who first calls names loses by default.
many of us have had our rights to our children violated. if abortion is one of the ways this became manifest, then it is a MRA issue for that individual. our rights have been ignored for 4 decades now. there are entire industries (divorce, abortion, paternity fraud, etc) that have sprung up in support of feminism. these issues are all interlaced, and cannot be defeated w/o the complete destruction of the idea that women (or anyone else) should have special privileges under the law.
harry is right about one thing, this issue is their weak spot. over half the U.S. had this rammed down their throats with little to no say. they despise the idea of it, and no matter from whence they come, they are finally seeing feminism with open eyes, like us.
make no mistake about it, we are involved in a war with feminists, and all of their allies.
about the assertion that the enemy of our enemy might not be our friend?
i have never heard of a war with 3 completely different sides. for my part, after being on the sucking end of this war for 4 decades, i’ll take help whomever, whenever and where ever they shoulder the attack.
btw – it was recently discovered that a formed fetus can and does suffer pain, just as you or i, just perhaps even more. so tearing them to pieces, cutting them up, or sucking their brains out (all standard methods of abortion) just doesn’t fit my role as a protector.
@Beth Lang
I appreciate your comment and I respect your opinion. My opinion is that we need to interview a few people some well-doers would have aborted and ask them what they think about the issue. I personally would never make the choice to terminate a child’s life no matter the situation. Actually, I think I might end the life of my braindead child so that the organs could save another.
I am a father and I know about shit. I also know that my instinct as a father would allow me to smile every time I cleaned up a big glob of my child’s shit and think to myself “This is my child … isn’t she beautiful?” As a father of a child with difficulties, I’ve done just that. My beautiful child is now in University!
My nephew is retarded and I feel the same way about that beautiful child.
Well all can dig up stories of children that were given a high chance of defect that turned out fine, children with defects that were born and give joy to all around them and women that regretted having their abortion(s) later in life but these are exceptions.
I think a good thing for us to be advising each other to do in the current climate, and I dont think its been brought up here yet, is to have the snip, and to keep it to ourselves. Anyone else seen that great craigs list story about the guy who’s gf tried to defraud him for life with someone else’s offspring?
@Eoghan,
Please provide a link to the craigslist story.
@Beth,
Is that so?
What do you have against people with learning difficulties?
What did we ever do to you?
GO POUND SAND!
@Peter Clifford
Very good comment. ‘Nuff said eh?
Here ya go Whitney
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html
Post Deleted, User Banned.
After much invested in working with this individual to eliminate the violent content of his posts, it is apparent that he will continue to violate the policy against that at AVfM. Therefore an irrevocable ban is placed.
I strongly encourage Peter to find some sort of assistance, professional or otherwise, to help manage the anger that is clearly a result of his background of being abused, but this site will not be posting any more of his comments.
Good luck, Peter.
Admin
It will be womens and FEMINISMS FAULT when HUMANITY IS EXTINCT!
and it will be going extinct VERY soon! If women get their way because “ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS!”
No ALL MEN ARE OPPERTUNISTS!
Oh it’s every womans “nightmare” (sexual fantasy) to be raped! ( insert sarcasm here)
@Eoghan, thanks for the link. BTW I really appreciate your comments on the Manboobz website. Well thought out and controversial.
Whitney
Hes deleting everything I say these days, and I wouldn’t be surprised if hes going back and cleaning up after all the guys after the fact, to create the illusion of winning.
These people have no regard for honest debate.
Peter, I don’t find the jokes and questions you put here to be funny. I’m hoping you’ll join the majority here and help things move forward rather than be part of the minority and be a thorn in the side of those being helpful.
The way I see it, if you can put your effort into collecting bad jokes and questions, you can put your effort into finding something useful to add.
It’s optional y’know.
Abortion isn’t relevant to LC4M because adoption is always another option.
I think Witney is offering to adopt mentally retarded babies from junkies and alcoholics.
I don’t think it should be a man’s decision or responsibility unless there is a prior contract, like marriage or a procreation contract.
Any man(or woman) having “just sex” shouldn’t expect anything other than “just sex”.
@ J
Agreed. Peter is out.
Since studying the MRM and finding out about this “marriage strike” business, its quite obvious that a general unwillingness to get married on the part of men would greatly increase the number of abortions sought by women…Although there may be complex aspects at work, many pregnant women will undoubtedly see this as “I will get no help from him anyway so I might as well get an abortion”….Now, to get “pro-lifers” to understand this marriage strike phenomenon.
@Beth “What about women who are raped and get pregnant by their attacker? What about birth defects? I am sorry call me selfish, call me a monster, but I would not give birth to a baby knowing it had something medically wrong with them. What kind of life is that for this child? I do want to add that I highly respect parents who have special needs children.”
Actually I can think of a more approriate term than monster- anyone who believes in abortion on the grounds of disability or deformity is a Nazi. Before anyone tries to argue that, I suggest they read up on the Nazi Euthenasia Program and specific component of is such as “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”, as they make my point completely spot on, as much as people might violently deny it.
There’s 2 fundamental flaws with the argument you’ve put forward Paul. You claim that you want to fight for men and boys, yet what about the boys who are the victims of the violent deaths through abortion? What about the fathers who are forced to stand back helplessly while their child’s cow of a mother butchers the child?
Furthermore while religious groups have heavily carried the mantle of abortion, it is far from a religious issue- it is where the financial elites of this world and feminism intersect- where eugenics is sold as “reproductive rights for women” as one of a raft of measures to attempt to reduce the world’s population to under 2 Billion (I’d recommend people taking a good look at the history of the World Wildlife Fund and its founders- one of whom claimed that while Hitler gave eugenics “a bad name”, it was what needed to be pursued as a course of action). Then there’s the fact that at $250 per abortion; abortion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.
Now I know the arguments which get dropped around this time- the mother’s health and blah blah blah. Consider these 2 things:
If a child is about to be hit by a car and their parents can either choose to push the child out of the way by diving in front of the car and probably dying or letting the child get hit by a car and saving their own skin, then the parent has killed their child through child abuse- namely negligence! Any claims contrary are just a bullshit copout- pure and simple! The same argument holds true. Just because children are used as a weapon does not change the fact that a man or a woman is still a parent to a child and have a responsibility to that child.
Secondly, for an artificial womb (the ideal solution to the problem) to be a reality, we need pressure controlled environments, climate controlled environments, synthetic tissue bonding and the ability to transfer wastes and nutrients between the artificial womb and the placenta. Considering that we have the first three of these down-pat and that arguably the fourth could easily be overcome with current technology, there should be no reason why an artificial womb hasn’t made medical trials by now, except for it being incompatible with the eugenic agenda of the world’s elites.
I agree with the underlying principles of what you’re saying- parenthood should never be used as a weapon against men and laws do need to be overhauled. I would be completely in favour of men being legally able to demand paternity tests should they have concerns over a child’s paternity.
Also much of the family court laws which used children as weapons against their fathers need to patched up asap.
However let’s be clear- with rights, come responsibilities. If you want sexual freedom then the flipside has to be parental responsibilities should children come along- as far as I’m concerned, that applies to men and women equally.
Feminism has become about enabling child abuse. Between abortion on tap and the vile bullshit lies about only men being abusers and only women being victims have given women carte blanche to abuse children from the time of conception to potentially the day they die, mean that women can, and do abuse children rampantly- with complete impunity for the most part.
Call me crazy, but I want better than that for the men’s movement. Yes it makes us a target but so what?
Abraham Lincoln fought a war to end slavery that nearly split apart the USA and was murdered for it. Martin Luther King was shot dead for preaching for an end to racism. Rabin was shot trying to bring peace to the Middle East.
These are just some examples of people who had to make the ultimate sacrifice and pay for what they believed in with their lives.
We’re saying we don’t want to fight for certain groups of boys and men because it might make us a target for feminists. How can we honestly succeed as a movement if we’re not prepared to pay the ultimate price for what’s right.
We say we hate misandry and the way it portrays men as bumbling idiotsin the media, but the flip-side of that is that we have to expect men to be better than bumbling idiots.
Likewise, if we want to demand that men stop being portrayed as child abuse deadbeat fathers, then the flipside of that is that we have to demand better of them as fathers.
Would segregation or apartheid have been overturned if people said “let’s be realistic”? Would slavery? Would the use of Blood Diamonds or any other social injustice out there?
We’re not realists! We never will be realists! We want justice and equality- you don’t get that by trying to dodge the system!
We need to be a voice for all men, not just the ones who are a “safe” option. Otherwise, what’s the point?
bowspearer– EXCELLENT!!!
I debated including this in the previous post, but it seemed better served being in an individual post.
When my mother was pregnant with me, she had a bleed early on in the pregnancy. She thought she’d miscarried at the time, but all the medical professionals she spoke to told her it was impossible. This was before 12 week scans were standard. She had a scan at 16 weeks, but what the doctor found was a 10 week old unborn child.
It wasn’t until this year during separate kinesiology sessions we’d both had (which contrary to common misconceptions, is not new age voodoo, but dealing with the subconscious and its affects on the rest of the body, going right back to our earliest memories.
Anyway, in my mother’s session, it was confirmed that she’d miscarried very early on into the pregnancy and then I was conceived 6 months after my older sister. My earliest experiences in life were of my dead sister’s body in utero and 5 months into the pregnancy when her body finally left the womb. As I’m sure you can imagine, something that dramatic has had deep and profound effects on me.
I’m anti-abortion, because I know, from my own experiences and at some level always have, that the whole thing about kids not really being human until they leave the womb is nothing but sick and ignorant Nazi bullshit!!!!!!!
I agree with you mostly. I dissent from you in that there are a lot of men and women out there that will stomp on every other right we are for as men and sensible women, just to push their pro-lie agenda. They will shove us under the bus—and fast. I am pro-life too. But we can’t have it hijacking the greater message of our movement.
At some point in the future, however, I hope most in disagreement with me here, will come around, because there is no way that it is a greater loss of humanity and dignity for the woman to have to share procreation power than it is for a man to have none at all. This is the only procreation system we have: it must be shared in an arena of true equality. My stance here isn’t based on pro-life, but on equality justice. We may teeter both ways, either way, or whatever, when it comes to other aspect of equality justice. But for equality justice to be done right, with THIS issue, both the man and the woman must share as equally possible as can be obtained.
My advice, if you will, is to be patient. Let our movement do its work, then we can reach for even more fairness. First, we must convince a lot of apathetic women AND men to be the equals that women claim to be.
At the same time, has anyone been to a country where reproductive health is low and defective fetuses aren’t routinely aborted?
Margret Sanger, J.D Rockefeller, Hitler, and feminism of course for carrying the eugenics movement are largely responsible for the fact defective children aren’t common in Western countries.
“At the same time, has anyone been to a country where reproductive health is low and defective fetuses aren’t routinely aborted?”
You mean countries where rather than using medical treatment and technologies to increase and maximise the potential of the disabled; the disabled are used as “poster children” for regurgitating the cliched Nazi propaganda line of “Would you want to live if you were like that?”.
Oh and “thumbs-downing” someone sharing deeply repressed memories of losing an older sister in utero- real classy, whoever did that.
@Mr J “Since studying the MRM and finding out about this “marriage strike” business, its quite obvious that a general unwillingness to get married on the part of men would greatly increase the number of abortions sought by women…Although there may be complex aspects at work, many pregnant women will undoubtedly see this as “I will get no help from him anyway so I might as well get an abortion”….Now, to get “pro-lifers” to understand this marriage strike phenomenon.”
Sorry but I call bullshit on this for the same reason I call bullshit on the conclusions reached by Paul with his approach to LC4M.
Just as I would not excuse a man being a bad or abusive father because the mother was bad or abusive, I’m sure as hell not going to excuse a woman for being a bad or abusive mother just because the father might be bad or abussive (based of course on an example of the extreme case off the whole refusal to marriage=abandoning of the child that feminist propaganda wants to constantly put forward in their vile crusade of misandry).
Has anyone had any experience working with pro-lifers getting them to understand the causes of the “marriage strike” phenomenon and how it relates to abortion?
THIS is a very pertinent thing!!
@Mr J “Has anyone had any experience working with pro-lifers getting them to understand the causes of the “marriage strike” phenomenon and how it relates to abortion?
THIS is a very pertinent thing!!”
You’re not getting it. How is the “the father isn’t there so I’ll get an abortion” any different to “well their father wasn’t there and so the only way I could control them was to give them a good beating every now and then”?
Forget about the bullshit eugenic dehumanising propaganda for a minute- both examples are of one parent leaving being an excuse for the other parent who stays to abuse the child/children in the situation.
If we wouldn’t tolerate that excuse for child molestation, child beating, child psychological abuse or child neglect, then it shouldn’t be acceptable in where abortion is involved either.
I didn’t thumb you down bowspearer.
Abortion isn’t a black and white issue. There are arguments for and against against it, it saves society a lot of crime, abuse and suffering as anyone who has lived in the developing world can see. The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.
Another fact is, no sane person is going to argue with a woman right to chose to work in some job longterm and abortion is needed in order for women to be worth longterm investment by employers.
Also, the population of matriarchal ghettos and single mother households would explode without abortion.
There are places for abortion discussions, womens groups, religious groups, medical ethics and philosophy maybe. I don’t believe that its our issue.
@Eoghan Let me put in caps the bit you clearly missed first of all “Oh and “thumbs-downing” someone sharing deeply repressed memories of losing an older sister in utero- real classy, WHOEVER DID THAT.”
Obviously if I’m saying whoever I’m not accusing you of it.
“Abortion isn’t a black and white issue. There are arguments for and against against it, it saves society a lot of crime, abuse and suffering as anyone who has lived in the developing world can see. The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.”
Right so you think that for example tying 40 “useless eaters” up with dynamite and blowing them up with dynamite is a good thing too then I take it. Either you think the Nazi Euthenasia Program and ultimately the Holocaust was a good thing, or you don’t.
Right now you’re clearly stating that you are in fact, a Nazi. By defending the work of the Nazis, you are siding with them and thus stating that you are of their mindset and ideology, thus YOU are a Nazi!
“Another fact is, no sane person is going to argue with a woman right to chose to work in some job longterm and abortion is needed in order for women to be worth longterm investment by employers.”
So in other words, you’re a feminist then. After all, as Rockafeller went on record as saying, the whole point of their commandeering of the feminist movement was to destroy the family and get every woman into the workforce.
“Also, the population of matriarchal ghettos and single mother households would explode without abortion.”
You’re right, we can’t have anymore “useless eaters” “infesting” the planet now can we- nevermind the fact that the technology exists now to turn largely arid north of Australia into an agricultural giant capable of feeding upto 10 billion people to quote just one example of what is possible.
“There are places for abortion discussions, womens groups, religious groups, medical ethics and philosophy maybe. I don’t believe that its our issue.”
Yes because let’s face it, the fathers who are robbed of their children when they wanted to be fathers aren’t really in need of advocacy at all and the boys who are the victims of abortions aren’t really human anyway are they? *rolls eyes*
@ Bowspearer, Not everybody agrees that a fetus is the same as a born child. Nazis are best known for their genocide of living jews. There is also a significant difference between parent’s freedom of choice and state imposed eugenics that is designed to exterminate another race. Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.
I don’t think fathers should have any decision making power or responsibility for children unless their intent was to make children in marriage or if there was a clear agreement to procreate outside of marriage.
Are you also going to accuse me of being a feminist because I believe in equality and women should get their ass to work?
@Whitney. I’m not fond of the status quo mother-custody vs. father-custody debate. Both sides are based on generalized statistics and stereotypes that do even begin to address the reality of individual cases. I’m anti-gender-bias.
@Dennis “Not everybody agrees that a fetus is the same as a born child. Nazis are best known for their genocide of living jews. There is also a significant difference between parent’s freedom of choice and state imposed eugenics that is designed to exterminate another race. Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
The claim that my argument is weak only shows your complete and utter ignorance. You’re absolutely right that the Holocaust is most commonly associated with the Jews.
However anyone who actually has a deeper understanding of things, understands not only that eugenics and not pure anitsemitism (pure being the operative term and the antisemitism of the holocaust was entirely eugenic in nature) was at the core of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, they also know that Hitler went for the disabled long before he went for the Jews and that the disabled served as the guinea pigs of the methods which would later be used in concentration camps on the Jews, Romani and other persecuted minorities.
Being brainwashed by zionist bullshit about the exclusivity of Jewish victimhood in the Holocaust does not make a sound and cutting argument weak.
Furthermore, claiming that parents are allowed to dehumanise their unborn children is on the exact same level as the Nazis claiming that “impurities in the volk” were subhuman.
Therefore and in conclusion, as the old saying goes, “if it walks like a dog, looks like a dog, wags it’s tail and barks, then it’s safe bet that it’s a dog”.
In the same vein, when someone who disagrees with me is clearly and knowlingly making statements which clearly demonstrate that they are literally a Nazi in terms of their ideology, then yes- I’m going to call a spade a spade.
FYI, if you’re going to play the “Godwin’s Law” card, you might want to look up the exception clause to it first.
“Are you also going to accuse me of being a feminist because I believe in equality and women should get their ass to work?”
No just of complete ignorance here. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d understand that the same elites who are pushing for a global agenda of genocide to reduce the world’s population to 2 billion or less are the same elites who hijacked the feminist movement to further their own agendas. Eoghan on the other hand is clearly very much aware of this by his statements, so my calling a spade a spade there was very much appropriate.
It just occurred to me that I probably should provide people with some information who maybe aren’t familiar with the Nazi Eugenics Program (there’s a journal article I have access to which points out the way that the desirability of the child was at the core of the Nazi Abortion Policy, but sharing it publicly could be tricky).
Here’s a 5 part series on youtube which people might find interesting:
Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVNPAvCfH0
Part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vqHeqiqMFY
Part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqk6utnT51s
Part 4- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_GcRHu4N0w
Part 5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8AEtx92iXw
“your complete and utter ignorance.”
No…I’m going to play the wack job card, because you can’t convince anybody with such arguments, except those who already agree with you.
The same elites who are anti-abortion are also pro-war and want to send men to their death fighting a religious war.
The same elites who are anti-abortion are also pro-male servitude for baby-mamas.
The same elites who are anti-abortion are socialists who want to increase government control over people’s lives.
I’m not opposed to population reduction, but it’s not an MRM issue. Rather than some artificial womb, money would be far better spent taking care of the starving children on this planet and finding a good solution for male birth-control to prevent more unwanted births.
Population reduction will happen one way or another. Either by war and famine or by birth control.
Bowspearer
Im just pointing out the reaity, its not a fundamentalist positon were one position is all good and the other is all evil and acknowledging the reproductive health work that was done be hitler does not me a Nazi any more than your acknowledging rocket technology makes you one.
@Dennis “No…I’m going to play the wack job card, because you can’t convince anybody with such arguments, except those who already agree with you.”
Or in other words the “‘tin foil hat wearing’ card because I’m incapable of accepting the cold hard truth because it’s just too inconvenient”.
Furthermore you completely contradict yourself “The same elites who are anti-abortion are also pro-war and want to send men to their death fighting a religious war.”
Yet you go on to say “I’m not opposed to population reduction, but it’s not an MRM issue.”
Right so population reduction by sending men to their deaths through staged wars isn’t a MRM issue? That’s not even getting into the whole issue of the fact that roughly half of all children aborted are going to be male or the fact that a sizable number of those abortions are going to be where the father actually wanted the child.
Your argument here is flawed.
Then there’s this little “gem”.
“Rather than some artificial womb, money would be far better spent taking care of the starving children on this planet and finding a good solution for male birth-control to prevent more unwanted births.”
In other words, the “human beings are a virus on this planet” argument. I hate to break it to you Dennis, but you’ve been brainwashed with a form of Neo-Nazism- not the overt kind, but the kind equivalent to where someone makes a deeply racist statement which they deeply believe or excuses or defends someone else making it, only to go adamantly claim they’re not racist while counting the number of friends of that particular nationality they have on one or 2 hands.
@Eoghan “Im just pointing out the reaity, its not a fundamentalist positon were one position is all good and the other is all evil and acknowledging the reproductive health work that was done be hitler does not me a Nazi any more than your acknowledging rocket technology makes you one.”
Dead wrong. What characterised the entire ugly side of the Nazi regime, specifically the holocaust, was eugenics. You can pass it off as “realism” all you like, but you’ve proven by your outlook that you’re clearly a Nazi to the core.
@Bowspearer, you’re rhetoric is insulting to my intellegence.
I give zero merit to your arguments.
@Dennis All you’re doing is proving your infinite ignorance on the Holocaust and on eugenics. You’ve been sucked in so deep by the “sustainable poipluation” propaganda that the top of the philosophical pit you’re in which would allow you to see clearly is but a tiny speck up above you.
@BowSpearer. You seem to be under the impression that someone who agree’s with one idea presented by a person or movement, agree’s with all aspects nd idea’s of the person/movement. That is an insane attitude to take, and completely removes any concept of free thought or originality. Someone can agree with the nazi’s Eugenic’s, and condemn their actions towards Jews. Such ideology isn’t all or nothing, and trying to make it as such is not only short sighted… it’s dangerous.
You clearly have a set idea of what abortion is, and your entitled to that opinion, but those who disagree with you, that see some possible potential in the process, aren’t by default Jew hating, genocidal sociopaths. The fact the you would make that connection gives me great concern for your mental health.
As to MRA’s on the issue of abortion, I have to agree with what I believe Paul to be saying. While individual members may each have their own stake in the debate (some like yourself are opposed, others are for it, and others still don’t much care), the issue isn’t a men’s issue, it is a human issue (includes, but is not limited to men). Men’s movements largely only have a stake in whether the outcome of the debate (which currently sits on legally allowed) is applied equally to both sex’s, which, currently, it is not.
Bowspearer
You are showing a bot of ignroance about eugenics. The nazis ran and coercive positive eugenics program, the one we have in the west is voluntary. The is a fundamental difference between the two.
@Kratch “Someone can agree with the nazi’s Eugenic’s, and condemn their actions towards Jews. Such ideology isn’t all or nothing, and trying to make it as such is not only short sighted… it’s dangerous.”
This statement is completely contradictory and illogical. The actions of the Nazis towards the Jews were based entirely on a form of antisemitism which was eugenic in nature. To cherrypick when eugenics is acceptable is one of the worst forms of closet Nazism there is. Furthermore, I know it’s dangerous- the truth always is.
“You clearly have a set idea of what abortion is, and your entitled to that opinion, but those who disagree with you, that see some possible potential in the process, aren’t by default Jew hating, genocidal sociopaths. The fact the you would make that connection gives me great concern for your mental health.”
And when did I say that to be pro-abortion was to be anti-semite? Please do find me an example of where I specifically said this (short of doctoring it, you wont find it). However I did accuse people who were pro-abortion of being eugenic and thus Nazis and that is an entirely fair comparison. As the line between high intelligence and insanity is very fine as the old saying goes, I would expect someone as ignorant as you clearly are to choose the insane option in your judgement of me.
Then again, the thing about ignorance is that it can be found at the core of EVERY single form of biggotry on the planet, which you’re living proof of, by demonstrating the behaviour that fits into the spectrum of behaviour associated with the very school of subversive bigotry I pointed out to Dennis that he had been infected with.
All people here are proving is just how rampant the form of bigotry known as eugenics, or more famously, Nazism, is worldwide- amongst even those who claim to fight against inequality and injustice.
@Eoghan The one who is showing ignorance here is yourself. The difference between an overt and oppressive state run campaign and subversive campaign of eugenics by stealth (largely through conditioning people through things such as perceptions of perpetual victimhood and villainising humanity as a whole) where you ultimately condition the general public to not only do it for you but to believe it’s in their best interests to do so, is the exact same difference as between dropping a rabbit into a vat of boiling oil and slowly boiling them in water- the end result is the same, only with the later, people don’t realise what’s happening until it’s far too late.
Far too late for what Bowspearer?
There are good and bad applications of eugenics, its not inherently bad unless you have a religious position. There is a religious position on abortion in this country, if someone needs a life saving abortion or some kids made a mistake .. they have to fly to another country to get one.
@Eoghan “Far too late for what Bowspearer?”
To realise that it’s checkmate and that the Elites have implemented their agenda and there’s no way to fix it.
“There are good and bad applications of eugenics, its not inherently bad unless you have a religious position. There is a religious position on abortion in this country, if someone needs a life saving abortion or some kids made a mistake .. they have to fly to another country to get one.”
Ok this argument is one of the common myths out there. Sure religious people believe it’s bad, but not all people believe it on religious grounds either. As for your argument about flying overseas for an abortion; you might as well be talking about, for example, flying to Thailand for a child sex tour because paedophilia is illegal in the country you’re in- should we be advocating for paedophilia to be legalised on those grounds now too (I sure as hell hope we wouldn’t). Afterall that’s what lies at the heart of the ethics of your argument – a form of child abuse, regardless of how you try to spin it with eugenic propaganda.
The ideology behind voluntary negative eugenics is that of you find you are carrying a defective fetus or are not in a financially secure enough position to bring a child into the world, you can chose to abort it.
Hitler was a Christian and anti-semitism has been around as long as the Catholic church. So, by bowspearer’s logic, Christians are the same as nazis.
Bowspearer
I don’t think that conspiracy theory is a mens rights issue. We through technology have greatly increased our life expectancy, because of that and poverty we need population control although there is certainly a problem there with the wealthy elite having too much wealth at our expense.
There are conspiracy theory sites for what you are saying, in fact Ive seen that political rabble rouser and ruling class mouth piece alex jones saying exactly what you are saying. Abortion is not a mens rights issue, we need father rights and reproductive rights and various other things, the mens movement is not going to join the conspiracy theory or pro life movement and getting emotional and attacking people is not going to change that.
@Eoghan I’m going to twist your argument back around on you. Imagine that a neighbour decides they don’t like you, ie to them you’re “undesirable”. So one night they walk into your house in the middle of the night and literally hack you to pieces using a machette and a pair of pliers large enough to snap your bones, but in a way where it’s not instant but protracted and where you eventualy die, but not before you experience your arms and legs and bits of your torso being slowly hacked from your body- watching bits of intestine, musle, liver, and all your other internal tissues go flying from your body (yes this is a gruesome example, but if we’re going to talk about abortion, let’s tell it like it is, including with examples- this one being equivalent to a 2nd trimester abortion).
The police show up but the assailant isn’t charged because they claim “there are good and bad applications for murder” (in their mind your murder was a good thing) and because under the law in this situation you and a group you were affiliated with were dehumanised to the point where you were no longer legally classed as human and thus your death was legally not a murder. According to your own argument, you’d have no problem with that.
Not so relativistic when you’re suddenly the victim is it.
@Bowspearer–
you said
“Actually I can think of a more approriate term than monster- anyone who believes in abortion on the grounds of disability or deformity is a Nazi. Before anyone tries to argue that, I suggest they read up on the Nazi Euthenasia Program and specific component of is such as “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”, as they make my point completely spot on, as much as people might violently deny it.”
I started this post trying to explain the different disabilities and why sometimes abortion is more humane for the child in the long run….but you dont want to hear that. You don’t seem to be engaging in any type of discussion or debate other than “Your opinion is different than mine and I can’t hear you lalalalalalala” with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears.
Clearly you are passionate about the topic, and atleast you’re consistent, but the REALITY is that there are, and always will be, a desire for abortion to be available. Calling people monsters or nazi’s or whatever does not elevate your argument, it just makes it look more than a bit emotional and fevered rather than containing much practicality.
My question to you is this….
Are you, PERSONALLY, willing to take in/adopt/foster these children you propose be saved from abortion? These babies with deformities so severe that the only thing they are able to do is breathe, and only with the assistance of a tube? The ones that are G-tube fed, blind, deaf, mute, immobile, non verbal, demonstrate no awareness at all, and show no brain activity beyond basic function? And if you are…..
what kind of existance are you condemning them to in order to prove your point?
You are not right in the head Bowspearer, I’m terminating this conversation here.
@Dennis “Hitler was a Christian and anti-semitism has been around as long as the Catholic church. So, by bowspearer’s logic, Christians are the same as nazis.”
Dennis all you’re doing is making yourself look more like a fool, but I’ll humour your ridiculous counter claim. That would only hold true if the said Christians also believed in eugenics which would actually be the height of hypocrisy.
@”The ideology behind voluntary negative eugenics is that of you find you are carrying a defective fetus or are not in a financially secure enough position to bring a child into the world, you can chose to abort it.”
ie “What’s another dead ‘useless eater’ right?”
“Abortion is not a mens rights issue, we need father rights”
Yet for fathers who want to be fathers but have to watch helplessly as their child’s mother kills the child, the abortion issue is very much a case of father’s rights. Once again, you prove how hollow and baseless your argument is.
@Eoghan No you’re just a cowardly little Nazi who lacks the courage to take a long hard look in the mirror and face just what kind of person you are.
That example was using the universal principle of inversion- where I placed you in a situation where you were the victim of the very crime you were advocating in support of, so you could see things from the perspective that you had clearly denied existed.
Yet face with that “holy crap, I can’t believe I ever supported that” moment, your response was :
“You are not right in the head Bowspearer, I’m terminating this conversation here.”
Sorry but if you were trying to come across like a Nazi in complete denial and with a warped sense of reality, you did so perfectly.
But then hey, I guess the most inconvenient truths hurt the most, don’t they?
There’s a good reason why MRA’s don’t want to be associated with these wack jobs.
Think about it.
@Tasha “I started this post trying to explain the different disabilities and why sometimes abortion is more humane for the child in the long run….but you dont want to hear that. You don’t seem to be engaging in any type of discussion or debate other than “Your opinion is different than mine and I can’t hear you lalalalalalala” with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears.”
Or maybe I’ve heard it all before and know exactly where I’ve heard it before- namely Nazi Germany. The way they got the entire German peoples behind the Nazi Eugenics program which was the start of the Holocaust, was to use the very argument you have- talking about the humanity of killing someone with a disability or deformity rather than letting them live: quoting “would you want to live if you were like that” until it stuck in people’s heads like a bad song you can’t stop replaying in your mind or Obama’s “yes we can!”
“Clearly you are passionate about the topic, and atleast you’re consistent, but the REALITY is that there are, and always will be, a desire for abortion to be available. Calling people monsters or nazi’s or whatever does not elevate your argument, it just makes it look more than a bit emotional and fevered rather than containing much practicality.”
So what, there will always be a demand for paqedophilia, child beating and other forms of child abuse in society. Should we go ahead and legalise those too? If someone was serially having sex with children, then according to the premise of your argument here, accurately labelling them as a paedophile according to you”does not elevate your argument, it just makes it look more than a bit emotional and fevered rather than containing much practicality.”
“Are you, PERSONALLY, willing to take in/adopt/foster these children you propose be saved from abortion? ”
When I’m out of Uniand working, I’d be open to it should it come up.
“These babies with deformities so severe that the only thing they are able to do is breathe, and only with the assistance of a tube? The ones that are G-tube fed, blind, deaf, mute, immobile, non verbal, demonstrate no awareness at all, and show no brain activity beyond basic function? And if you are…..
what kind of existance are you condemning them to in order to prove your point?”
And yet what about the ones with cleft palettes or Down Syndrome if you want to play that card. You ask about the existence I’d be “condeming” them to, but unlike Nazis like you who clearly and blatantly regard them as nothing but “useless eaters”, an existence where they are still people and their life, their personhood and every moment of their existence, matter, because they are people- not thier disability.
If you cannot make that distinction, then as much as you might hate hearing it like some American racist trying to count out the number of African American friends they have, you’re a Nazi!
idk why I’m even arguing what amounts to a rehash of roe v wade here….I’ve zero interest in re-inventing the wheel with you, bowspearer or anyone else. Abortion is legal, it’s not likely to be relagated back to the alleyway anytime soon, whether people like it or not. So let’s move forward onto why it should or should not be a mens rights conern shall we?
Fantastic.
I’m fully aware that as a woman, I will bring certain biases to this discussion, both ones I am cognizant of, and ones I am not. However, I do think that men have a stake in this issue on at least a couple of levels:
1) The fetus is half theirs (for the purposes of efficiency, yes, I’m attributing rights of ownership to the fetus, although thats not nec, the way I feel). This is the man’s child as well. He should have some say in its continued development.
2) Fathers should have the right to financially and legally divorce themselves from the child (this is the only “opt out” method that makes sense and is even remotely on par with physical abortion)
3) The choice about whether or not to procreate SHOULD BE A RIGHT…for EVERYONE. Both men and women. Because a female is in “possession” of the fetus, as dictated by biology, her choice sometimes necessarily includes the reactive response of abortion, especially if the proactive response of using birth control either failed or was not available. For men, you have, thus far, no legally sanctioned reactive response, only the proactive one of using birth control. I say you are entitled to both. Which nicely brings us back to points one and two above.
@Dennis “There’s a good reason why MRA’s don’t want to be associated with these wack jobs.
Think about it.”
You mean the same MRAs who vilify feminists for practicing this kind of hypocrisy only to then practice it themselves.
That kind of vile hypocrisy might be good enough for you, but the MRA’s who can recognise abortion for what it is, including the ideology surrounding it, are smarter and better than that.
@Dennis
Yes.
That is all.
To Bowspearer,
***Actually I can think of a more approriate term than monster- anyone who believes in abortion on the grounds of disability or deformity is a Nazi. Before anyone tries to argue that, I suggest they read up on the Nazi Euthenasia Program and specific component of is such as “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”, as they make my point completely spot on, as much as people might violently deny it.***
With due respect, (I say this because you say good things yet I’m taking just one part)…. Nazis weren’t the only ones ashamed of disabled babies. It was the norm to hide everything negative only 40 odd years ago.
Speak no evil.
See no evil.
Hear no evil.
This was for everything that could bring shame on a family, a man and woman. Gays were shameful, drunks were shameful, criminals were shameful, disabled children were shameful, domestic violence was shameful, being abused was shameful ….. people seriously lived in denial and they seriously locked the shame away – thus family members were institutionalised. There were laws families could call on to have shame removed like a rubbish truck collecting our weekly rubbish.
Out of sight, out of mind. Honestly, we’ve come aloooong way just talking about these things.
To Whitney,
***As a father of a child with difficulties, I’ve done just that. My beautiful child is now in University!***
It’s an honour to be in your fine company.
………..
Someone brought up adoption as an alternative (me thinks – can’t seem to find it)…. But for interest sake, ….
Adoption became more problematic in the mid-1960s as the supply of ex-nuptial children born to young women from the large baby boom generation began to outstrip the supply of prospective adoptive parents.
The need for women’s independence is what gave feminism it’s power and ‘Family Planning’ i.e abortion, population reduction etc.
@Tasha “Abortion is legal, it’s not likely to be relagated back to the alleyway anytime soon, whether people like it or not. So let’s move forward onto why it should or should not be a mens rights conern shall we?”
At one point slavery was legal, as was Paedophilia and other forms of child abuse. By your mentality, people should still be legally able to molest and rape 5 year olds and then go out and give their slave a good beating for the hell of it.
“1) The fetus is half theirs (for the purposes of efficiency, yes, I’m attributing rights of ownership to the fetus, although thats not nec, the way I feel). This is the man’s child as well. He should have some say in its continued development.”
This entire argument dehumanistes the child to property as opposed to a person, it is equivalent to a form of slavery and completely disregards their fundamental human right to life.
“3) The choice about whether or not to procreate SHOULD BE A RIGHT…for EVERYONE.”
Fair enough, but you’re missing the point that as of the moment conception occurs, procreation has already taken place.
There is a huge difference between being pro birth control and pro abortion. The former arguably places you from a religious perspective in the “pro-disrupting the formation of life” category. However the later places you for an humanitarian perspective in the category of being eugenic or a Nazi. That’s what you seem to be missing here.
The physical nature of pregnancy means that there’s just no equitable way to deal with parental rights in the case of accidental pregnancy. Instead of miserably hashing the issue over and over again, I strongly support the sexual education of men and men given sexual tools to protect themselves from accidental or manipulative pregnancy. (MALE BIRTH CONTROL IT’S ALMOST HERE GUYS!!!)
I do support abortion, simply because pregnancy is a physical condition that’s dangerous and causes physical illness and possibly permanent damage. We do not legally require people to be organ, tissue, or bone donors, even if it will save lives, even for immediate family members, so I don’t see the legal grounds for demanding a whole-body donation.
Both men and women need to protect themselves from pregnancy. Never trust a partner that claims to be be on birth control and never agree to have a child without a signed sheet of parental rights.
@J “With due respect, (I say this because you say good things yet I’m taking just one part)…. Nazis weren’t the only ones ashamed of disabled babies. It was the norm to hide everything negative only 40 odd years ago.”
I’m aware of that, but we’re actually talking here about abortion on the grounds of “desireability” especially in the case of the disabled, which takes you smack bang into the territory of the Nazi Eugenics Program, specifically, things like “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”
I’m not denying for one minute that there was much injustice in the way institutionalsing was used, however you’re missing a key difference here.
While the rest of the world was institutionalising, Germany was progressing from there to shutting down institutions so they could associate criminality with disability and deformity, which in turn was a prelude to abortions on the grounds of disability, forced sterilisations, killing young children en masse with a mix of starvation and exposure in places like Hadamar and then using them as guinea pigs in AKTION14 to determine the best way to kill off the Jews and every other group they deemed “undesireable”.
That’s the key difference here and that’s where eugenics leads to if left unchecked- history has proved it far too often.
@J “Someone brought up adoption as an alternative (me thinks – can’t seem to find it)…. But for interest sake, ….
Adoption became more problematic in the mid-1960s as the supply of ex-nuptial children born to young women from the large baby boom generation began to outstrip the supply of prospective adoptive parents.”
I can’t speak for elsewhere, but here in Australia for example, the waiting list ofr adoption is over 3 years and at one point in the 1990s they actually closed the books on who could be an adoptive parent, literally because they had too much demand for adoption and not enough supply.
It would be interesting to find out what the figures were like in other countries.
Lord save me, I must be an intellectual masochist cuz I’m replying AGAIN…..
@Bowspearer–
“Abortion is legal, it’s not likely to be relagated back to the alleyway anytime soon, whether people like it or not. So let’s move forward onto why it should or should not be a mens rights conern shall we?”
At one point slavery was legal, as was Paedophilia and other forms of child abuse. By your mentality, people should still be legally able to molest and rape 5 year olds and then go out and give their slave a good beating for the hell of it.”
*******You are the one drawing these parallels to use them as emotional currency to tie up the issue in heartstrings…you are intentionally using the most taboo and antiquated scenarios to misdirect logical thinking….have fun, this is as far as I’m going in addressing this point.
“1) The fetus is half theirs (for the purposes of efficiency, yes, I’m attributing rights of ownership to the fetus, although thats not nec, the way I feel). This is the man’s child as well. He should have some say in its continued development.
This entire argument dehumanistes the child to property as opposed to a person, it is equivalent to a form of slavery and completely disregards their fundamental human right to life.”
**********Recognized and dealt with in the point ITSELF…which you quoted….go back and re-read what I said as many times as you need to until you understand it…we’ll wait.
“3) The choice about whether or not to procreate SHOULD BE A RIGHT…for EVERYONE.”
Fair enough, but you’re missing the point that as of the moment conception occurs, procreation has already taken place.”
I am not interested in debating the moment of conception with you..I have already stipulated the point that conception has occurred, otherwise abortion wouldnt be necessary in my example! If you do not understand my use of the words pro-active response and re-active response, then please look them up, or ask me to clarify
“There is a huge difference between being pro birth control and pro abortion.”
There is also a huge difference in being pro-CHOICE and pro-abortion…don’t confuse the two, or more to the point, don’t intentionally categorize them as the same thing.
“The former arguably places you from a religious perspective in the “pro-disrupting the formation of life” category. However the later places you for an humanitarian perspective in the category of being eugenic or a Nazi. That’s what you seem to be missing here.”
Do not presume to tell me the perspective I am arguing from when I have not even addressed that or offered up that information. It’s curious that you have named yourself some sort of champion of the disabled when you spend more energy labeling people and calling them names and trying to bully people into thinking like you than you do actually contributing to well thought out discussion and proposal of solution. What, exactly, is your experience with the disabled? I can tell you what mine is. I have spent 15 years working in the field and have 2 degrees in the sciences. I own an agency that provides in home support for children with Autism and other developmental disabilities. …so dont you dare tell me where I stand with these kids, or call me a fucking nazi ever again you self important twat.
To Paul,
***Agreed. Peter is out.***
It’s not nice to have to be the one giving tough love, I bet…. but sometimes it’s the best kind of love to give, to help someone. (I hope you understand my words)
Looks like tasha aborted Bowspearer.
“*******You are the one drawing these parallels to use them as emotional currency to tie up the issue in heartstrings…you are intentionally using the most taboo and antiquated scenarios to misdirect logical thinking….have fun, this is as far as I’m going in addressing this point.”
Wrong. You were claiming that because a grave and vile injustice was legal and firmly accepted by a large portion of society and the legislature, that I should just accept it. I merely applied your argument to similar past injustices. If it pulls on heartstrings, then maybe it’s because people have been living in denial about the cold hard realities of abortion.
“I am not interested in debating the moment of conception with you..I have already stipulated the point that conception has occurred, otherwise abortion wouldnt be necessary in my example! If you do not understand my use of the words pro-active response and re-active response, then please look them up, or ask me to clarify”
No I understand the terms perfectly. Procreation is the act of creating life. Once conception has taken place then procreation has ended. If anyone needs to look up terminology here, it’s you.
“There is also a huge difference in being pro-CHOICE and pro-abortion…don’t confuse the two, or more to the point, don’t intentionally categorize them as the same thing.”
Oh spare me the pro-abortion denial copout- either you support the practice of abortion or you don’t- whether it is enforced by the state or decided on by the parent, makes little difference to the victim of the horrid and depraved crime.
“Do not presume to tell me the perspective I am arguing from when I have not even addressed that or offered up that information. It’s curious that you have named yourself some sort of champion of the disabled when you spend more energy labeling people and calling them names and trying to bully people into thinking like you than you do actually contributing to well thought out discussion and proposal of solution. What, exactly, is your experience with the disabled? I can tell you what mine is. I have spent 15 years working in the field and have 2 degrees in the sciences. I own an agency that provides in home support for children with Autism and other developmental disabilities. …so dont you dare tell me where I stand with these kids, or call me a fucking nazi ever again you self important twat.”
You ask what my experience is with the disabled? You mean besides actually having one myself? Besides knowing all to well the discrimination which is freely allowed to exist in society to the point where I have actually been the victim of violence on the grounds of having a disability?
Damn straight I’ll fight tooth and nail against blatant Nazism when I see it in action!
You talk about the agency you own, but the scary thing is that someone in your position would be a closet Nazi quoting the same justifications the Nazis in Germany used for killing off “useless eaters”. You quote your degrees, but guess what, the “doctors” involved with the Nazi Eugenics Program would have had similar degrees.
You talk about me being on my high horse while having the gall to quote your resume as some justification and shield to cover for defending the very kinds of attitudes I have faced for most of my life. Oh the irony.
You quote a resume to me abotu how you
Good fucking Christ…this is how you think you win arguments isn’t it? Just be relentlessly and deliberately obtuse until people give up out of frustration.
Fine…..Im a fucking nazi.
*goose steps her way back over the sane side of the room*
To Bowspearer,
***I’m aware of that, but we’re actually talking here about abortion on the grounds of “desireability” especially in the case of the disabled, which takes you smack bang into the territory of the Nazi Eugenics Program, specifically, things like “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”***
It goes far further back than Nazis. The women of the KKK were also trying to work out how to stop disabled births. China’s already doing it because they’ve been fighting the overpopulation issue for some time. They stop women who are disabled themselves from having children in the first place through forced contraception and force them to have abortions if the contraception doesn’t work.
No, I just call it call it like it is. If people make a valid point based in sound universal principles, I’ll treat it as such. Likewise, if they spout ignorance which I’ve long since considered, mused upon and dismissed for what it is, I’ll call it out for what it is, right down to the type of bigotry on show if relevant.
Oh and as a sufferer of ADD, one of the very types of disabilities you claim to provide support for, being a learning disability albeit so mild that it almost wasn’t detected and I was in no man’s land from 6-15 in terms of a solid diagnosis; I find it rather hypocritical that on one hand you would offer services to help people like me on one hand and then bear attitudes which lie at the core of the very kind of prejudice which people like myself can and do face on a daily basis.
Oh and I hate to break it to you, but violent denial id a form of insanity.
To Tasha,
***Good fucking Christ…this is how you think you win arguments isn’t it?***
Take a few deep breathes, … IN, Hold for 3 counts, and OUT …. IN, Hold for 3 counts, and OUT … IN, Hold for 3 counts, and OUT…
Now, why are you arguing? What’s wrong with having a civil discussion?
“It goes far further back than Nazis. The women of the KKK were also trying to work out how to stop disabled births. China’s already doing it because they’ve been fighting the overpopulation issue for some time. They stop women who are disabled themselves from having children in the first place through forced contraception and force them to have abortions if the contraception doesn’t work.”
Certainly it goes back further than the Nazis- heck even the Nazi Eugenics program itself actually began back with the Kaiser and arguably had its beginnings in the economic rationalism overtaking Germany during WW1.
The difference I would point out again is that you are talking about a continuation of the Nazi Eugenics Program- in fact a member of the Belgian royal family, whose name eludes me, as a founding member of the WWF has used that organisation along with the like minded Prince Phillip of England have merely carried on the same notions.
You’re arguably talking about something which went dormant rather than being killed off and which started to resurrect itself within a couple of decades of WW2.
@J….
Roflmao
There isn’t a thing wrong with it. In fact, I enjoy civil conversation, tremendously. I even like heated debate. But one cannot do these things alone. The person they are speaking with must be similarly committed to both listening and civility as well.
When “no no no you’re wrong you’re wrong you’re wrong ‘lalalala I can’t hear you’” is what passes for discussion from the other side and “Ah! You’re a nazi!” is the only response to postulations or statements, then yes, I become frustrated.
Talking in circles is not productive. Trying to engage in discussions with people who make no salient points, and only attempt to put you on the defensive by applying disgusting epithets, then labelling you insane when you deny you are any of those things is a waste of my time and I’m not interested.
The personality type here is not one I choose to interact with. This will be my last post in response to bowspearer or regarding anything he has said.
If anyone else would like to discuss the points I brought up before getting sucked into the vortex of insanity…..please lets
To Bowspearer,
***I can’t speak for elsewhere, but here in Australia for example, the waiting list ofr adoption is over 3 years and at one point in the 1990s they actually closed the books on who could be an adoptive parent, literally because they had too much demand for adoption and not enough supply.
It would be interesting to find out what the figures were like in other countries.***
Thank-you for sharing this – I’ll see if I can find my countries stats. Funny how things have come/gone full circle. I’d say ‘sex education’ has also reduced the adoptees outstripping adopters.
BTW, I listened to an Australian woman speak (she came to NZ this year) about abortion in Australia. They’re calling her a feminist for some reason even though she’s successfully taking on the abortion industry for the rights of young women to be informed so they can make a choice rather than be pushed down the conveyor belt for a few more dollars and another tick (an abortion) for power.
Ah, here she is…
http://melindatankardreist.com/about/
To Tasha,
***There isn’t a thing wrong with it. In fact, I enjoy civil conversation, tremendously. I even like heated debate.***
Oh, good. I try to read what everyone’s saying but sometimes when comments are coming in at the same time you write them, it’s…. well, challenging.
It would be sad if you threw your arms up and quit because I’m sure someone else will want to say something and the discussion will bring some new interesting information (for me, lol).
@Tasha “When “no no no you’re wrong you’re wrong you’re wrong ‘lalalala I can’t hear you’” is what passes for discussion from the other side and “Ah! You’re a nazi!” is the only response to postulations or statements, then yes, I become frustrated.”
No actually it’s a case of “ok, you need to stop here, your post is not only ignorant but smacks of bigotry, in this case, literally Nazism. If you’re going to actually open your eyes, I’ll discuss things with you but if you’re going to keep spouting propaganda, I’m just going to keep calling you out on it”.
Of course, how you described it is exactly how it appears to someone guilty of double ignorance on a subject like you’ve clearly proven you are.
“Talking in circles is not productive. Trying to engage in discussions with people who make no salient points, and only attempt to put you on the defensive by applying disgusting epithets, then labelling you insane when you deny you are any of those things is a waste of my time and I’m not interested.”
Yes there was talking in circles, but purely because you and others are guilty of being doubly ignorant on the subject of abortion.
In your case, you cry foul when I call out the hypocrisy of having the “would you want to live if you were like that” Nazi mentality to the disabled, when someone in your position in particular should have been able to recognise those attitudes within yourself without having someone point them out.
In the case of Eoghan, I merely describe in detail what he has been advocating for in a scenario where I use the principle of inversion to make him the victim in it, and he reacts like I’m some weirdo for discussing in detail exactly what he’s been in favour of.
My points were direct and highly intelligent, however they were simply too inconvenient for the doubly ignorant here. The fact that you would resort to labeling me “insane” which is a common response in this sort of scenario, only further proved your double ignorance.
You clearly don’t want a proper discussion because that would cause you to have to actually reflect on things and you clearly wouldn’t like what you saw.
@J “BTW, I listened to an Australian woman speak (she came to NZ this year) about abortion in Australia. They’re calling her a feminist for some reason even though she’s successfully taking on the abortion industry for the rights of young women to be informed so they can make a choice rather than be pushed down the conveyor belt for a few more dollars and another tick (an abortion) for power.”
Yeah sadly they tend to be in the minority. Hopefully though the pro-life feminists will gain enough ground in the feminist movement soon though. However even then I find their attitudes tend to play into the “all women are victims” camp rather than acknowledging accountability.
On one hand sure, if we can minimise or remove the factors that result in some women killing their children, great.
However what seems to be ignored by them is that even if it’s that woman vs the world, it’s still her and her child and she is still a mother to that child and therefore has a responsibility to that child. When you get down to brass tacks, no matter how grey the surrounding circumstances are; the moment of truth really is that black and white.
What deeply concerns me is that the men’s movement seems to be making the same mistake of ignoring that fact which the women’s movement has done for the past few decades.
You’re a Nazi…No, you’re a wackjob.
@Bowspearer, your points are NOT intelligent at all, otherwise you would not need to resort to such extreme rhetoric to attack those who disagree with you.
It’s not surprising that people just shake their heads and walk away from such a debate. It’s pointless, a big waste of time and very embarrassing to the MRM.
Don’t pat yourself on the back, you’re only preaching to your own choir. You’ve proven nothing, except how low you would stoop.
“your points are NOT intelligent at all, otherwise you would not need to resort to such extreme rhetoric to attack those who disagree with you.”
Right so if someone was claiming that child rape was acceptable, would claiming they were a paedophile be “extreme rhetoric” too? What about calling someone being racist a racist? Or maybe just maybe it’s “extreme rhetoric” to you because you happen to be guilty of having these attitudes and you’d rather “take the blue pill”.
“It’s not surprising that people just shake their heads and walk away from such a debate.”
Considering the double ignorance displayed by you and others here I agree- people tend to do that when a truth is so inconvenient that disbelief automatically kicks in as a defense mechanism.
“It’s pointless, a big waste of time and very embarrassing to the MRM.”
You’re half right. Considering the attitudes at play, it’s arguably highly necessary, and time well spent, however the only embarrassment to the MRM is the fact that so many MRAs could think that the same hypocrisy which is unacceptable for feminists to use is suddenly ok when they use it. So much for us not believein in double standards I guess.
“You’ve proven nothing, except how low you would stoop.”
No actually I’ve proven the number of bigots who would rather run and hide than take a long hard look in the mirror, face their bigoted beliefs, admit to them and work on changing them- as much as you would like to claim otherwise.
@bowspearer,
If you choose to advocate or take a position on abortion, that is your right.
However, to call people bigots and nazis because they choose to stay out of such an issue, is just plain assinine.
How many retarded babies have you adopted you nazi bigot?
Take your ignorance, your shaming and shove it!
@Dennis “However, to call people bigots and nazis because they choose to stay out of such an issue, is just plain assinine.”
Except that I’m calling them Nazis for spouting Nazi attitudes or for dismissing or defending Nazi attitudes when they see them. When people start saying things like “would you want to live i you were like that” (Tasha), defending the philosophy of the Holocaust and praising Hitler for it (Eoghan) or dismissing it and defending it with the Zionist radical’s favorite flavour of Holocaust denial (you); then yeah, you’re talking about Nazism manifesting itself in people and I’m going to call a spade a spade.
“How many retarded babies have you adopted you nazi bigot?”
Ok I get what you’re trying to do here but it just completely backfired. To humour you though, as we’ve already established, being in uni; I’m in no position to responsibly adopt any child at the moment, however once I’ve graduated uni, then I’m open to it- heck, there’s at least an 85% chance that my children will also have ADD so I’ve accepted that I’m going to be a parent to a disabled child. The irony of your pathetic attempt here is that I will do so loving that child as a person, not seeing them as their disability or dismissing the actions and attitudes of those who do, like you and others here are guilty of doing.
“Take your ignorance, your shaming and shove it!”
The doubly ignorant bigot saying this to someone who is calling them out on the cold hard inconvenient truth- oh the burning irony.
Oh and Dennis, before you reply, you might want to read up on Plato’s works, specifically where he discusses “double ignorance” because you’re merely proving my point right now.
Denis
I think much of the abortion debate is based on presumption. A woman seeking an abortion may presume that a man will or will not provide for the child, may or may not be present for rearing. I think because of the inherent mother child bond there is a (societal) presumption of custody that extends to nurturing and care that is not extended to the father. I believe that their is a percentage of men that would see the event of child rearing through but not all. It is difficult if not impossible to script laws based on presumption without a previous paradigm to represent continuity. The mother historically and biologically has met that presumption of continuity the father has not.
Within the presumption of continuity for women to a degree society mandates this outcome for women. If we view this “mandate” as sympathetic to the nature of the gender it is reasonable to reevaluate presumptions mandated to men. Which I believe represents the ongoing dialogue on this site. However it is unrealistic to expect or demand a shift in law by virtue of dialogue only. We may review the presumptive qualities of men while attempting to repeal or modify what society would mandate but it will not be a de-facto change. For these reasons it becomes somewhat imperative to apply planning to procreation and what would survive as a representation of a family model. A step forward for men in the participation of procreation is planned conception and birth control. Possibly in the mean time contractual conception and procreation. The current paradigm of abortion/custody/access/support may be representative of a migrating standard that will change only with the participation of men. I agree with Harry but would modify and restrain my argument to address the desire to circumvent an over extending use of clinical abortion by the intervention of male birth control and the impact that its use would provide to support a pro life and pro family position. That male birth control may act to circumvent what may be seen by some as an egregious and aggresive invasion of the womb and by extension the autonomy of the womb bearer. Nature has provided a mechanism by which we may reproduce with inherent pleasures that accompany the process. Since these pleasures are not necessarily provided as a separate franchise of behavior limited in consequence it is imperative that the act be regulated to it’s best outcome for all concerned. The outcome of abortion serves only to mediate biological aggression toward the autonomy of the woman but in no way serves the fetus or the father. It may be worth the pursuit of contractual conception and male contraception to integrate the male into the equation of procreation. It is for these reasons that I believe the best method for men to intervene in what may be percieved as an unwanted abortion is to prempt such a choice by the use of male contraception.
@Keith Certainly there’s merit in the male contraception argument as certainly that would avoid the scenario of state sanctioned child murder.
However there’s an issue with how you’ve framed the issue of being pro-life as being a “pro family position”.
The problem with this and why it falls into the same category as the feminist hypocrisy is that the unborn child here is being viewed rather than some parasitic organism; as a weapon to entrap men into marriages.
Let’s call a spade a spade here- you’re talking about a child- heck the foetus is actually Latin for “little child”.
One of the scathing yet apt criticisms of feminism, is that it will often victimise someone else and claim that the act was “justified” to “end oppression”.
The big problem with the LC4M approach is that it does the exact same thing.
Certainly push for birth control, however once that child is on the scene, you have the flip-side of the right, which is the responsibility and if there’s going to be equality as the goal then surely that has to be factored in- especially when you have a 50% change, roughly speaking, that you will in fact be killing of a boy- one of the very group we’re meant to be advocating for.
I realise you do go on to point out the nature of inequality within abortion, however it’s worth pointing out “just how deep the rabbit hole goes”- that someone who sees something so clearly could at the same time fall into the trap of one of the layers of conditioning we’ve been subjected to as a society regarding the issue of abortion.
Certainly abortion can be a pro-family issue, however it does not ultimately have to be, unless you were to define a family as a child with a mother and/or a father actively in their lives- which can go far beyond the boundaries of what is implied by a “pro family” agenda.
What we really need to do with the whole issue of LC4M is strip it back to the core concept, which is namely “father’s rights” but in a way which is about equality and not “equality plus” as feminism has been criticised as being. Protect men from false paternity claims, while demanding that society cherish the father/child bond for the amazing thing it is- with the trade off that if you father a child, then you need to step up to the plate and be a father to that child.
Feminism has made more than enough mistakes for us to learn from- hopefully we’ll soon start to do so.
Wait, wait……
If being at uni is a good reason for not adopting a child, a disabled child, a disabled child who desperately needs a home and is already here on this earth…..why is it not a good reason to get an abortion? Are we prizing scholarly endeavors over family oriented ones? Are we saying that a select group is the only one with rights to controlling their reproduction? Are we saying one group is more equipped to make those decisions for others????
Methinks I smell some hypocrisy here……
Both people would cite that they are not ready yet…that it’s not convenient.
Or are we only extending that courtesy of family planning to people who are really deserving of it? ‘
Uni students only? Only they are allowed to opt out of parenting a disabled child?????
What do we call that? Elitism?
No, no…..it’s coming to me…..wait for it……
IT’S FECKING EUGENICS!!!!!!!!
NAZIISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!
pot…..here’s your kettle
“Wait, wait……
If being at uni is a good reason for not adopting a child, a disabled child, a disabled child who desperately needs a home and is already here on this earth…..why is it not a good reason to get an abortion? Are we prizing scholarly endeavors over family oriented ones? Are we saying that a select group is the only one with rights to controlling their reproduction? Are we saying one group is more equipped to make those decisions for others????”
You mean besides not being able to properly provide for a child? Oh and FYI, I practice abstinence for the exact same reason- so that I do not father a child until I am able to provide for them.
So hey, it was a nice try Tasha, but all you’ve done here is cherry picked to try and deflect rather than facing up to your own bigotry which someone in your supposed position should have been able to spot within yourself from a mile off.
We cannot establish laws by attempting to mediate sympathetic experiences and feelings. We cannot presume motivations, determinations or outcomes. It is in the area of abortion that current laws serve the interests of women exclusively. It is no sense of justice or for that matter equality to seek to limit autonomy granted by law. It is however reasonable to govern our actions as individuals responsibly.
I do believe that a man should have the right to opt in or out of parenting with the ability to define or at least understand the terms of each.
I believe that male contraception is the best method to participate in conception procreation and abortion.
I believe that conception by contract is the best form of planning, but I do not support state intervention resulting from a lack of contractual planning.
One thing you also seem to have missed Tasha, is that I wont have to adopt to parent a disabled child- with the high probability of my children also having ADD, I have not only accepted that I will be a parent to disabled children, but even at times thought long and hard about how I’d handle things so that they always felt loved and like they mattered as opposed to feeling like a disability, while teaching them coping strategies to handle the blessing (and yet, I do class a disability as a blessing, something you clearly cannot grasp).
Yet that’s the difference between you and me- you argue for abortion on the grounds of “would you want to live like that” clearly seeing only the curse. I on the other hand, see the blessing and the curse and know that the blessing outweighs the curse- something you cannot do when you possess a Nazi mindset towards the disabled.
@Keith “We cannot establish laws by attempting to mediate sympathetic experiences and feelings. ”
However universal principles and recognised human rights are a different matter. The reality is that from the moment conception occurs, whether a zygote, embryo, foetus, infant, toddler, child, prepubescant, pubescant, adolescant or adult, the disposition of that human life is a person. That’s a clear cut principle of human life.
Furthermore the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first and foremost recognises the inalienable right to life of all persons. As we have already eastablished that through the pricinple of disposition, from the moment of conception, that human life is a person, then you have your legal and reasoned basis for anti-abortion legislation right then and there.
“I do believe that a man should have the right to opt in or out of parenting with the ability to define or at least understand the terms of each.”
Which is a clear cut “equality plus” scenario, except for rather than men and children suffering as a result of feminism and misandry; it is children who suffer. By all means define and understand the surrounding terms, but at the end of the day, a child is not some fast food item or consumer good which you can simply return.
Furthermore, if you support the decriminalisation of abortion, then it’s a slippery slide into other forms of child abuse- just take a look at the rampant sexualisation of children which goes on with the average person failing to even bat an eyelid.
Incidentally, I’m going to deal with something I didn’t with Tasha’s baseless and ignorant attack. The difference between someone who has an abortion because they’re not ready and my stance is that while I practice abstinence to avoid conceiving a child; if I did happen to conceive one before I was ready then I’m just have to step up to the plate and find a way to support that child.
But then I hardly expect such deep reflection and commitment to approaching things this way to be comprehended by the doubly ignorant and bigoted likes of Tasha.
@bowspearer, I’m an educated and professional man and IMO, you have a lot to learn and you aren’t convincing anybody by insulting them. Ooooh Plato, please impress us with some text book quotes so we can bask in the glow of your self-importance.
@Tasha, big time elitist! I’m doubly disgusted at the right wing and left wing elitist socialists who think they have all the answers and want to make rules for everyone else’s life.
@Dennis “I’m an educated and professional man and IMO, you have a lot to learn and you aren’t convincing anybody by insulting them. Ooooh Plato, please impress us with some text book quotes so we can bask in the glow of your self-importance.”
Clearly you were educated in everything but a good understanding of history and how to deeply and objectively think about things. I don’t have to quote any more of plato because if you actually stopped to deeply reflect and critically analyse your own response and ignorance and the biggotry which followed you’d see that you were guilty of the very double ignorance I referred to.
“big time elitist! I’m doubly disgusted at the right wing and left wing elitist socialists who think they have all the answers and want to make rules for everyone else’s life.”
Yeah you’re right, how dare we have rules to protect the fundamental human rights of others. In fact, let’s keep finding more and more ways to abuse children, especially the “useless eaters”. We already brutally dismember them in the womb when it suits us and groom them to the point where they’re vulnerable to any paedophile who might approach them if they’re not already lying about their age and trying to chat up older men. But hey why stop there- let’s start “junior fight clubs” so we can physically abuse them while they’re at it too. *rolls eyes*
Oh and Dennis, it’s worth pointing out that I’m affiliated with the only anti-elitist political party in Australia and fight abortion partially on the grounds of anti-elitism (for reasons I have already discussed in this thread), so in terms of trying to claim I’m elitist, both you and Tasha fail big time.
“Clearly you were educated in everything but a good understanding of history and how to deeply and objectively think about things. ”
@bowspearer, clearly you are an arrogant elitist!
Embrace it, you are what you are.
Perhaps you’re just not educated enough to think deeply and objectively about things, especially if you can only see the world in black and white and continue to pull ridiculous analogies out of your ass.
As much as I would hope that this didn’t need to be said, judging by the last “little gems” by both Dennis and Tasha, I should point out that there’s a difference between calling a spade a spade based on clear evidence, and attempting pathetic strawman arguments to try and deflect the bigotry you’ve been justly accused of because you’re too cowardly to face up to it. This is something which Dennis and Tasha clearly need to learn, preferably before posting again.
@Dennis “clearly you are an arrogant elitist!
Embrace it, you are what you are.
Perhaps you’re just not educated enough to think deeply and objectively about things, especially if you can only see the world in black and white and continue to pull ridiculous analogies out of your ass.”
Only a relativist bigot could try and pass off such garbage as actual thought. More strawman from you. I’m arguing that all human beings deserve to have their fundamental human rights respected in the order of most crucial to least crucial- you’re opposing that, claiming that some deserve those rights to be respected, others do not, thus the elitist, by the very definition of the term, is you.
Furthermore, you clearly know alot and yet nothing, it is the only way someone could claim to be so educated and yet demonstrate a thought process so devoid of universal principles. But then, what else could anyone expect from a bigot hiding behind relativism.
@ Denis
“I’m doubly disgusted at the right wing and left wing elitist socialists who think they have all the answers and want to make rules for everyone else’s life.”
I must agree with the position you outline, I have found that the debate degrades rapidly by ethical appropriations. My interest is in the ability to choose, not in the ability to police, enforce or coerce by ethical or moral dogma. I believe I retain the capacity for choice and therefore seek to exercise it exclusive of those that would seek to define my determinations. As one may offer the incantations of insight and moral turpitude, it is no less significant to employ understanding in context whatever that context may be. I share your position of what I understand to be a freedom to exercise choice. It is no less disparaging to note that against the brevity of that choice we must suffer the zealotry of self appointed and idealistic sycophants.
@bowspearer, I don’t think I ever offered an opinion on abortion, other than it’s not just a simple-minded debate of life and death.
Oooh, the “relativism” accusation.
Therefore, you are a bible-thumping wack-job!
“something which Dennis and Tasha clearly need to learn, preferably before posting again.”
Teach us bowspearer, you’re so smart, you have all the answers figured out.
If only we could be like you.
Why don’t you get your head out of your ass, preferably before posting again.
@Keith So by that definition, people should have the right to rape, molest, beat, neglect of psychologically abuse their children as well. Let’s be brutally honest here- abortion is a form of child abuse.
You are literally butchering a child to death- either by suction so strong (29x more powerful than that of a household vacuum cleaner) that it can literally crush a can of paint thinners in the space of a few seconds, literally dismembering the child with forceps and pliers, slowly and piece by piece, stabbing the child in the back of the head and sucking their brains out or administering drugs to the mother which cause the child to either be put through an induced miscarriage where they may in fact still be alive afterwards, or which cause the child to be slowly eaten alive by the mother’s womb.
The only reason that this form of child abuse isn’t taken seriously is because we have dehumanised the child to the level of a parasite and therefore there is no legal accountability involved.
What you and others who support abortion (call it choice all you like but that’s what it is) fail to recognise, either obliviously or wilfully, is that as all child abuse is recognised as equally being as bad as each other in terms of harm to the child, you are no better in supporting abortion than someone who supports any other form of child abuse including child rape.
It’s interesting to note that for all the claims of my examples and argument being “extreme”, that the only cultures where killings are sanitised, desensities and diminished while the victims are dehumanised, are those where genocide is actively taking place in broad daylight.
Just remember the next time that you’re disgusted by a child beater or paedophile who appears on the news that your attitude to abortion makes you no better than anyone who might have enabled that abuser.
@Dennis “I don’t think I ever offered an opinion on abortion, other than it’s not just a simple-minded debate of life and death.”
No you just practiced holocaust denial to defend people spouting Nazi attitudes when I called them out for what they were- ergo, demonstrating that you clearly think such attitudes are acceptable- ergo, demonstrating closet eugenic, or Nazi leanings.
“Oooh, the “relativism” accusation.
Therefore, you are a bible-thumping wack-job!”
And yet I’ve already argued against abortion on entirely non religious grounds while clearly demonstrating that my stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, yet another strawman argument of yours fails miserably.
“Teach us bowspearer, you’re so smart, you have all the answers figured out.
If only we could be like you.”
You can’t teach someone who does not wish to learn.
“Why don’t you get your head out of your ass, preferably before posting again.”
It was never in there. Unlike you, I can see things clearly, whereas your vision is entirely clouded by the base of your esophagus, figuratively speaking.
Hey Keith, did you realize that we’re a bunch of bigoted nazis and you are supporting child abuse? It’s much better that a crack baby be born and get properly abused by his crack baby mama and then grow up to be a child abuser. Or, the other option is that bowspearer can adopt all of the mentally retarded crack babies.
Wow, just wow. I don’t even think feminists sites have such idiotic comments and accusations.
@Dennis “It’s much better that a crack baby be born and get properly abused by his crack baby mama and then grow up to be a child abuser.”
Yes because the solution there isn’t to improve child protection services and make adoption a viable alternative is it. Let’s instead make sure that children are abused horrifically in a way that makes them die a horrible death to prevent the chance that they might be abused- you’re right, that makes perfect sense! Besides the child was abused so they MUST turn out to be an abuser right? *rolls eyes*
You honestly make radical feminists actually sound accountable and logical.
@BS
Check this post out.
http://avoiceformen.com/2010/12/04/the-irrationality-of-feminism-remembering-the-sokal-affair/
Assertion is not argument, opinion is not fact and ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your post-modernist ‘argument’ is nauseating to say the least.
Go ahead write a thousand words of post-mordenist vile, verbal vomit to rebut me, I must be Nazi loving, relativist, feminist, germicidal, baby-murdering reactionary because I dared to add a voice against your rants.
After a litany of fallacious arguments and appeals to emotion, unbelievable.
hmm I don’t usually comment but there is something here that I think needs to be said. And mostly to bowspearer, in the interests of what I might call progress, but it seems to me if that a person in a debate resorts to the use of phrases that their opposing side takes as a personal insult i.e. “you are a nazi” “you are a child-abuser” etc. ad nauseum. That person could actually be the rightest person on the right side of Rightville, and yet that person would be reguarded with such ill favor that the message they are trying to impart within the debate will fall on deaf ears and no progress towards solutions made. Now I wouldn’t say that bowspearer is the only guilty party in this however I would have to say that bowspearer has perhaps done this the most times, if one looks back and perhaps atleasts attempts to ameliorate the ad hominems perhaps progress can be made otherwise if one looks at this, it is obviously just one big flame-war
I have to clear one thing up in this discussion….
Hitler was definitely NOT a Christian……..he was a DEEP occultist….there are some history programs on google video that document this extremely well….he was a full-blown, whacked-out occultist….By the way, the swastika is an occult symbol also.
Two very prominent German Christian leaders stood on their Christian beliefs and were murdered by Hitler for vehemently opposing his ideas/policies, one was Martin Niemoller.
I get quite upset when I see people implying that Hitler was a Christian…He definitely WAS NOT.
Post Deleted, User Banned.
At last, I have had some women looking at MRA websites using guys that post hate towards women as an excuse to can us all.
Karma
I dont get what you post is about, who is banned?
If women want abortion they can have it and the shame.
To correlate with a women’s right to Abort:
Men should be able to legally abort children they didn’t want in the same time window that women get to abort the child. By that I mean a legal binding contract stating that the man is giving up all rights of the child I.E. visitation, authority etc.
You guys that are against abortion realize this:
It is not our cross to bear. You don’t have to bear the shame of killing an unborn child for selfish reasons.
@ Denis
Yes they do!!!
Sorry I had to go out to the garage and perform another partial lobotomy with my router. I can’t seem to get the stupidity out of my head. Un – fucking – real!!!
@ John A (must be Canadian eh!) I wanted to state your position but I lost it during my last lobotomy. Well said.
@ MR J Hitler was a member of the Vrill society
@ Karma what are you referring to specifically curious?
Karma is referring to Peter Clifford being banned.
Sorry, I forgot to log in.
Anyway, I agree with bowspear in that he is very correct in saying that abortion is wrong, it’s murder (viciously so) and that aborting based on defects is eugenics (a fundamental Nazi trait)
What you need to know bowspear is that we cannot stuff that djinn back into the bottle. It’s out and there will be hell to pay to get it back in. It is admirable that you wish it to be so and I wish there were not so many ad hominem attacks against you. Perhaps it is your loquacious and rather verbose nature that is putting people off.
That aside, I stand by my argument that it is wrong and I will carry no guilt or shame for those who choose to abort. It is their cross to bear and their guilt to carry.
Kirk out!
@Keith
I’m Australian
I’ve been reading this thread on and off most of the day (compulsive reading) and I have to say, latterly, it’s taken a farcical turn. But it’s hilarious farce, which I hope will run as long as The Mousetrap.
LMAO!
@John a”Assertion is not argument, opinion is not fact and ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your post-modernist ‘argument’ is nauseating to say the least.”
Could your post be any more ironic? You’re trying to claim I’m being post-modern in my thinking and arguments when they’ve been nothing but grounded in universal principles and completely anti-relativist- when relativism is at the very core of post-modern thinking. So I’m using a few big words in there, so what?
You point to the Sokal affair while missing what it was actually about. The whole point of the Sokal affair was the way the left uses verbose language with absolutely no substance behind it.
Yes I used words like dehumanisation in there a far bit- so what? Would you rather I said “reducing a person’s worth both legally and in terms of how people view them to the point where they are viewed so inhumanely that the usual rights and laws protecting people no longer apply to them”? Why would I when I can say the same thing by just using the word “dehumanisation” to say the exact same thing.
If you’re going to challenge something using high-level language then at least learn to recognise the difference between something with substance that has a solid argument grounded in universal principles, and what you describe as “a thousand words of post-mordenist vile, verbal vomit to rebut me”.
The reality is that if you support abortion, you are supporting genocide and child abuse. If you do so on the grounds of eugenics, then you also are a Nazi. By the very nature of what abortion, genocide, child abuse and eugenics are, that is what it is – just as much that someone who is bigoted towards others on the grounds of race is a racist.
Trying to pass of truth as relativism wont change anything except for the comfort levels of those who are in denial about their own beliefs here.
@Steve There’s a fundamental flaw with your assessment here though. If people were encountering overt attitudes which not only condoned or supported things like child molestation, but actually indicated a predisposition towards it themselves; along with a solid argument pointing out the evils of such an act, would you not expect them to call the guilty parties paedophiles, just because they might be offended.
Certainly Nazi is a highly shameful label with what it implies and the history it bears, yet if it is appropriate, especially because of what the term carries with it, then it arguably should be used.
The problem here isn’t my use of the term; it’s relativism which says that there is no such thing as truth and that each person’s ethics are perfectly acceptable based on their own worldview.
A relativist cannot stand cold hard truths, especially the inconvenient ones which this thread has completely proven through various examples.
The one difference you seem to have missed with all of this though is that when I used those terms, they were accurate and backed up by a sound argument. However when they were used against me, they were done so baselessly and in a highly ironic way, in an effort by others to deflect accurate criticisms of their own belief systems and ideologies.
In short, the problem hasn’t been that I’ve been “calling a spade a spade” it’s that those on the receiving end of it couldn’t handle the cold hard truth and responded by trying to call a backhoe a spade, figuratively speaking.
@FAS “It is not our cross to bear. You don’t have to bear the shame of killing an unborn child for selfish reasons.”
No but we do have to bear shame if we turn our backs on the fathers and unborn boys who are the victims of it. It’s for that reason that it is definitely a cross for the MRM to bear- for the sake of our butchered brothers and our brothers who are forced to watch helplessly as selfish women slaughter their children.
@Whitney “What you need to know bowspear is that we cannot stuff that djinn back into the bottle. It’s out and there will be hell to pay to get it back in. It is admirable that you wish it to be so and I wish there were not so many ad hominem attacks against you.”
Whitney, I know it’ll be hell to undo, but then let’s face it, it always is when you have any form of vile social injustice which has become socially acceptable, especially when what it represents has been portrayed as a “social bogeyman” on one hand and people have a tendency to believe they’re good people all the time, even when they’re not being good, on the other.
The big problem with this is that most people have almost no understanding of what the Holocaust and Nazism are about and so when they hear the term, they think of an anti-semite of the “christ killer” school of thought as opposed to the “Jewishness is a genetically inherited social disease, along with all the other genetic impurities which afflict the great German peoples and must be wiped out for the good of the people” school of antisemitism.
They only know about the Jews who died and little else about it- largely because Zionists have used the Holocaust in a selective and rather ironically, Holocaust denying manner in order to gain political mileage to the point where many people have never heard of things like T4 or AKTION14.
So when faced with the fact that they’re not their mindset makes them that “bogeyman” while they continue to have it, along with issues surrounding that which they’ve never even considered.
I’m honestly not surprised by the ad hominem attacks- it’s been the same type of ignorance wildly lashing out when forced to face itself, which fired the gun which murdered Martin Luther King, to name just one example.
“Perhaps it is your loquacious and rather verbose nature that is putting people off.”
I’d argue that it’s not the verboseness of my posts which are putting people of (although I’d argue that they’re more detailed than verbose), but the fact that there’s a solid argument there which shames people with certain belief systems that they not only never realised they had, but have been taught to despise as “the lowest of the low”.
The reality is that no bigot likes to be called out as one, because bigotry is the act of “some evil other”, and so the natural response is for people accused of it to stick their heads in the sand, rather than realising tha bigotry, while shameful, is not some scarlett letter to be wonr for life, but a set of belief systems that a bigot can address and change within themselves over time.
However that kind of accountability takes courage, and sadly as this thread has proven, that kind of courage is sadly in short supply it would appear. I’d love nothing more than for people to prove me wrong on just how common that courage is though.
@ Bowspearer
“Perhaps it is your loquacious and rather verbose nature that is putting people off.”
Just an opinion here, but this one hits the money. Your statement that your writing is detailed is accurate, but you bury yourself in meandering assertions, which will always annoy readers.
I am not taking a stand on your argument one way or the other. What I will say is that after a few exchanges with you I quit reading your posts.
If you want to engage people in debate, you need to stay succinct, efficient and on target. You do none of those things. It is prescription to bore people into aggravation, and to make them question the value of filtering through an articulated maze to get to whatever point you are trying to make.
@Paul I get what you’re saying, but the problem here is the issue of common knowledge.
It would be one thing if you had an informed group of people on a given topic (and certainly, some people like Whitney and J for example are).
However in this case you have people like Tasha making arguments that are almost word for word Nazi propaganda quotes, people like Eoghan claiming that Hitler was spot on in what he did and why with the Holocaust- only to have people like Dennis come in and accuse you of being ridiculous with a fair assessment of those posts, because they simply put, are completely ignorant about the topic of the Holocaust, arguably like much of the general public, due to the politicising of the topic.
Yeah it would be great if I could keep things short and sweet, but you can’t do that when you have to make an argument while filling in the blanks, because quite simply put, what should be common knowledge, simply isn’t.
@bowspearer
Lets speak honestly, abortion will never be outlawed again in the US.
There are holes in every argument.
A liberal viewpoint runs the gamut of “her body her choice” to “it’s not a baby it’s just a bunch of cells.”
A conservative viewpoint runs the gamut of “it’s a life from the moment of conception” to “it’s not okay unless in cases of rape/incest.”
And everything in between…
Whose to say who is right? However one thing I would like to see is either a ban on abortion(unlikely to happen) or a male “opt out” of parenthood option(more likely to happen).
Because I am not looking as this as an abortion problem but more of a fatherlessness problem. We all have seen what happens to a good % of kids who are raised by single parents.
A ban on abortion or an “opt out” choice for men would signifigantly reduce the number of unwanted children. That is really what Abortion is about, unwanted pregnancy.
There are no women that I know of running around trying to get knocked up so they can go kill as many kids as they can via abortion.
@ Bowspearer,
Like I said, it was just an opinion, and one I would apply to any audience or circumstance.
@FAS “Lets speak honestly, abortion will never be outlawed again in the US.
There are holes in every argument.
A liberal viewpoint runs the gamut of “her body her choice” to “it’s not a baby it’s just a bunch of cells.”
A conservative viewpoint runs the gamut of “it’s a life from the moment of conception” to “it’s not okay unless in cases of rape/incest.”
And everything in between…
Whose to say who is right?”
To begin with, the problem you have with that assessment is that you haven’t factored in the aspect of medical ethics known as harm assessment.
Basically what harm assessment is is where you look at a drug or medical procedure you’re evaluating in a medical trial situation to determine the level of harm that it will do. Because you’re minimising the risk of harm, you automatically factor your unknowns in the category of harmful as opposed to harmless.
Then you have the issue of biological development. At 21 days, you have the nervous system starting to form and within 7 weeks of pregnancy you have the brain formed into its 5 basic regions. In fact by the end of the 1st trimester, virtually all the internal and external organs, including gonads, have formed at some basic level.
Now I realise the obvious question of “what about awareness?” follows this. The answer to that is that while no definitive answer had been found as to the “when”; there have been voluntary movements of newly formed fingers and toes registered at the 10 week mark.
Bear in mind with all of this we are talking about the 1st trimester, which is supposedly the “safe” trimester to have an abortion.
This then flows onto the issue of disposition, which is a metaphysics term. However as aspects of metaphysics such as this are arguably non-polemicist or no-religious, they’re worth taking into account.
Disposition basically refers to what an object or a life form will eventuate into if “nature is left to run its course”.
Take for example, an ice cube in the sun on a hot day- without intervention, the ice cube will melt. In otherwords the disposition of the icecube is water in that scenario.
Translate that to a pregnancy. Presuming there are is no miscarriage or death during labour or death of the mother before the child can be born, then that act of conception will result in a child being born, thus in terms of that stage of their life, the disposition of the fertilised egg is infancy, or becoming a baby.
To take that further, presuming that that baby then does not die of illness or injury before reaching adulthood, therefor the disposition of that baby is adulthood.
Therefore as adults and even children are people, then the disposition of that unborn child, at whatever stage of their development, is a person.
Then you have situations where in-utero memories of trauma come up in things like kineisiology.
But then that’s the thing about eugenics and aspects of it such as social Darwinism- they dehumanise people for example on the grounds of race by claiming that because of something like dark skin, they must have evolved from wild dogs or some other animal and therefore aren’t really “human”.
In short, between universal principles (which in and of themselves are another topic) and the evidence at hand, there’s enough evidence there to clearly demonstrate that the unborn child is just that, a child.
I’m on the fence and I’m not convinced that a zygote or a that a 14 wk fetus is a child or that any of this is relevant to the mrm. Doesn’t the government already interefere enough with people’s lives?
There are plenty of organizations that oppose abortion, they’re all run by churches and harrass people with pictures of mangled fetuses and call them hitler. I don’t like associating with those people and their arguments are not convincing. Duh, maybe I should smarten up more with the bible, duh.
“I’m on the fence and I’m not convinced that a zygote or a that a 14 wk fetus is a child or that any of this is relevant to the mrm.?”
You mean besides the boys who are victims of abortion and the fathers forced to stand by helplessly as their children are killed off under the guise of “reproductive rights”.
“Doesn’t the government already interefere enough with people’s lives?”
By that argument we should decriminalise every other form of child abuse along with every other vile and violent crime out there too, including mass murder on the grounds of “government interference”.
There is a difference between micromanaging the population through over regulation and having laws in place which protect the most basic and fundamental rights of all people (and by rights, I mean the actual rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in order of their importance).
“There are plenty of organizations that oppose abortion, they’re all run by churches and harrass people with pictures of mangled fetuses and call them hitler. I don’t like associating with those people and their arguments are not convincing. Duh, maybe I should smarten up more with the bible, duh.”
And this is where your entire argument completely falls apart. Just because many religious groups campaign against abortion, equates in no way, shape or form to it being purely a religious issue or one which can only be argued against on religious grounds. In fact none of the argument I just presented then on the humanity of the child related to religious grounds.
Calling someone who aborts a child on eugenic grounds a Nazi or who supports the practice is no more extreme or inappropriate than calling someone who makes racially bigoted comments a racist.
If you can’t see that (and clearly based on what you’ve previously said, you can’t) then you seriously need to read up on the Nazi Eugenics Program, and what Hitler was saying about eugenics around the time he wrote Mein Kampf- along with how that not only tied into the eugenics movement which had been building for almost a decade at that time and the way it would carry through to the Holocaust.
The cold hard reality is that in your defense of people like Tasha in light of what they said which you were defending, you were acting like a Nazi- quite literally.
Now you have two choices here- either keep going on with your ignorance driven rage, or actually read up on the subject, be accountable about the bigotry you’ve displayed through ignorance (which incidentally is at the core of all bigotry) and address it- either way it’s not going to change the bigotry you display when you defend pro-Nazi attitudes.
As for pictures of mangled unborn children, why shouldn’t they? The fact is that the abortion industry goes out of its way to sterilise the average view of abortion so that that cold hard reality is never even considered by people. If that tactic is fair play by the abortion industry, then it must equally be fair play to put the cold hard reality of abortion in front of people in a way where they can’t easily dodge it.
@BS
To start with
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. – Wikipedia
Abortion is not genocide any more than gun ownership is genocide. So I call Bullshit to your disingenuous use of the word to describe abortion.
Your name calling of people who might support abortion Nazis, uses the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Your argument;
All Nazis support abortion,
You support abortion
Therefore you are a Nazi
I call Bullshit to your logic
“So I’m using a few big words in there, so what?” You are misusing them.
“The reality is that if you support abortion, you are supporting genocide and child abuse. If you do so on the grounds of eugenics, then you also are a Nazi. By the very nature of what abortion, genocide, child abuse and eugenics are, that is what it is – just as much that someone who is bigoted towards others on the grounds of race is a racist.”
This is pure assertion; you provide no evidence as to why people who do these things are necessarily Nazis. Sure Nazis have done these things in the past. Nazis ate bread; therefore anyone who eats bread is a Nazi? Then as justification you add the tautology that “someone who is bigoted towards others on the grounds of race is a racist” well! all bachelors are unmarried men. Don’t expect too many HDs with this level of argument.
“Trying to pass of truth as relativism won’t change anything except for the comfort levels of those who are in denial about their own beliefs here” No argument here, just assertion.
You got one thing right; I WAS BEING IRONIC. Did you think I could take you seriously?
Actually one last point while I think of it. you say that all anti-abortion groups are religious run, yet to quote just one example, Feminists for Life is both non-partisan and non-sectarian (or non-religious).
@John A “Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. – Wikipedia
Abortion is not genocide any more than gun ownership is genocide. So I call Bullshit to your disingenuous use of the word to describe abortion.”
Ahh yes the old stalwart where someone tries to dismiss the use of the term genocide while ignoring the history and evolution of the term while mankind’s knowledge of the term has increased.
Here’s a little fact that you clearly didn’t bother factorin in- before the Holocaust, creedocide, or the genocide of a religious group, was not classed as genocide. This was purely because at that time, the attitudes which had lead to said creedocide, had been perfectly acceptable here.
Abortion is collective ageocide- killing individuals on the grounds of age- furthermore, as it extends to the entire human race, it does take place on the grounds of race.
Furthermore if the population who collectively are performing the genocide have been conditioned into believing that it is acceptable by the state and the proliferation of said collective genocide is as a direct result of that, then the genocide is still ultimately being caused by the state. The only difference in the state’s actions are that they are covert as opposed to overt.
Your argument here only demonstrates your infinite ignorance on the subject of genocide.
“Your name calling of people who might support abortion Nazis, uses the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Your argument;
All Nazis support abortion,
You support abortion
Therefore you are a Nazi
I call Bullshit to your logic”
Yes because the Nazi abortion policy never had desirability at it’s core- oh wait it did.
Never mind tiny little “trivial facts” such as “The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”.
“You are misusing them.”
No my usage of them is spot on- you’re just completely ignorant on the subject if you’re making such an baseless claim.
“This is pure assertion; you provide no evidence as to why people who do these things are necessarily Nazis. Sure Nazis have done these things in the past. Nazis ate bread; therefore anyone who eats bread is a Nazi? Then as justification you add the tautology that “someone who is bigoted towards others on the grounds of race is a racist” well! all bachelors are unmarried men. Don’t expect too many HDs with this level of argument.”
No, it’s cold hard fact. The Nazi Euthenasia Program was done with the constant argument of the whole thing being mercy killings because “would you want to live if you were like that”.
Furthermore, Hitler’s assertions in 1924 that the greatest dangers to the German people came from genetic impurities in the population ,and that his definition of genetic impurities was so socially Darwinistic in nature that it arguably included “Jewishness” clearly point to the eugenic nature of the Holocaust, something which Eoghan directly praised the work of and something you’d have actually seen had you bothered to read his posts.
You’re the worst kind of bigot- one with only a little bit of knowledge but enough to create double ignorance within them.
“You’re the worst kind of bigot- one with only a little bit of knowledge but enough to create double ignorance within them.”
I just wanted to clarify this point before someone tried to straw man it into some kind of non-existant oxymoron.
What was meant by this term was that John has clearly been subjected to several truths wrapped up in lies- with just enough truth to give the lie substance, but enough of the lie to not only create a wrong conclusion but to cause it to have enough conviction that he could not only have no idea how wrong he is, but have no idea that he has no idea how wrong he is.
@bowspearer
You are really taking this too far.
Calling someone a Nazi because they support abortion. People of all colors/income levels get abortion and it is not as a whole targeting men(to kill them only).
I find it irreprehensible that you call a fellow MRA a Nazi or advocating Genocide.
I will throw one at you now, you are the Andrea Dworkin of this thread. Because I am pretty sure a good number of feminists were silenced with shaming language when she said “all men are rapists.”
If you are for or against abortion state your reason you do so logically and without shaming language.
Telling someone they support Genocide because they are for abortion is not an argument.
Paul Elam himself told you after about three comments your responses become unreadable. So you then not an hour and a half later post three more long winding comments that are almost unreadable.
@FAS “Calling someone a Nazi because they support abortion. People of all colors/income levels get abortion and it is not as a whole targeting men(to kill them only).
I find it irreprehensible that you call a fellow MRA a Nazi or advocating Genocide.”
you’re not seeing what’s right in front of you. If someone makes racist comments, then they’re a racist. Likewise, if someone glorifies the Holocast (Eoghan), spouts Nazi propaganda as a justification for their argument (Tasha) or defends the use of either (Dennis), then by the very same logic, they’re Nazis.
Furthermore, Abortion is Genocide- the fact that it is not widely recognised as such is entirely due to the very same reasons that genocide did not extend to grounds of creed before the Holocaust.
Guess what there’s a reason why something is called an “incovenient truth”- what I’ve been saying is a textbook example of an “inconvenient truth”, right own to the reactions of the people it is “inconvenient” for.
“If you are for or against abortion state your reason you do so logically and without shaming language.”
I’ve already done so in depth argument as to why I oppose abortion in my response to your previous post. You’ve clearly chosen to ignore it which is not my problem.
“So you then not an hour and a half later post three more long winding comments that are almost unreadable.”
Right so other people are able to post utterly baseless bullshit but I’m not allowed to completely debunk it for the worship pile of crap that it is- gotcha.
Highly intelligent and in depth posts are unreadable for some people, then clearly that is because they lack the intelligence or the comprehension to be able to grasp them.
@bowspearer
You haven’t debunked or swayed anyone.
Recently I took a friend’s(female) friend(female) to have an abortion.
She had been coerced into doing so because she was:
22
already had two kids
didn’t love her “bf” who was the father
was not employed
was currently living at the “friend’s” house because she was homeless
didn’t have enough money to afford food to feed her pregnancy
is not receiving child support because the men she chooses don’t have any career skills(a.k.a bad boys)
her current BF has a giant (and I can’t accenuate how fucking retarded it is to do this to yourself) neck tattoo and the first time I met him he asked me if that disqualifys him from military service
Yeh it’s totally good, she should have definately brought another child into the world to live destitute.
She now gets paid to babysit my friend’s kids while she works and gets 25$ a month from me to take my dog out/clean my house while im at school.
Sure she should have a third child, I am sure that child would have cured cancer.
^^^^^^^^^
I said all that because while I am against abortion that is an argument for abortion which bears no resemblence to any of your comments.
@FAS “that is an argument for abortion which bears no resemblence to any of your comments.”
Of course the argument for abortion bears no resemblance to my argument- why should I lie (the pro-abortion argument) bear any resemblance to a truth (the argument which I have put forward).
The entire argument here is advocating for legalised and state sanctioned dismembering of a child, arguably an horrific form of child physical abuse based murder, to avoid neglect when there are options such as adoption which are available.
Furthermore your entire argument is summed up by “would you want to live like that”?
Guess what, that was exactly the line of argument the Nazis used to justify statemandated abortions and sterilisations of the disabled and to foster pro-eugenic arguments in the German people so the Nazi Euthanasia Program would not be opposed.
The ideology is what it is- namely genocide and child abuse based heavily upon Nazi based ideologies of dehumanisaton determined by “desireability”. Your ignorance of that fact is irrelevant to the reality of it lying at the core of supporting abortion.
@bowspearer
The eugenics argument doesn’t apply. I do know what eugenics is and you are not applying the argument in its intended form.
Eugenics was the quest for a “master race” by removing undesirables. Undesirables was a specific category of people.
In Nazi germany it was Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. A little known fact is that pre ww2/post ww1 Berlin was touted as the “gay capitol” of the world.
In America when we practiced eugenics it was the jailed population that took the brunt of it. A little known fact that got erased from history books after WW2.
The reason why I posted the previous comment was to prove what an argument for abortion is. Your refutation of my argument was to say I was practicing eugenics.
I didn’t take her to the abortion. I told my friend I had other shit going on which my friend understood my meaning that I didn’t want to do this.
Saying abortion is eugenics doesn’t apply because while most abortions are because the pregnancy and therefore the child is undesirable. That doesn’t mean that at another time with the same person it wouldn’t be.
That is the failure in your argument. The next one is to liken the pro abortion people to Nazi’s which is shaming language. If you don’t believe me go to Germany where alot of free thinking males are scared to speak their mind for fear of being called a Nazi. Like for example to protest the huge influx of Turkish immigrants who argue for Germans to respect their rights under German law but don’t respect German rights.
“I do know what eugenics is and you are not applying the argument in its intended form.
Eugenics was the quest for a “master race” by removing undesirables. Undesirables was a specific category of people.”
Which included the disabled. If you’d actually BOTHERED to read Tasha’s posts you would have found that she was advocating for the abortion of people with disabilities because “would you want to live like that?” (her words exactly).
That’s clear cut eugenic attitudes at play.
“In Nazi germany it was Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. A little known fact is that pre ww2/post ww1 Berlin was touted as the “gay capitol” of the world.”
And the disabled. Seriously do yourself a favour and read up on the Nazi Euthanasia Program. It was the start of the very genocide you’re referring to and it was where the very techniques which were used on the groups you refer to were perfected and where the laws were passed which set firm legal precedents to allow for the genocide of the groups you’re referring to.
You claim you understand eugenics, yet you clearly have absolutely no clue about the most visceral example of how it took shape under the Nazis.
Furthermore it was the Nazis who used the most dramatic example of abortion on the grounds of disability with their “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”.
There’s no flaw with my argument, only with your knowledge.
Furthermore, abortion in general is eugenic in nature. What you’re failing to grasp is the difference between social engineering being used to create a culture of being pro-abortion to achieve things covertly as opposed to attempting them overtly, makes little difference in terms of the end result.
The reality is that one of the ones behind the WWF and every ultimately organisation which stems from it, is in fact an ex-Nazi who has merely put a new face on eugenics in the form of “sustainable” population.
As genocide can be a partial reduction in an undesired group as opposed to a complete irradication, putting forward an argument that the entire human race is the target is entirely sound.
That especially holds true when you consider that Hitler’s abortion policy was also entirely centred around the desirability of the child. While we are talking about an abortion agenda in this case where people have been conditioned into it happening collectively on an individual basis and Hitler’s policy was determined on a state basis, it makes little difference ultimately when it is still justified through the dehumanisation of the child.
@bowspearer
You proved my argument for me.
Eugenics is the removal of “undesirables” against their will.
However it is ultimately the woman’s choice to abort her pregnancy in today’s America. No one can force a woman to have an abortion, even if said girl(woman) was twelve years old.
There is no ultimate underlying reason that these women have an abortion. They run the gamut of personal/relational/societal/monetary/relational etc. etc.
The above statement I wrote:
Eugenics is the removal of “undesirables” against their will.
However eugenics needs a movement to occur.
Pro choice is not eugenics.
@FAS “Eugenics is the removal of “undesirables” against their will.”
Which is exactly what happens to the unborn child who is “unwanted” or “undesireable”.
“However it is ultimately the woman’s choice to abort her pregnancy in today’s America. No one can force a woman to have an abortion, even if said girl(woman) was twelve years old.”
So what, at one point parents were able to pimp out their children from a certain age too. Should that law have been retained to avoid “oppressing the parent”?
“There is no ultimate underlying reason that these women have an abortion. They run the gamut of personal/relational/societal/monetary/relational etc. etc.”
On the contrary the underlying reason abortions take place is because dehumanisation of the unborn child has become so rampant, that the notion of killing your own child at a certain developmental stage is perfectly acceptable the moment they are “undesireable”, through a form of reasoning which is entirely steeped in social Darwinism.
“However eugenics needs a movement to occur.”
Clearly you’ve never bothered to take a close look at those who run the WWF and the environmental movement.
“Pro choice is not eugenics.”
It blatantly is when done on the grounds of disabilities and blindly is when done on the grounds of the propaganda people have been brainwashed into by the financial elites of the world over the past 30 years.
@bowspearer
Well you really brought nothing new to the argument.
Eugenics is state sponsored killing of the born and unborn against the peoples will.
It is basically a mandate and a set criteria to kill those that the state feels are undesirable.
Your whole argument falls apart because of the above statements.
@FAS No eugenics is a form of bigotry which discriminates against those deemed “inferior” which manifests itself in ways which vary from simple marginalisation to actual violence and murder of an individual on the grounds of said “inferiority”.
It is an ideology, not a act. The fact that you define the term so shallowly only demonstrates your ignorance of it as a philosophy.
Between that and your belligerent obliviousness to the covert nature of campaigns of extermination in “democracies as opposed to the overt natures of them in tyrannies- your argument is baseless, completely uncredible and smacks of ignorance.
@BS
“Ahh yes the old stalwart where someone tries to dismiss the use of the term genocide while ignoring the history and evolution of the term while mankind’s knowledge of the term has increased.” If this BS is not post-modernism, what is? You are saying that the term genocide has to be measured relative to unspecified history and evolution.
Raphael Lemkin (June 24, 1900 – August 28, 1959) was a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent. He is best known for his work against genocide, a word he coined in 1943 from the root words genos (Greek for family, tribe, or race) and -cide (Latin for killing).[1] He first used the word in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress (1944)
Pretty clear what the origin of genocide is and its history and that the term did not predate the Holocaust as you have claimed.
I have refuted your logic, but rather than offer a counterargument you add more irrelevant assertions on Nazism. I participate on this group because I want to advance mens rights, this is neither the time nor place to discuss Hitler’s policies ad nauseam. Just to be clear, I reject Nazism, racism and any form of discrimination or oppression.
Weeks ago you had a debate with Bernard Chapin. I initially found some agreement with your position. Eventually, YOU convinced me that Bernard was right.
http://avoiceformen.com/2010/11/03/you-have-got-to-love-chapin/
I hope you never agree with me, because your bellicose verbose tirades will turn reasonable people against what you argue for. Or is this your real objective?
Stupid friends are more dangerous than smart enemies.
Bowspearer, pro choice is volentary eugenics. Tax breaks for having children is also eugenics, are tax breaks for having children evil too?
You are destroying this thread by taking Alex Jones rhetoric and hyperbole as the one truth and insisting that anyone that doesnt share in the panic and fear that people like Alex Jones make their living out of spreading to the gilluble is somehow a fool. You have derainled an otherwise interesting thread with one fallacious argument and personal attack after another. You should let it go at this stage.
@John A “You are saying that the term genocide has to be measured relative to unspecified history and evolution.”
No I’m applying an historiographical analysis to the term in terms of what is happening in society at any point in time.
Genocide is like any from of abuse. Society goes through a transition
Your argument is as ludicrous as someone trying to claim that racism would be widely recognised in the USA for example, during the time when slavery was legalised.
With all forms of persecution and abuse, society goes through what would logically have to be described as stages of enlightenment- starting out with a society being guilty of crimes of double ignorance by perpetuating abuse and not knowing that they don’t know what they’re doing is wrong. Then it slowly transitions to a place where people don’t know what they’re doing is wrong. Then they realise it is wrong.
As linguistics, much like history is “written by the victor” you are never logically
going to encounter any kind of villification of some kind of social injustice when it is not only actively being practices, but supported by the popular culture of the time.
Don’t believe me? Then explain why misandry is treated as a spelling error every single time it’s encountered by a spell checker. Explain why the term was known by next to noone a decade ago. But hey I guess that’s different right.
For someone who claims to be so educated, your ability to critically analyse a situation is nothing short of fucking pathetic and makes you look like a complete assclown. There, hows that for a “bellicose verbose tirade” asshole.
“Weeks ago you had a debate with Bernard Chapin. I initially found some agreement with your position. Eventually, YOU convinced me that Bernard was right.”
Right so in other words you class centralism as extreme left wing ideology, just as the left classes it as an extreme right wing ideology? Well I suppose a complete and utter fucking moron when it comes to political ideologies will be swayed by another complete fucking moron when it comes to political ideologies when the bullshit they’re smelling is similar enough to their own.
“Stupid friends are more dangerous than smart enemies.”
Agreed, which is why I sure as hell hope that short of you either figuratively growing a brain or literally actually learning how to use it to critically think; that you and I never agree on anything.
@Eoghan “Bowspearer, pro choice is volentary eugenics. Tax breaks for having children is also eugenics, are tax breaks for having children evil too?
You are destroying this thread by taking Alex Jones rhetoric and hyperbole as the one truth and insisting that anyone that doesnt share in the panic and fear that people like Alex Jones make their living out of spreading to the gilluble is somehow a fool. You have derainled an otherwise interesting thread with one fallacious argument and personal attack after another. You should let it go at this stage.”
Ok, for starters, my source in terms of current world political agendas is largely a political party whose material checks out through numerous cross references with other source materials in journal articles by well respected historians in terms of the current push for Eugenics, as well as other sources who actively monitor what goes on at the UN on a grass roots level.
Secondly, my source regarding Hitler’s abortion policy is a journal article I stumbled across one day, while I’ve also taken an interest in the Nazi Euthanasia Program by listening to experts who correctly point to social trends regarding the diasbled and eugenics which are resurfacing and where there is clear evidence of things like the mass shutting down of mental institutions having taken place.
In short my sources are that well rounded that I KNOW my argument is accurate- even if people here who oppose it do so out of blatant double ignorance.
Secondly, you literally praised the work of Hitler meaning that you supported it, meaning that you’re a Nazi- pure and simple. The fact that half the posters in this thread are either too stupid to see that when it’s out in the open or too ignorant to comprehend it is a reflect on them and only them.
The fact that someone who by their own posts is clearly a self confessed and blatant Nazi would be defended by so many people here only proves my entire argument.
@BS
LMAO!
@John A
Yes by all means laugh. As someone once said to me “those with intelligence comprehend. Those who do not comprehend, mock”. You clearly just proved them right.
I have to say the discussions on this site are first class. Some serious food thought here. Bowspearers was irritating the hell outta me, but the more I read this guy the less certain I am about my lack conviction on the matter of abortion. I hope it’s the arguments he presents that are giving me pause me and not just the depth of his knowledge, (which seemed to blow everyone away in the Bowspearer vs Chapin discussion)
I think you exemplify what a Male Liberationist’s mission should be, to offer counter analysis on the spectrum of issues that touch not just the lives of men but of MAN, (as a generic term for all human beings). Specially pertinent to this discussion – to speak for ALL the voiceless and to be a conscience.
Out-fucking-standing.
Dude you have big brain. Keep talking. I think you’d be a huge a asset to any sincere truth/justice seeking movement.
Bowpsearer
Poeple know that abortion is about giving people an option to get out of a pregnancy when the circumstances arent good or when its demanded for medical reasons. It eases suffering. Thats the whole point of it. It is eugenics, as is offering tax breaks for middle class babies as is fertility treatment and chosing the sex of your ivf baby.
You arent breaking any ground here, post your sources, I bet they are idological, probably christian, you posted a link to a christian person before…. you would get a better reception for your hysteria and on a religious site.
@RM Thanks for the kind words.
To me it comes down to this. If misandry is the hatred of men, then the epitome of men has to be the complete opposite of that.
According to misandry, all men are child abusing, partner abusing cheats, who get drunk, shirk responsibilty and destroy and oppress.
This is just the short list which comes to mind under misandry.
That leaves us as men at a place where we are loving, nurturing (and yes, masculinity can be nurturing, especially when it might piush for the best in kids, but from a place where they know that they are not only loved but that their male teachers, parents and mentors are deeply proud of them). We fight against injustice, even if it means tearing a country apart in the process because it’s right and becuase the country deserves better of itself.
We fight austerity measures from financial elites when they cripple those under our care, even when it means that we have private facist armies ready to kidnap us and start a civil war (this example is specifically NSW in the 1930s but extended to the whole of Australia).
We fight against racism and other forms of discrimination, even if it means a bullet to the chest, because someone has to.
We explore new lands because we know that the knowledge we bring to those in our community will only enrich it. We explore new scientific principles for the same reasons.
We create technologies to make life better, to improve the quality of life and to fight disease with the same relentlessness we fight injustice.
Feminism is wrong, patriarchy is the epitome of man. We are at our best in the role of fatherhood- either professionally as teachers, biologically by having children, scientifically by nurturing our intellectual pool and to our communities in roles of leadership.
This does not mean making ourselves chivalrous slaves to women where sex is the commodity, but leading, because it’s what we men do best.
On the issue of abortion, this translates to 2 things. Secondly we have a responsibility to be men at our best and stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Secondly, we have the ability to make it obselete by making the artificial womb a reality.
Look at the scientific brilliance of men over the years and what we have achieved in the sciences- we have the ability to make the impossible real because as men that’s what we do. We use our intellects, we build, we discover and we create.
This world has never really known a system run by patriarchy- it was given a shell of it before, and now attempts to destroy even that. Ihave no doubt that soon that will change, and when feminism sees what TRUE patriarchy is, it will be silenced forever.
Hey a guy can dream can’t he heh.
@Eoghan “Poeple know that abortion is about giving people an option to get out of a pregnancy when the circumstances arent good or when its demanded for medical reasons. It eases suffering. Thats the whole point of it.”
That view only holds true when you dehumanise the child- incidentally dehumanisation is at the core of why genocide is allowed to occur. The fact that you so readily defend the practice of dehumanisation, and as you previously stated, the targeted abortion of children with diasbilities, only further proves my point about your Nazi leanings and the double ignorance which underlies them.
“It is eugenics, as is offering tax breaks for middle class babies as is fertility treatment and chosing the sex of your ivf baby.”
There is a difference there though- you are talking about eugenics in terms of determining the life that is procreated. While on similar ethical grounds, it is hardly comparible to actively killing a person, even inutero, on the grounds that they are undesirable- an act which you have previously praised.
“You arent breaking any ground here, post your sources, I bet they are idological, probably christian, you posted a link to a christian person before…. you would get a better reception for your hysteria and on a religious site.”
I already have posted one of my sources- a five parter on youtube on the Nazi Eugenics Program from a conference on Euthenasia. Scroll up and you’ll find it. It details the “great work of Hitler” which you earlier praised whereby you proved yourself a Nazi.
However as for the here and now, I suggest checking out the LaRouche movement if you want to see what is going on behind the scenes.
I was actually enjoying this debate when it was about men’s reproductive rights. Before it became about one person’s opinion on abortion, even though men’s reproductive right’s are largely irrelevant to the outcome of the debate of abortion, other then to apply that outcome equally to men and women. Saying that it is a men’s right issue because male children are aborted is like saying that lung cancer is a men’s right issue because men can get it, or famine in third world country’s are men’s issues because men are starving… No, these are human issues that men in the MRM may choose to also support, but it does not appear to me as a MRA issue.
@Kratch “Saying that it is a men’s right issue because male children are aborted is like ”
While I totally disagree with this as arguably the MRM should be there for men and boys, you’ve clearly given no thought at all the the men out there who want to be fathers when the pregnant mother wants an abortion and they’re forced to watch on helplessly.
When you say “it does not appear to me as a MRA issue.”; you’re ultimately saying that the rights of those fathers don’t matter, and they should expect no support from a movement which claims to advocate for all men. Surely the MRM is better than the WRM when or example it ignores DV in lesbian couples because it’s “inconvenient” for their cause.
Bowspearer
you arent really against eugenics at all, its specifically abortion. You seem to have no problem with tax breaks for babies, chosing the sex of babies, fertility/ivf treatment, dna research, artifical wombs and the many other areas that are eugenics but are no longer called eugenics (because of hitlers madness).
What you are insisting is the only truth is christian anti abortion propaganda.
“When you say “it does not appear to me as a MRA issue.”; you’re ultimately saying that the rights of those fathers don’t matter, and they should expect no support from a movement which claims to advocate for all men. Surely the MRM is better than the WRM when or example it ignores DV in lesbian couples because it’s “inconvenient” for their cause.”
And if you chose to argue from that point of view, you might actually get a reasonable debate from people, but instead you call everyone Nazi’s and genocidal. Not one of you’re argument’s to point has been regarding men’s right’s, but instead just bashing on anyone who isn’t opposed to abortion simply because they aren’t opposed to abortion. Eugenic’s, Nazi’s, the haulocast. None of this is pertinent to why abortion is bad for men’s right’s, and yet, that is all you’ve focused on, to the detriment of this entire thread.
In other words, you’re not opposed to abortion because of it’s impact on fathers, that relation is simply coincidental and gives you an excuse to bring the debate on abortion in general here.
and bowspearer
you are an idiot because new eugenics represents elitism much more than people in a bad situation chosing to abort does.
new eugenics is consumer eugenics, which means that the more money your have, the more you can upgrade your offspring.
but you havnt mentioned that, you probably arent even aware of it, because you are a useful idiot for the christian anti abortion agenda that does little more than prepeate their predicatble rhetoric thinking that its enlightenment.
@Kratch “In other words, you’re not opposed to abortion because of it’s impact on fathers, that relation is simply coincidental and gives you an excuse to bring the debate on abortion in general here.”
On the contrary, I am very much opposed to abortion on the grounds of its affect on fathers. For a father who wants to be a father to a child who is murdered through abortion, realistically, they’re going to feel it just as much as if they lost a 2 year old in a drowning or freak car accident.
@Eoghan “you are an idiot because new eugenics represents elitism much more than people in a bad situation chosing to abort does.”
Ok if anyone is the idiot here it would be you on two counts. To begin with you fail to recognise the connection between people “in bad situations” aborting and the agendas of the elite. Secondly, the “new eugenics” as you put it does not negate the fact that people screen for and abort children purely on the grounds of disabilities which is very much traditional eugenics at play.
“new eugenics is consumer eugenics, which means that the more money your have, the more you can upgrade your offspring.”
Which is playing God as opposed to murder. While it’s certainly unsavoury, it does not actually involve the murder of another human being- huge difference there!
“but you havnt mentioned that, you probably arent even aware of it,
Actually I did acknowledge it in my last post, while differentiating the two on the grounds that what I am talking about actually involves murder as opposed to “playing god”. However you clearly can’t make that distinction, because when you view the disabled who are aborted as just “useless eaters” then it can’t really be murder in your eyes- beyond mere lip service at the absolute most.
“because you are a useful idiot for the christian anti abortion agenda that does little more than prepeate their predicatble rhetoric thinking that its enlightenment.”
Wow, so my entire argument has been devoid of religious ideology and drawing entirely from a study of history at a tertiary level and in my spare time, where I have quoted a bio-ethicist and a political party as my sources yet I’m somehow a mouthpiece for the religious right, especially as someone who was a mouthpiece for them would have come down equally hard on both abortion and “playing god”?
Seriously, what the hell have you been smoking?
@Kratch “And if you chose to argue from that point of view, you might actually get a reasonable debate from people, but instead you call everyone Nazi’s and genocidal. Not one of you’re argument’s to point has been regarding men’s right’s, but instead just bashing on anyone who isn’t opposed to abortion simply because they aren’t opposed to abortion. Eugenic’s, Nazi’s, the haulocast. None of this is pertinent to why abortion is bad for men’s right’s, and yet, that is all you’ve focused on, to the detriment of this entire thread.”
Talk about cherry picking and having a selective memory. Let me fill in the blanks you didn’t bother filling in for yourself. The whole Nazi issue came about from 2 people: Tasha and Eoghan, both of whom literally were arguing from the perspective of a Nazi ideology.
Tasha was arguing that aborting the disabled/deformed was “humane” because “would you want to live like that”. IF you’re familiar with the Nazi Euthanasia Program, then you should recognise that for the clear cut Nazi poster child propaganda that it is.
Eoghan went one further. He LITERALLY praise the work of Hitler in the Holocaust- wich is abot as Nazi as you can get.
So I called them both Nazis, just as I would call someone racist if they were spouting crap that read like it came from a declaration made by the Grand Dragon of the KKK.
Then people started defending them and wrongly accusing my calling a spade a spade as being “extreme”. Now if you support any kind of bigotry, then logically you must share those attitudes, therefore anyone who voices support for a type of bigotry is arguably that type of bigot themselves. Thus I called those defending them Nazis as well.
In terms of Godwin’s Law, this was as far into the exception clause territory as you could possibly get.
Did it make people uncomfortable, sure, but the inconvenient truths always do.
I said that your argument was based on christian anti abortion propaganda, which does not necessarily have to mention god or christanity,all it has to do is convice the gullible that abortion and eugenics is herantly bad.
This thread wasnt designed to be a platform for anti abortion propaganda, nor your echo chamber, you are not going to brow beat the majority here into accepting your hyperbole and anti abortion rhetoric as the one and only truth, nor should you expect them to.
@Eoghan “you arent really against eugenics at all, its specifically abortion. You seem to have no problem with tax breaks for babies, chosing the sex of babies, fertility/ivf treatment, dna research, artifical wombs and the many other areas that are eugenics but are no longer called eugenics (because of hitlers madness).”
Ok this is as ludicrous a statement as claiming that because I’m focusing on racial violence as opposed to racial slurs which I’m classing as an issue which can be dealt with later- that somehow I must not oppose racism.
Seriously, I find it highly ironic that someone who would praise the eugenic work of Hitler would then claim to take issue with designer babies when the whole ideology of Nazism practically worshiped blue eyes (and blonde hair to a lesser extent, as having blue eyes would save a Jew in a concentration camps from the gas chambers).
“I said that your argument was based on christian anti abortion propaganda, which does not necessarily have to mention god or christanity,all it has to do is convice the gullible that abortion and eugenics is herantly bad.”
So suddenly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and medical ethics are religious progaganda. Seriously, are you trying to be a parody of a Nazi or are you literally that messed up in terms of your inability to think?
“This thread wasnt designed to be a platform for anti abortion propaganda, nor your echo chamber, you are not going to brow beat the majority here into accepting your hyperbole and anti abortion rhetoric as the one and only truth, nor should you expect them to.”
Except that there is only one truth. I’m not arguing from a religious perspective but from a scientific one- and truth is a universal principle. Clearly you have no idea of the concept of universal principles, which is why you simply can’t get how ridiculous your whole outlook with this entire situation is.
@bowspearer, why don’t you be honest with us.
Are you actively involved with religious groups dealing with the abortion issue?
What are you taking in uni.? Theology, philosophy? Some type of “liberal arts” social science with very little credibility? Metaphysics, relativism, plato…hmmm not very impressive.
I’m interested in the abortion issue only for it’s affect on fathers and boys. So I do consider that there may be “some” fathers that are affected negatively and some “boys” who are aborted just because they are boys.
Any discussion of fathers who are affected negatively by abortion also brings up the equally valid discussion of fathers who are forced into caring for unwanted children. Which group of fathers is more often affected and can be substantiated?
This is an MRA site and you should try to stick to the issues that are affecting only men. If you want to save unborn babies, there are many organizations that you can join…this isn’t it.
IMO, your arrogance exceeds your intelligence and distracts from anyone taking an interest in your personal activism.
If you are against eugenics why not go after DNA research, after all, all eugenics is nazi eugenics and all dna researcher are nazis right?
Ya blatent idiot.
“On the contrary, I am very much opposed to abortion on the grounds of its affect on fathers. For a father who wants to be a father to a child who is murdered through abortion, realistically, they’re going to feel it just as much as if they lost a 2 year old in a drowning or freak car accident.”
So then, you would be appeased with a Law that stated both prospective parent’s confirmation was required on any abortion procedure? This would resolve the issue of father’s wanting their children but having them aborted by an uncaring girlfriend. If your answer is no, that isn’t an acceptable solution, then your issue with abortion isn’t based on Men’s right’s, it’s based on your opinion of abortion (as I said earlier, a separate issue). You’ll notice Whitny also opposes abortion, but he doesn’t demand that as a solution, he recommends it be considered as one of several possible solutions. His comment’s are well received, even when disagreed with, because he doesn’t demand a following, and doesn’t attempt to shame other’s for their opinion otherwise, let alone outright insult them (whether they’ve participated or not. IE, you called me a Nazi before I even acknowledged you were posting, simply by stating if someone agreed with abortion, they were a Nazi).
This is an example of the outcome of abortion not being relevant to the MRA’s. A solution can exist, regardless of how the abortion debate resolves. Abortion itself doesn’t matter, it’s what we do with the outcome of that debate that matters.
@Dennis “Are you actively involved with religious groups dealing with the abortion issue?”
I’ve already addressed this. I’m not actively involved with any religious groups. I am heavily involved with a political party whose ideology is very heavily scientifically based though.
“What are you taking in uni.? Theology, philosophy? Some type of “liberal arts” social science with very little credibility? Metaphysics, relativism, plato…hmmm not very impressive.”
A double history major actually- one major in modern history, one in classics. Arguably this places me in a perfect place to examine things historically which is exactly what I have done.
“Any discussion of fathers who are affected negatively by abortion also brings up the equally valid discussion of fathers who are forced into caring for unwanted children. Which group of fathers is more often affected and can be substantiated?”
And way to give the feminist misandrist propaganda about how all fathers are deadbeats and abusers some ammo. The reality is if fathers don’t want kids then they shouldn’t put themselves in situations where the father children. I don’t accept “equality plus” bullshit from feminism and I’m sure as hell not going to accept it. If we want fahters to be treated with the dignity they deserve and given rights, then the flipside of that has to be fathers taking responsibility. Otherwise were no better than a feminut.
“This is an MRA site and you should try to stick to the issues that are affecting only men. If you want to save unborn babies, there are many organizations that you can join…this isn’t it.”
Right so the countless unborn boys, who arguably, being boys or child men who are butchered as a result of this is irrelevant and even though the fact that the MM is meant to be there for all men and boys, I should find somewhere else, because the boys who are victimised in this situation are below a certain age? Yeah that doesn’t contradict itself at all does it.
“IMO, your arrogance exceeds your intelligence and distracts from anyone taking an interest in your personal activism.”
Considering the level of your ignorance, I’m not surprised that you’d view things that way. Anyone who would defend someone praising Hitler for the Holocaust when the post where it happened is right in front of them is nothing short of incredibly ignorant. The fact that you cannot see that only makes you doubly ignorant.
Here Bowspearer, some more nazi for you to argue against from a “scientific perspective”
http://www.ivfbabies.com/research/index.html
http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
@Kratch “So then, you would be appeased with a Law that stated both prospective parent’s confirmation was required on any abortion procedure? This would resolve the issue of father’s wanting their children but having them aborted by an uncaring girlfriend. If your answer is no, that isn’t an acceptable solution, then your issue with abortion isn’t based on Men’s right’s, it’s based on your opinion of abortion (as I said earlier, a separate issue). You’ll notice Whitny also opposes abortion, but he doesn’t demand that as a solution, he recommends it be considered as one of several possible solutions. His comment’s are well received, even when disagreed with, because he doesn’t demand a following, and doesn’t attempt to shame other’s for their opinion otherwise, let alone outright insult them (whether they’ve participated or not. IE, you called me a Nazi before I even acknowledged you were posting, simply by stating if someone agreed with abortion, they were a Nazi).”
No I wouldn’t accept that, because unlike everyone who wants to draw ageist lines on when we say “fuck you” to victimised men and boys in society, I refuse to turn my back on the roughly 50% of all boys who are going to be the victims of abortion.
If this kind of convenient exclusivity which is the very thing that has made the feminist movement so fucked up and a cesspool for misandry it has become is so ingrained in the Men’s movement as this thread suggests, then we’ve got way bigger problems than feminuts trying to silence us.
To clarify where I said “I refuse to turn my back on the roughly 50% of all boys who are going to be the victims of abortion” it should have read “I refuse to turn my back on the roughly 50% of all abortion victims who are going to be boys”
“No I wouldn’t accept that, because unlike everyone who wants to draw ageist lines on when we say “fuck you” to victimised men and boys in society, I refuse to turn my back on the roughly 50% of all boys who are going to be the victims of abortion.”
Your problem here is that not all people think a 14 week fetus is a boy (or girl) yet. You need to already have a stand on abortion before you can decide whether it is hurting someone (the fetus), IE, Abortion is a human issue. Once that issue is decided, then MRA’s come in to try to make the outcome equal. Again, this comes down to “is brain cancer a men’s right’s issue”, simply because men are affected? or is it a human issue that individual men (including some MRA’s) may have a stake in? does anything that affects a man, regardless of whether it affects women just as much (or even more), become a men’s right’s issue? wouldn’t that dilute the cause to nothing more then a bunch of guys complaining about everything wrong in the world?
@Eoghan and yet in relation to your article links, I previously said “While it’s certainly unsavoury, it does not actually involve the murder of another human being- huge difference there!”
Clearly I do not support the notion of designer babies, however killing another human being is always going to rank higher on the list of evils than “playing God”. Not by much, but enough that the priority should be combating eugenics through abortion.
“If you are against eugenics why not go after DNA research, after all, all eugenics is nazi eugenics and all dna researcher are nazis right?”
Ok as ridiculous as you’re being and as much as you don’t deserve it I’m going to humour you here. DNA research can be used for good and bad purposes. Using it, to create gene therapy treatments to treat Cystic Fibrosis for example is a good usage of it, while creating designer babies is an abhorrent usage of it.
However you don’t reach a place where you have designer babies without first dehumanising the unborn to hte point where abortion is not only decriminalised but supported by large portions of society.
Bowspearer
I have posted links to more nazis for you, an ivf treatment center, some genetic researcher operating out of oxford university and the wiki on genetic engineering. They are just waiting moderation.
And if you are going to rail against abortion because of the 50% of the victims that are boys, you are no better than a feminist, victim status should not be granted or refused on the basis of sex.
@Kratch “Your problem here is that not all people think a 14 week fetus is a boy (or girl) yet. You need to already have a stand on abortion before you can decide whether it is hurting someone (the fetus), IE, Abortion is a human issue. Once that issue is decided, then MRA’s come in to try to make the outcome equal. Again, this comes down to “is brain cancer a men’s right’s issue”, simply because men are affected? or is it a human issue that individual men (including some MRA’s) may have a stake in? does anything that affects a man, regardless of whether it affects women just as much (or even more), become a men’s right’s issue? wouldn’t that dilute the cause to nothing more then a bunch of guys complaining about everything wrong in the world?”
I honestly can’t believe I’m actually hearing this kind of mentality from an MRA. Tell me, if we waited for the world to deal with issues of misandry involving domestic violence or female child abusers where a large number of the victims were girls, would anything ever get done? We both know it wouldn’t.
Heck you claim that abortion should be a wait and see issue, but if you do that then you’re doing also turning your back on battered men and boys abused by women in the process.
The reason is that the whole reason that abortion became so prolific is because of the “woman as a perpetual victim mentality”. It’s the same ideology which allows women to abuse their male partners and children with absolute impunity.
The victims might be both boys and girls, but what’s driving this is the very traditionalist and chivalrous attitudes which oppose the MRM. You break those stereotypes and the whole worldview on abortion changes in no time.
“Arguably this places me in a perfect place to examine things historically which is exactly what I have done.”
The historical analogies you have made have completely distracted from your arguments rather than supported them. There is a significant difference in most people’s opinion between selective genocide of a race, state imposed abortion and personal choice.
“The reality is if fathers don’t want kids then they shouldn’t put themselves in situations where the father children”
Meaning they shouldn’t have sex unless they intend to procreate? Good luck with that. Sounds very religious to me that all sex should be assumed to be procreation.
If you are going to accuse me of something then at the very least you should have the integrity to quote me, rather than making some false accusations.
You’re one dumb fuck bowspearer and your not convincing anybody.
@Eoghan “And if you are going to rail against abortion because of the 50% of the victims that are boys, you are no better than a feminist, victim status should not be granted or refused on the basis of sex.”
Nice try with more of your strawman bullshit. I never invalidated the female victims of abortion and equally feel for them. I was hit with a question of the relevance of abortion victims to the MRM- the answer is the roughly 50% of the victims which are male.
Nice try though your little strawman Nazi.
@Dennis If you wanted to prove and a complete and utter moron you are, you completely succeeded.
“The historical analogies you have made have completely distracted from your arguments rather than supported them. There is a significant difference in most people’s opinion between selective genocide of a race, state imposed abortion and personal choice.”
The difference stops being there when the state conditions people to make the choice they want them to make anyway. If you actually had the ability to critically examine thing then you might actually start to see that.
“Meaning they shouldn’t have sex unless they intend to procreate? Good luck with that. Sounds very religious to me that all sex should be assumed to be procreation.”
No meaning that if they have sex then they need to be prepared for the possibility that it may result in pro-creation and if it does, to be accountable. Or would you rather all men be treated like helpless little boys like feminists would like to make us.
“If you are going to accuse me of something then at the very least you should have the integrity to quote me, rather than making some false accusations.”
You mean where Eoghan said “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.” when I accurately called him a Nazi for supporting hitler and the Holocaust (ie the “work he did”), you responded with “Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
There you are- in conclusion, you’re a complete assclown- case closed!
“You’re one dumb fuck bowspearer and your not convincing anybody.”
Spoken like the complete assclown you are.
Do you not realise that you have built on strawman after another here on this thread?
Stop with the pretence, you know very little about eugenics and probably agree with most of the eugenic work thats been done out out there, but have little idea that its eugenics.
Your sources have conditioned you to conflate abortion, nazis and eugenics and that, along with arroence and faux intellectualism is the basis of your weak argument and attempt to hijack the thread to push what you think is your own but is really a christian anti abortion aganda.
@Eoghan What pretence? You said “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.”
Therefore the one who clearly supports eugenics is you. I’ve already voiced disagreement with the notion of using DNA research to genetically engineer people beyond using gene therapy to correct genetic diseases which are life threatening.
You however seem hell bent on diminishing and defending eugenics based abortions. Hence the person who is truly pro-eugenic here is you.
“Your sources have conditioned you to conflate abortion, nazis and eugenics and that, along with arroence and faux intellectualism is the basis of your weak argument and attempt to hijack the thread to push what you think is your own but is really a christian anti abortion aganda.”
Spoken like a Nazi caught out by his own words and baselessly making flailing and failing arguments in a last desperate attempt to save themselves.
Before anyone is stupid enough to leap in to save you, I’d ask them to remember that you said “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.” This includes in the case of Hitler, not just the sterilisation of the disabled, but also of countless Jews as well.
Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.
-So I guess I’m a nazi for disagreeing with hateful dumb fucks?
Bowspearer
You are a religious zelot, of course hitler and sanger produced useful work. There is a lot of work that was produced by the nazis that we use everyday, anyone that was born in a hospital or has used birth control or survived a difficult birth has likely benefited from work that was done by sanger and the nazis, both contributed greatly to reproductive/knowledge and the nazis contributed to many other areas. You have no doubt benefited from Sangers and Hitlers research many times in your life, its inevitable.
But go ahead and use that logic and fact to frame me as a “nazi”, you blatent fool.
You arguement is fallacious, you are a either an unwitting or knowing christian anti abortion propagandist whos rhetoric and appeals to emotion is failing on logic, that is showing contempt for this blog, its owner and the mens movement by hijacking this thread and using it to repeatedly push your agenda while calling anyone that objects a nazi.
@Dennis No, you’re a Nazi for defending the following statement “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.”
By defending said statement you are supporting it, just as you have been for the past couple of days. Therefore, yes, you’re a Nazi.
If you can’t grasp that and want to look for a “dumbfuck” in this thread, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
@Eoghan the issue at hand is reproduction (and not things like rocket technology), to which you have said “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.” and “You are a religious zelot, of course hitler and sanger produced useful work.”
This goes beyond simple Nazism to pure Holocaust denial. Keep trying the ad hominem strawman attacks all you like, but it’s your own words which condemn you here.
@BS, I never defended any such statement. If you had any integrity then you would quote me. Unfortunately, you don’t have integrity or the intelligence to debate this subject without insulting and unfairly maligning people that you disagree with.
I have been defending people’s right to have their own opinions, make their own choices and not be called Nazi’s for disagreeing. Why don’t you join an anti-abortion group if you are so inclined. It’s official, abortion is not an AVfM issue.
Bowspearer
Mentioning the fact that Sanger and the nazis work on reproductive health is used in hospitals to our benefit every day, which is true) in reality doesn’t equate to holocaust denial.
If I wear a condom tonight, or use fertility treatment, is that a form of holocaust denial?
You are ridiculous, building one straw man, faulty argument and appeal to emotion after another and launching personal attacks all the while accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing. You are a fanatic.
@Dennis “I never defended any such statement. If you had any integrity then you would quote me. Unfortunately, you don’t have integrity or the intelligence to debate this subject without insulting and unfairly maligning people that you disagree with.”
Clearly you have no integrity trying to pass off a blatant lie as I already have quoted you, 4 posts ago. I accused Eoghan of being a Nazi for saying “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.” (which is clearly the statement of someone who is literally a Nazi). Your response to me was “Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
Clearly you DID defend this statement Dennis. Now are you going to be accountable over it or are you going to continue to act like some 3 year old sitting on a floor with their hand covered in cookie crumbs and with a smashed coockie jar next to them who keeps swearing blind they didn’t have their hand in the cookie jar?
“I have been defending people’s right to have their own opinions, make their own choices and not be called Nazi’s for disagreeing.”
Right and I suppose the fact that those opinions were literally those of Nazis is irrelevant. I’d love to see what you’d be like around someone claiming child sex should be decriminalised when someone correctly labelled them a paedophile for it, to quote just one of numerous examples.
“Why don’t you join an anti-abortion group if you are so inclined. It’s official, abortion is not an AVfM issue.”
In other words, “here’s a big fuck you to every single male who is victimised but is too ‘inconvenient’ for us”. Yeah that doesn’t sound like feminism in action at all.
@Eoghan “If I wear a condom tonight, or use fertility treatment, is that a form of holocaust denial?”
No but this entire statement is. The fact that you would use this as justification for forced sterilisations and abortions of “useless eaters” is a clear cut case of Holocaust Denial.
The whole underlying principle of Holocaust denial is to make an argument which uses one piece of information to dismiss or defend the genocide which took place during the Holocaust.
Furthermore your comments about Hitler came directly after the Nazi Eugenics Program was brought up by me in response to attitudes which came straight from the propaganda behind it, regardless of how unwittingly they might have done so.
So yeas, you’ve proven yourself to be a Nazi and a Holocaust denier.
@BS, you didn’t quote me, you quoted Eoghan.
I think you have lost all credibilty and you’re just not convincing anybody. Why are you wasting your time here?
There are plenty of anti-abortion groups already, join them. It’s not an MRM issue and I won’t be shamed into following YOUR agenda.
“Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
That is NOT defending Eoghan, that is critisizing YOU Bowspearer.
@ Dennis No actually i quoted both of you. Since you’re too much of a moron to demonstrate basic compehension and intelligence, let me break it down for you like I would a 5 year old:
Eoghan: “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.”
I correctly called him out on it by labelling him a nazi as he was clearly supporting the Holocaust or “the work of Hitler”.
Your response to me: “Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
There does that make it easier for you or do I need to resort to treating you like a 3 year old or younger.
Face it, you defended a pro-Nazi statement & got called out on it. Now either keep acting like a pathetic little coward and trying to lie your way our of it, or face up to it and be accountable. The choice is yours.
@Dennis ““Comparing those you disagree with to Nazis only shows how weak your argument is.”
That is NOT defending Eoghan, that is critisizing YOU Bowspearer.”
Ok I take back what I just thought- you really ARE that stupid.
You
A) criticised me for calling Eoghan a Nazi for making a statement that was clearly and blatantly Nazi
B) therefore you think that my actions were incorrect
C) therefore you think that either
i) people should be able to make Nazi statements with impunity
ii)that the statement was not Nazi in nature
Therefore:
D) you are defending his statement- either on the grounds that he should be able to make it with impunity, or by diminishing the severity of it.
Epic fail
Bowspearer
Yet again you show us that your argument is based entirely on magical thinking, conflation and calling people nazis.
Quick Bowspeearer, its the nazis – http://www.durex.com/Pages/default.aspx
@Eoghan no my argument is based on what you said when you said “The reproductive health work that Sanger and Hitler is a good thing.” and “You are a religious zelot, of course hitler and sanger produced useful work.” Both were in response to the notion of eugenincs based abortion and arguably extended to sterilisation as I had also brought that up just before you made these statements
You’ve already incriminated yourself beyond saving. All you’re doing now is making yourself look worse.
I haven’t incriminated by myself by saying that sanger and the nazis work has had positive influences and benefits in the area of reproductive health and knowledge, its the truth.
Oh no Bowspearer more nazis!
http://www.sims.ie/FertilityTreatment/FertilityTreatment.489.html
Help!
Its the nazis!
http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/
@Eoghan “I haven’t incriminated by myself by saying that sanger and the nazis work has had positive influences and benefits in the area of reproductive health and knowledge, its the truth.”
Nice try, but you actually used it as a defence for the horrors of the Nazi Euthanasia Program. I can go back and grab quotes proving that too if you like.
@Bowspearer, take a course in logic and come back when you have grown up and learn to respect other people’s opinions without slandering them.
“I honestly can’t believe I’m actually hearing this kind of mentality from an MRA. Tell me, if we waited for the world to deal with issues of misandry involving domestic violence or female child abusers where a large number of the victims were girls, would anything ever get done? We both know it wouldn’t.”
There is a distinct difference between what your proposing with abortion, and men’s issues with DV. Had, when the feminist movement began, they addressed all issues of DV, there would be no men’s issue’s with regards to it, the reason an issue exists is because of people like yourself, who want to champion a cause that affects everyone, but only examining it from a single point of view (Women in the case of DV, men in your case). The fact that abortion affects Male and female equally, with regards to “killing human beings via abortion” (other issues can be addressed via solutions that apply a legal equity to both sex’s), means it is not a MEN’S issue. it is a HUMAN issue. I don’t know why this is so despicable in your eyes. There are thousands of problems in this world that relate to both men and women equally, and those issues need to be addressed by individuals that feel they have a stake in the outcome, but that does not have to be the MRA simply because a man is involved. And at no point have I suggested that being an MRA precludes you from also being a Human right’s activist.
As for your linking what I’m saying to sitting around and waiting for the world to solve issues of the perception of men in DV and child abuse… There is a clear inequity being perpetrated against men with regards to these subjects that can only be resolved by confronting them. The inequities with the issue of abortion do not require an MRA to take a stand on abortion itself, only that what is decided be applied equally. for someone who claims they are so much smarter, and have a better understanding of everything, I don’t see why it is so difficult to see there is two distinct issues involved here, and that a person does not need to pick a side on one to champion the other.
I repeat, Men’s right’s does not have a personal stack in the outcome of the abortion debate, they only require that an outcome be provided and applied equally. Doesn’t matter what the results are, just that there is a result.
Unless you demonstrate an understanding of this very simple point, that two SEPARATE issues exist, this will be my last response to you, as I don’t think there is any further point in doing so.
http://www.easydna.ie/paternity-test.html
Its ze nazis.
“Nice try, but you actually used it as a defence for the horrors of the Nazi Euthanasia Program. I can go back and grab quotes proving that too if you like”.
You might be able to cut and paste something, take it our of context and frame it as my defending the nazi euthanasia program, but that would be you conflating and misleading and misrepresenting.
Oh no its the ze nazis!
http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/
@BS
“Talk about cherry picking and having a selective memory. Let me fill in the blanks you didn’t bother filling in for yourself. The whole Nazi issue came about from 2 people: Tasha and Eoghan, both of whom literally were arguing from the perspective of a Nazi ideology.
Tasha was arguing that aborting the disabled/deformed was “humane” because “would you want to live like that”. IF you’re familiar with the Nazi Euthanasia Program, then you should recognise that for the clear cut Nazi poster child propaganda that it is.”
No, you misquoting little ass hat, that is NOT what I said.
I began my initial post on the assumption that you knew that I was not referring to pregnancies where the disability was something like blindness, or a club foot or ADD etc, but rather pregnancies where the resulting child would be kept alive by ventilator, or some other very serious, very limiting, very painful (for the child) conditions. But, as usual, you took what I said and twisted it to mean something completely different. I said earlier that I was done posting to you, but I have continued to read your posts, and they change very little, except that they become more vicious and more inflammatory…you are here to bang your drum about abortion, and your high intelligence despite being disabled with ADD.
Personally, I think that you find those little letters rather useful. You seem to think that it entitles you to proclaim yourself the poster child for disabled people everywhere; that your disability, which you yourself somewhere here said was mild, somehow gives you access to the keys to disability kingdom. It’s a blatant, and quite frankly disgusting exploitation of disabled people everywhere, yourself included, though you will more than likely fail to understand that point at this stage.
Here’s a little bit of life advice, free of charge….You are not your disability. It does not, and should not, define you. Every person is more than their diagnosis, each individual is the sum total of so many different aspects within themselves. That you apparently choose to wear it like some kind of battle armor is somewhat sad and entirely absurd.
Before you go putting words in my mouth and start yammering about me advocating that you be put to death in some nazi death camp that you probably think I run, let’s be clear that that is NOT what I am saying. I AM saying that my previous point about severity of disability and how it relates to the abortion issue was taken out of context, cherry picked and misrepresented by YOU and YOU alone.
Your assertion that all the nazi talk came from Eoghan and myself defies logic. Neither of us are raving about it and/or saying that, in fact, the first real mention of it comes from you in your first post to Beth Lang. At any rate, I personally know Eoghan, and he is no more a nazi or Hitler worshipper than Paul or Harry are feminists.
I could even discuss this with you on an academic/theoretical level if you could somehow stop yourself from personally attacking everyone, putting words in their mouth and the fevered, frothing at the mouth absolute INSISTANCE that everyone but you is a stupid ignorant nazi fuck…..but you don’t appear to be able to.
At this point, is there any hope at all of getting back to the OT of how abortion impacts the MRM? Lord I hope so…….
Who was it that said the abortion issue was incendiary??
Tasha, I find your name-calling of other men to be offensive, especially in this environment. Would you please try to refrain from typing abusive posts towards men who post content that is upsetting to you?
Thank you
Wayne
Are you Bowspearer in disguise? that shaming and appeal to emotion sounds just like him. TBH, people here were very patient while BS made repeated and vile personal attacks against anyone that didn’t agree with his magical thinking, to a point.
@Wayne
I can appreciate the fact that you posted to me in a coherent, polite way, and thank you. But really, as long as I, and other people, are being called nazis…..then no, I don’t really feel like I need to extend anyone a courtesy they are not extending me. I’m sorry you find it offensive, but I’m not about to accept being labeled something as hateful and emotinally loaded as that.
@BS
“No I’m applying an historiographical analysis to the term in terms of what is happening in society at any point in time.” You have done no such thing. You have incorrectly used an emotive word and now you have been proven wrong, you use pretentious language in an atempt to sound knowledgeable.
“Genocide is like any from of abuse.” So genocide is like verbal abuse then?
BS, you are studying classics? Ever heard of a man called Socrates? He claimed to know nothing, which meant he knew more than anyone else in Greece at the time, because he knew that he knew nothing. You have the “conceit of wisdom”, you think you know everything and therefore have no capacity to learn. I have included the quote from Plato on double ignorance for your education.
“Ignorance may be conveniently divided by the legislator into two sorts: there is simple ignorance, which is the source of lighter offences, and double ignorance, which is accompanied by a conceit of wisdom; and he who is under the influence of the latter fancies that he knows all about matters of which he knows nothing.” – Plato, Laws
I think he is talking about you.
“For someone who claims to be so educated, your ability to critically analyse a situation is nothing short of fucking pathetic and makes you look like a complete assclown. There, hows that for a “bellicose verbose tirade” asshole.”
I was hoping for better
“At this point, is there any hope at all of getting back to the OT of how abortion impacts the MRM?”
Given the fact that MSM rarely invests in men’s issues or the plight of men, centering attention around abortion is another great way to have men’s issues hijacked again by women. Personally I have served my 50 years listening to victim politics and being vilified. I prefer a position that does not condone it or own it.
I think if there was a way to gestate children without women most men at this point would opt for that as “the final solution”. (thought I’d throw a little nazism in there) and for something a little less politically correct. 45 million abortions later we can stop pretending that this has served rape victims and birth defects. So we can get down off the pedestal of moral purity. In my opinion anyone or woman that will abort a child today will abort a family tomorrow.
@BS
“… As someone once said to me “those with intelligence comprehend. Those who do not comprehend, mock …”
LOL, I guess you hear this all the time
@keith
It’s great to hear some reason again.
” In my opinion anyone or woman that will abort a child today will abort a family tomorrow.”
I don’t agree with that part, sure some people have serial abortions without regard to anything other than themselves, I would classify them as despicable. Others see it as a last resort to remove themselves from a desperate situation and feel remorse for the rest of their lives. What you say is true in some cases only.
The problem with abortion as a MR issue is that by it’s nature it affects women more than men. By its nature means that it occurs in their bodies, affects their health and could even end their lives.
Men have an interest in abortion, no doubt, as humans and as fathers. However, I believe there is a ring of hypocrisy when men vilify women who have abortions without regard to the fact that they will never be in a position to have one themselves. This is not to say that men can’t be pro-life, rather that they need to address the issue that they are asking something of someone that they will never be subject to themselves.
Personally, I believe that there are far too many abortions. Abortion can only be justified as a as a last resort for failed contraception very early in the pregnancy. In the case of birth defects they must be extreme defects. Also it can be justified when it affects the life of the mother. When I say it can be justified, I don’t mean it is justified. The ethical and political issues around are serious and complex, they can’t be discussed rationally in this climate of bullying and abuse.
@ John A
I can only agree with you John, even regarding the part of my comment that is extreme and I to believe it to be extreme. I have witnessed women choosing abortion and felt that circumstances were not properly counseled. By family members and professionals. I have never met a woman that chose this option and did not feel remorse later and I truly feel for them. My previous partner wanted children but had had an abortion earlier in life. She felt she didn’t deserve to have children along with other emotional pain it brought her. Because of personal experience I am led to believe that as men we must be more responsible reproductively and I advocate heavily for male contraception. I also know that my experience does not represent everyone’s. So I am much more likely to view the issue as “where do we go from here”. How do we make it better?
I will say also in addition, we have stigmatized the issue of family and what it means to such an extent that we have destroyed other areas of consideration.
We know that a woman can give up her child after delivery, can you think of one instance or even cite one instance where a woman gave up her child after delivery to the father?
@ keith
Well put.
Male contraceptives will give us control over our reproduction. Apart from vasectomy, condoms are the best we have.
Funny enough you can’t get a vasectomy without permission from your wife or partner. Most younger men are refused by their doctors.
We literally have only condoms.
Refusing a man a vasectomy is a denial of his rights. More fundamental than LC4M. Men have the right to make choices, even bad choices.
Why is that a denial of his ‘rights’?
Suppose the doctor is also man; can not he also make a choice? That choice being to not perform the operation?
HHHHHEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY
Eincrou
How the hell are you!!!!!
You’ve beem missed man
About vasectomies, the spousal permission thing is not law, not in any state to which I’ve been able to find, what many young men seeking this treatment are likely to run into is a doctor unwilling to preform an operation due to their personal belief that they think they will be doing you harm in the long run, especially if you are childless, or perhaps its part of clinic policy where they work, the only thing I’ve seen come close so far in research is virigina which makes you sign a consent waiver and go through a 30 day waiting period to make sure you don’t change your mind, if a young man is serious about never wanting kids and wants the proceedure he may have to shop around to various doctors and the informed consent/waiting period may be applicable in the young mans state.
Hopefully this information proves useful to young men about their current options regarding contraception and sterilization, and god damn it can we fucking get the shot already for fucks sake!
What shot is that……new contraception for men???
@Eincrou
It is a denial of his rights because the reverse isn’t true for women.
In fact there have been several cases of:
-A woman not telling a man she is pregnant with his child only for him to find out years later. Imagine the backpay of 10 years of child support he would be forced to pay if he had to go thru the family court system to gain access to his children.
-A woman getting her “tubes tied” and not telling her husband who desires a family. A pop culture reference would be one of the women in Tyler Perry’s “Why did I get married.”
-Several cases of a woman becoming pregnant by her partner. Then leaving him and after the birth putting the child up for adoption without telling him. Only for him to find out and have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get his child out of the adoption system.
-Women not telling their partner that she is pregnant with his child and getting an abortion. I actually just went through this with a friend’s friend who asked me to drive her to the hospital to get an abortion(I told her I was busy that day).
That is why its a denial of his “rights.” If it were another other group it would be racism.
@Eincrou
Just an add on I know that Vasectomy’s are widely available for any man 18+ in the US as far as I know.
I think John A is referring to laws and policies of yesteryear where a man actually needed his wifes consent to get a vasectomy.
Hi, Keith. Believe it or not, I’ve been here the whole time following the site and reading 99% of the comments. The topics that have been discussed lately are things I don’t have any experience with so I’ve just been reading and learning.
If that’s what he meant, then I agree that this is unfair. Such policies were mentioned sometime earlier in the thread, so you may be right.
But, I don’t know that for sure since he said “refusing,” an act which is an individual’s own choice. So, I await his reply.
@ Eincrou
I always enjoy reading your comments, I find them to be well disciplined, fair and for me educational.
@keith
There was something I followed on one of the links I think from anti-misandry.com about some trial in the UK where they were testing a male chemical contraceptive and anti-misandry’s position about an article in the daily mail which highlighted that some women don’t believe a man should have a choice in this ability to procreate, and that thats blatant misandry.
in the article it said something about the contraceptive being an injection which I think would be awesome cuz crap I can barely remember to take my freaking antibiotics when I need em, but you can bet I’d be scheduling the appointment for the next injection the day I got the first one.
Anyway here is the link to the article for anyone that wants to read it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill–end-happy-little-accidents.html
“Eoghan asks: Wayne, Are you Bowspearer in disguise? that shaming and appeal to emotion sounds just like him”
Of course I’m not anyone but myself. I certainly didn’t use any type of shaming language nor did I appeal to anything from Tasha except common courtesy. I simply asked for something politely. Why do you feel you need to act like such an arsehole over a simply request that had fuck all to do with you?
@ Tasha,
thanks for responding so politely to my request. I really do appreciate it. I do understand your stance. My issue is that I try to read your posts and become distracted by the ‘other unnecessary stuff’. The information that you post would make better reading without it.
@A Steve
I had actually just remembered this but you beat me to it. I think it would be awesome if men could get the shot or take a pill or have something that at least approaches the variety of choice that women have.
I do, however, think that you all would run into problems of believability. Let me explain–
I used to work with teenage boys, and part of my job was counseling about sex and sexuality. One question I always asked was “Ok, a girl says she’s on the pill…..why do you believe her?”. All I would get were blank stares and “Well she said so”. And my response was always “No, make her prove it, and use a condom anyway”. Women are, by and large, more suspicious than men, and I think that men would have a problem of being believed that they were “on the pill” or “on the shot”, especially if this was a less than an LTR or at least a semi-regular thing.
I’d like to go back and discuss a point brought up in the VERY FIRST POST lol.
Type 5 said
“If it helps, I can tell you the position that I have officially arrived at on abortion: I don’t care. Make it legal, make it illegal. Either way, it’s not my problem. I concentrate on convincing and educating men to make sure an “oopsie” doesn’t make it their personal problem either.”
Idk if your still reading Type 5, but if so, would you please elaborate on how you are doing this? This seems much more like the sort of thing the MRM could have some success with…leave the abortion issue aside and concentrate it’s efforts PROACTIVELY on prevention and awareness and making resources more readily available to men and boys.
When considering the availability of a contraceptive injection, it makes no difference to me what any woman’s position would be. I would use it for my protection not hers. If she wants protection she can take her own. The discussion would likely remain the same, except I would be exercising control over myself.
I would be deciding when I want to parent not her.
@Tausha
I don’t think the communication you engage with younger men is the same as between men. Men of all ages I think are much less forthcoming with women and particularly female counselors. IMO
tasha. the male contraception wouldn’t be for the woman’s confidance, she has her own options for contraception, and if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should use them herself. The male “pill” (or shot) would be for the man’s own assurance. It would allow him to feel confidant that he’s not going to get trapped. You make it sound like the male pill would allow women to have absolutely no accountability when it came to sex, rather then simply giving men a way to feel secure about themselves and not have to trust in the woman.
As to proactive prevention. I agree, it is the best option, but that applies to both sex’s (I hate the idea of abortion as a form of birth control and would limit it to a 1 time limit for non-medical purposes if I had a say). Unfortunately, sometimes “oopsies” happen, condoms aren’t 100%, no matter how much people would like it to be. Additionally, sometimes, sabotage happens too. Perhaps not a lot, but certainly enough (and if men become more proactive IE, use a condom all the time so “trust me, I’m on the pill” wouldn’t work, I suspect it would increase). Men need a reactive solution akin to what woman have available, whether it be abortion or adoption or whatever. Proactive alone is not enough, unless that is all anyone (man or woman) gets.
As a father I would be sending my 14 year old son to get his injection and I would be explaining to him the implications of child support, marriage, divorce, and how that injection provides his freedom and choice over his own life.
More than anything else ownership of men’s sexuality needs to be in the hands of men not woman. The idea of proactive behavior typically perpetuates the myth that pregnancy can be a source of blame for men. I find it to be a double standard to expect such a thing from men while women continue to exercise control over reproductive rights.
In fact with male contraception, parenting, custody and child rearing plans can be carried out in a lawyers office long before any children are born.
I think we would see a very significant decline in the birth rate in the first five years. I think men have learned a great deal from the womens movement in the last twenty years and are ready to apply their hard learned lessons.
Men and women should be in complete control of their own reproduction. Boys need to be taught to distrust girls, just like girls don’t trust boys.
There is a new pill in the works, it does not alter hormones.
http://www.israel21c.org/201006238085/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men
Vasectomies are simple, cheap and reversible. You can even store sperm cryogenically.
Men in complete control of their own reproduction will be a significant event in the MRM.
I am going to make a prediction here. When an easy, inexpensive form of male contraception (like a pill) becomes available, not that many men will take it.
@Tasha you are absolutely right, but I don’t and wouldn’t ever say that the injection is an alternative to condoms they should always be used because lets face it, you don’t know where the other person has been and the point of a condom is to my mind more about preventing the spread of STD’s then pure birthcontrol, Ideally it would work out that both parties are using contraception inconjunction with condoms so as to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to prevent the transmission of disease
@Paul I want to hope you’re wrong on this one. I want to hope that with proper education that we can teach those most vulnerable to being enslaved by CSA that being in control of their own fertility is at this point unless, LC4M comes along, their only salvation from what is nothing more then slavery imposed by the state, although I have my skepticism as to whether or not it’ll happen I think especially in this country there are too many religious conservatives that will no doubt raise a terrible shitstorm about the introduction of that into sex education as they will demand abstinence only. sorry bit of a mix and rambling thoughts, and I’m more in favor of an injection then a pill, cuz in my personal case I can’t remember to take a multivitamin, and barely remember to take antibiotics when I need em, but if I can schedule something and make a reminder or get a prior day confirmation I’ll be there with bells on. well maybe not I’m sadly habitually late too but you know what I mean. K enough rambling
I won’t take a pill because as an athlete(judo) I don’t want to change my body chemistry.
However I do use Trojan Condoms with Spermicidal Lubricant religously.
The reason I don’t want to change my body chemistry is basically because of my size(250 pounds) and years of weight lifting. I am a natural weight lifter supplementing protein shakes(and other products) for milk and good nutrition.
I would really need to see how such a shot affects testerone/estrogen levels in the body.
However I would suggest to any man I know to use such a shot/pill if they weren’t in a situation like mine.
As to Paul’s comment there is a good chance many men wouldn’t. Just like many women don’t use the pill.
However another issue I see cropping up is state sponsored organizations that provide women free or next to nothing cost birth control. But not men who are in the same age bracket/economic situation.
However I will say this in regards to contraceptives. The U.S. army provides free condoms to all male soldiers. Going so far as to put them in a cookie jar at troop medical clinics.
@FAS
your personal reasons are certainly understandable, I’m sure there are going to be side-effects with any hormone based contraceptive treatment, I guess the point I want to keep hammering is to have the best contraceptive options available to us and to educate all men but I think in this instance especially young men about the importance of controling your fertility cuz lets face it, our options are condoms, vasectomy and leaving it up to women and really hows that working out for us?
@ Men needing wifey’s permission for vasectomy:
This was discussed at another group. The guy who posted it insisted it was a law even as others called BS . After many requests for proof, he could never provide anything that indicated it was law or ever had been law. The best he could do was provide a link to one clinic in the midwest that “strongly suggested” that wife accompany husband to pre-surgery consoltation. I think it is just a rumor that keeps circulating.
@ LC4M
What happens if a few years after a guy signs away his paternity rights he starts seeing the kid, maybe going as far as moving back in with the mother?
My buddy has a somewhat similar situation. His girlfriend in the Phillipines got pregnant and he didn’t want anything to do with it so he took off. I went to his place yesterday and he has all these pictures posted of his five year old daughter and is planning to go back and visit her. I know it’s not quite the same as the question I am asking but you know what I mean.
Well, IDK. Good point. I would imagine that like any contract, it could be revised, or legally made moot. I would think it would be like renegotiating a custody agreement wouldn’t it?
This is why I see men’s reproductive rights more akin to adoption then abortion. A parent who gives their child up for adoption (sometimes) can still re-establish a relationship, if the new parent’s allow, but they have no rights to that child.
@Keith
“I don’t think the communication you engage with younger men is the same as between men. Men of all ages I think are much less forthcoming with women and particularly female counselors. IMO”
Oh of course it is. But we are talking about boys between 12-19 who were in this group of mine for other reasons beyond sexuality…their interpersonal and social maturity was not age appropriate, so I was just as likely to get the truth, as they saw it, from them than any censored speech because I was a woman. But yes, I agree, we all talk differently among same sex peers.
@Kratch–
“the male contraception wouldn’t be for the woman’s confidance, she has her own options for contraception, and if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should use them herself. The male “pill” (or shot) would be for the man’s own assurance. It would allow him to feel confidant that he’s not going to get trapped.”
******Totally agree….I thought that was the point I was making. How nice it would finally be for men not to be, at least partially, at the mercy of their female partners b.c. choices, to have something other than condoms
“You make it sound like the male pill would allow women to have absolutely no accountability when it came to sex, rather then simply giving men a way to feel secure about themselves and not have to trust in the woman.”
********Hmm…not what I meant to communicate at all. What I was saying is that this could be very freeing for men, but will probably suffer a backlash from women who might be “how can i trust you are really taking it?” without seeing the hypocrisy when you ask them to prove they are using something.
@Keith again
“More than anything else ownership of men’s sexuality needs to be in the hands of men not woman. ”
Perhaps one of the more provocative statements on this entire thread.
So, do it. Own it. Take it, it’s yours. Don’t get bogged down in the semntics of an idea, dont let some volitile and ultimately non-productive conversation about abortion divert you from THIS part. Appeal to people like Paul and Harry and yourselves to make THIS the priority discussion…
No no no
Why are people backing away from the idea that men should have the SAME right to opt out of parenthood as women?
To my mind the whole point of giving men this right serves three functions
1) To give men a get out of parenting option that matches the adoption and ABANDONEMENT (via Safe Haven) options available to women, that give women the right walk away, with no repercussions. (notice I left out Abortion – nothing to do with me)
2) To prevent unscrupulous women from imposing fatherhood on unwilling men as means to extort a lifetimes sum of money from them.
3) To properly site the responsibility for the poor outcomes in the lives of children raised by single mothers at babymama’s door, and put an end to the culture of “deadbeat” dad blaming.
Harrassing men to use contraception is what we do now, but oddly enough, never do to women. Odd because women are the ones who actually get pregnant. A male pill would only give the “keep it your pants” NAZIS even more ammunition to blame men.
Indeed, eugenics has come up a lot this discussion and I can foressee a male contraceptive implant being shot into less docile boys who have been diagnosed as behaviorally disordered, in a drive to rid society of what they’ll call the anti-social male gene or something like that. Well why not? they’re already forcibly drugging boys.
There are only two ways this thing can be resolved, either abolish all reproductive options available to women or give men the SAME options.
A strong point. I’m also skeptical about a male pill/shot having any kind of effect on the issues we talk about. So far all I’ve seen are assertions that I cannot find a basis for through my own analysis.
There are odd cases where this pill would be of benefit distinctly greater than condoms. I have been made aware of these.
To be of great benefit to men as a group — a tide turning change– the pill would have to be used by more men, more often than condoms. That, and/or it must be significantly more effective. Even if these were possible or true, I still question how useful this is.
I see how it can help individual men in ways they might find important. None of these ways that I can think of aggregate into any sort of leverage over the laws that are the fundamental injustices. At best, it’s a way to avoid them, which is great, but… then what?
@RM
I am not backing away from LC4M I firmly believe in as I like to call it “The right to walk” however we don’t have that yet, and while I agree we should push for it, we should also make sure that men have the same preventative options women have or atleast as equivalent as biology will allow us, (I’m not sure there is an equivalent to an IUD or how one would even begin to work) cuz I still believe prevention is better then trying to deal with that kind of thing after the fact even with LC4M
Women have rights over their own bodies, the bodies of children both pre and post conception and the body of men and thus the fruits of our labor.
Men’s bodies are the property of women and the government for the purpose of external utility to serve their ends. Men ourselves HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, NO PARTENTAL RIGHTS, NO RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, NO RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF OUR LABOR. MEN ARE SHIT WE ARE NOTHING, WE HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!!!!!!
Red, Just my opinion, but I think you have a great way of cutting right to the chase.
This goes on the temple.
@Eincrou
I wasn’t talking about an individual Doctor’s choice, rather any government regulation. I don’t know what regulations are in place in different countries, but a man should be able to get a vasectomy regardless of his partner’s wishes. Men should get the same rights that women have.
One of my employees got a vasectomy after having two children, his wife wanted more. The doctor gave him a hard time and said he only did it so he could sleep around. The doc still did the op though.
Gotcha. Thanks for the response.
@ResoluteMan
I never meant the pill or the shot at the exclusion of the financial abortion option. The conversation at that moment seemed to be focusing primarily on PROACTIVE measures/options for men. Of course in addition to the opt-out.
Here here, nicely said, I’m personally against abortion…at least for my mom…..lol….and think that feminism has blood on it’s hands in that they made abortion available wholesale, an altogether different issue than legalizing the occasional abortion….
… but I think the mrm should stear clear of the “issue” of abortion. We need to deal with what happens when she doesn’t abort…paper abortion for men.
And I have no truck in this fight, I had a vasectomy.
I guess I don’t have to explain my position on the issue of abortion, no am I going to get into that discussion.
I just wish to reiterate what has been said before on this site, that the MRM is made up of some strange bedfellows. We have athiests, Christians, Budists, and other faiths, we have men and women; some who are right leaning, right of center, left of center, and left leaning; but we are here because we know there are issues that affect men that really need attention and a lot of activism. All of us doing our own activism in our several different ways.
My only wish is that we can respect eachother enough to get to working on these issues and try to not resort to attacking eachother because of who we are other then MRA’s. It only serves to divide us and if we are divided our activism will not be as effective.
Old as this post is, its an interesting topic. I have to disagree with the notion that its not relevant to men’s rights. This is because currently, men have no say on whether or not a child is aborted.
I believe that consent of both parents should be needed for abortion. And I’m sure some typical pro-choice person would argue that it’s the woman’s body that will carry child for 9 months. That’s whiny and should not trump the fact that the child is of BOTH parents.
Also, child support is definitely stupid. Can’t afford the child? Then stop hogging custody. Also, required paternity test isn’t a terrible idea. After, let the father know in case she never told him.
Having thought about it some more, it may be best if abortion stays a female decision only, because if a woman decides she doesn’t want that child, its the fetus that will suffer from whatever insane methods she’ll take.
This is the same argument for safe haven laws. If she does not have an out with no consequences then who knows what she will do the the baby.
Perhaps guys should start murdering their wifes instead of divorcing them until the laws change for no alimony, no child support, and no consequences/responsibility. But there is the rub – one gender is responsible.
Or not marry. Actually I don’t even think I came up with that idea.
But yeah, I was just thinking of the cases I have heard of in which women try to abort with drugs, alcohol etc. and the child has to deal with the consequences after it doesn’t work. And also, technically a fetus is part of a woman until birth, so I see where the argument of choice may come from. The best situation as I see it would be to give woman that choice and if the child is born, give men the choice of whether or not to claim that child.
Interesting and good points, Lee.
“That’s whiny and should not trump the fact that the child is of BOTH parents.” Yes.
Also, yes, if females can put a child up for adoption from their responsibilities, so must men be able to. What is not obvious about this (to the world)?
@ Perseus
Yes, I do still agree with that statement I made. On the other hand, I do see how a woman could view the fetus as part of her own body until birthed, and view abortion as her choice alone. Its hard to prove one way or the other. That and its pretty easy for a woman to abort in more natural ways, for example queen anne’s lace.
Lee, I don’t disagree with what you’ve reasoned through in this series of comments. It’s good.
Dr. Elam, I certainly respect your position on this multifaceted toxic subject. I wouldn’t allow religious zealots who also throw men under the bus as quickly as feminists do, to hijack this history -making site either.
But just so you know, I am trying to comment on a new article titled, “abortion, adoption, save haven laws—and lies” by Michale Sharon. I am anti-abortion but my comments are not even trying to convey such. My comments have not been posted there, curiously, so I will try it here to see if I can have my voice anyway.
Thanks…. here goes.
I am surprised with an article this important and having been on the site for as long as it has, that there hasn’t been more comments. Perhaps this tells me that fellow MHRA’s have given up on restoring our humanity by making society afford us some power over our own procreation.
Shame on them if I am correct.
We can never fully obtain and enjoy our male sense of humanity and equality without restoring our power relative to our procreation rights.
It is a greater reduction in ones humanity, a stronger blow to ones dignity for the man to have no procreation power at all (ZERO) than it is for a poor, poor pitiful woman to have to share, say 51/49, her favor.
There is no way a woman’s plans, or lack thereof, are more important than the life of a child that DOES belong to her AND him. This is the only procreation system we have, so it must be shared, that is, in a true arena of equality.
If the situation were reversed in which men bore the children, women would be rabidly outraged at having their procreation rights manipulated by men with women being shut out altogether, especially in ways that really matter to them.
Women would fight it, and they should win because it is heinous to treat the other parent like they are a piece of shit not worthy of procreation dignity. Likewise, we should win our fight to save a child from abortion if the man wants his offspring but she doesn’t; and be able to opt out of all burdens of parenting just like what the women can do (even by killing the child if she pleases.)
We men were punished for not sharing more with women. Yet, when they stole their power with deceit, mockery, exaggerations, manipulation, and scheming selfishness, they have not demonstrated any sense of wanting to share with men—you know, set the example of what they think is right. Asking one of those women to share is like asking a little child to quit being selfish.
Then they wonder why men and women like us disagree with them, why we can be THIS honest, how we can claim to love women but still be unyielding and frank about their behaviors, mentalities, opinions, and plans.
I, as a MHRA, will never abandon the right of men to have a say in matters concerning their own children, including the unborn. I hope more men and women of my ilk, regain their bearings to fervently oppose women to have the only power concerning our children…and abortion is right in the middle of it.
Owning the equipment should have no bearing on decision making when this is the only procreation system we have. I firmly believe that.
Even if abortion is a no-can-win thing for men, and if winning might just foster more female entitlements, etc, we should never throw down the gauntlet. It is our duty to maintain our fight for this incredibly important humanity-robbing atrocity.
I understand why this site can’t and won’t allow it to be taken over by zealots who oppose abortion solely because it is murder, but I have not taken this stance.
I will never stop. NEVER!
I may not win, but fighting this cruelty against men and children is my legacy.
You also have to understand that abortion is a subjective divisive issue within the MHRM.You take a position within the movement against abortion and you alienate a large number of MHRA’s who have the potential to FTSU.The progressive and conservative mhras in this movement need to come together and work towards agreeable goals .