The Men's Rights movement

[patrick jane]

THAT is exactly where I was going with my statement.

The biggest issue separating men and women in regards to rights is the allowance of one gender to kill the unborn child that was created by both. Neither should have that right.

The focus on rights should be the right to fairness under the law and equality based on a person's character, experience and ability. For me, the idea of pretending that abortion is a *women's issue* is offensive.

Men and women both should be working for making our lives better rather than the right to destroy our future generations.

I do feel like men's rights for their unborn child have been overlooked for decades.

 

[Granite]

Those are both male rights issues. The abortion issue was mentioned in the documentary trailer posted in the OP. People are less willing to discuss the circumcision issue for a number of reasons we don't need to get into, but it's a major male rights issue. Certainly you will agree that abortion and female circumcision are female rights issues? If you do, it should be obvious that they are male rights issues, too.

While they may be they're not often emphasized by the MRM and the "Red Pill" crowd musterion referred to in his OP. Anyway, looks like this has become yet another abortion thread.

 

[Rusha]

I do feel like men's rights for their unborn child have been overlooked for decades.

It has been, and it's not right.

 

[elohiym]

While they may be they're not often emphasized by the MRM and the "Red Pill" crowd musterion referred to in his OP. Anyway, looks like this has become yet another abortion thread.

Abortion is one area touching men's rights, that's all.

Other issues have been mentioned, like paternity fraud.

 

[patrick jane]

It has been, and it's not right.

23 years ago I had a girlfriend that claimed she was pregnant and wanted money for an abortion. I felt like I had no voice in the matter and I was totally against it. After further investigation, she was lying.

 

[Rusha]

23 years ago I had a girlfriend that claimed she was pregnant and wanted money for an abortion. I felt like I had no voice in the matter and I was totally against it. After further investigation, she was lying.

I am sorry you went through that. Unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as being violent or irresponsible), men should have the right to be a father to their child/children.

 

[PureX]

How? You know very well that this is the only situation in which a man is not able to IMMEDIATELY care for an unborn baby.

Your question is an example of how the anti-abortion crown has no concept whatever of the issue from anyone else's perspective.

All human beings have the basic right of autonomy and self-determination. You are just willy-nilly giving the man the right to completely ignore the woman's right to autonomy and self-determination simply because you are against abortion. And because you have no appreciation or respect for the right of an individual to choose their own destiny, as long as you can choose it for them.

The man has almost no "skin in the game" when it comes to deciding whether a woman follows through on a pregnancy or not. So there is no reason (other than your bias against abortion) that he should have any say in her decision whether or not she will do so. And if he wants some say in it, then he should have to make an equivalent sacrifice to hers. Since he can't sacrifice his own body for 9+ months, he can pay all the bills. And if the child is not given for adoption, he can keep paying them for the next 20 years while the mother raises it.

Otherwise, the man has no say in any of it. Nor does he deserve any.

 

[Granite]

Abortion is one area touching men's rights, that's all.

Other issues have been mentioned, like paternity fraud.

What I'm saying is this thread's sidestepping what the MRM usually emphasizes and goes on at length about. Oh well.

 

[Rusha]

Your question is an example of how the anti-abortion crown has no concept whatever of the issue from anyone else's perspective.

Right. Admittedly the only perspective I am interested are of those who value ALL children regardless of their location.

All human beings have the basic right of autonomy and self-determination.

You mean all *except* unborn babies. You have no qualms about invading their autonomy.

You are just willy-nilly giving the man the right to completely ignore the woman's right to autonomy and self-determination simply because you are against abortion.

"Simply". I am simply against killing an unborn baby. Correct. Perhaps you can shed some light on why that autonomy and self-determination cannot be determined PRIOR to becoming pregnant. :think:

And because you have no appreciation or respect for the right of an individual to choose their own destiny, as long as you can choose it for them.

Wrong. You have me confused with yourself, Mr. Politically Correct. I always speak out on behalf and in favor of ALL victims. Your disregard for the unborn is your issue, not mine.

The man has almost no "skin in the game" when it comes to deciding whether a woman follows through on a pregnancy or not.

No skin. Seriously. You do understand how babies are created, right? Baby, party of two. It takes TWO to tango. The child has TWO parents.

So there is no reason (other than your bias against abortion) that he should have any say in her decision whether or not she will do so.

I readily admit that I am biased against mother's who intentionally kill their unborn babies.

And if he wants some say in it, then he should have to make an equivalent sacrifice to hers.

Oh please, you say that as though you would consider an even sacrifice as a reason to reconsider your pro-abortion advocacy. Of course, then you go on to say:

Since he can't sacrifice his own body for 9+ months, he can pay all the bills. And if the child is not given for adoption, he can keep paying them for the next 20 years while the mother raises it.

Otherwise, the man has no say in any of it.

Who on earth do you believe you are fooling? You would tell any man who did all of what you suggest that he has no say in the matter as long as the mother wishes to kill his child.

 

[PureX]

The abortion issue was never about YOU, and what YOU believe.

Sadly, I can see that you will never understand this.

 

[Granite]

The abortion issue was never about YOU, and what YOU believe.

Sadly, I can see that you will never understand this.

She's pretty much a fundie on this issue.

 

[Rusha]

She's pretty much a fundie on this issue.

I will side with anyone who is interested in protecting the vulnerable and defenseless from unnecessary violence and death.

 

[Granite]

I will side with anyone who is interested in protecting the vulnerable and defenseless from unnecessary violence and death.

Yeah, well, there you go again.

This could have been an interesting thread. I'm out, the rest of you hepcats have fun talking about the same exact stuff. Again.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I will side with anyone who is interested in protecting the vulnerable and defenseless from unnecessary violence and death.

He just wants to label and go, I guess.

I wish the good points you made had actually gotten an attempted response. Maybe someone else will play. Otherwise, you appear to be the victor, again.

I really like the point about "skin" in the game that you made. We could make a big list of legal parental obligations that the father will be held to if the child is born. But beyond that, we are talking about the father's next of kin! Next of kin. Heir, dependent, actual offspring.

Even the siblings, it could be argued, have skin in the game. After all, it's their brother or sister being killed, who could have been them under the right circumstances. But usually due to their age at the time of the procedure, they have no obligations or ability to make decisions or provide for their sibling.

 

[Rusha]

Yeah, well, there you go again.

And on only half a cup of coffee. Seriously, I am just warming up.

This could have been an interesting thread. I'm out, the rest of you hepcats have fun talking about the same exact stuff. Again.

The denial of men to protect their unborn children DOES relate to the topic of the thread.