Men need a law giving us same reproductive choices as women

[hilowhParticipant 1]

Hello awesome gents of MGTOW,

I’ve seen the petition being circulated by a lawyer to change alimony laws in California; does anyone know of something similar that would allow men the right to opt out of becoming fathers–AFTER conception?  I know how effed up the laws and more importantly, the interpretation of those laws already is, I’m more concerned with solutions . . .

-H

[WolfParticipant 890]

I’m not aware of any petitions, but the issue is discussed and advocated in MRA circles. Personally, I can’t see men winning that battle anytime soon, if ever. Feminists are gung ho about controlling their womb. The man’s right to choose fatherhood, or even the unborn child’s right to live, are secondary, if not irrelevant.

Some advocate allowing the father to sign off all rights and responsibilities; however, I don’t see that ever happening. If it were allowed, many women would still have the child and become a financial burden on the state. This is clearly not good for a society. From my perspective, the family law that exists today in regard to spousal and child support serves two purposes: 1. ensures mom and the kids have some money, and 2. it doesn’t come from the state.

[hilowhParticipant 1]

I never thought it would be easy, but why roll over and play dead because it’ll be difficult?  It wasn’t easy for women to get all the rights they have now and I think enough men not only dropping them like STDs but also offering clear, cogent solutions to our own problems might get even some of them onboard with us.

[WolfParticipant 890]

You’ll have to address this first…

Wolf wrote:

Some advocate allowing the father to sign off all rights and responsibilities; however, I don’t see that ever happening. If it were allowed, many women would still have the child and become a financial burden on the state. This is clearly not good for a society. From my perspective, the family law that exists today in regard to spousal and child support serves two purposes: 1. ensures mom and the kids have some money, and 2. it doesn’t come from the state.

“Family” and “children” are buzzwords in politics. Politics writes the laws. Therefore, how does allowing a man the right to choose to be a father help families and children? That is the million dollar question.

I don’t disagree with you – no need to roll over on the issue. However, in order to be successful, I believe it has to be more than just about male rights.

[Anonymous 42]

hilowh wrote:

I’m more concerned with solutions . . .

Snip’a’doodle-doo, and be on your own merry little way! The solution to a c~~~roach is to crush the c~~~roach before it has little c~~~roaches! Since they can shove abortion down my throat, or child support up my ass , I figure abort women first, before all the molestations are manifested in your life. Snip the woman, or snip little Charley, either way some snipping needs to be done…

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

All women should be sterilized until they have enough money to pay for a child’s basic needs until adulthood. This money will go into a governmental trust fund for the child before the woman is allowed to conceive and give birth. Any woman that shows up in a hospital to give birth that does not have a trust fund set up, will be allowed to have the child, but will be sterilized.

[hilowhParticipant 1]

Wolf,

To the extent allowing women to terminate (via the morning after pill), kill (via abortion), abandon (via safe baby havens/adoption) helps families and children, is the extent men’s equal right to choose fatherhood should help families/children.  Equality and rights are a bitch, that’s why women want it but don’t seem to want anyone else–including children–to have them (children’s rights ALWAYS come after a woman’s).

I agree with your points re family law/”child” support, however the state (and society) doesn’t seem to take issue with women who use sperm banks, as one example.  These women go into motherhood knowing there will be no man to support their children and usually have the financial means to make that choice.  If this sperm-bank-mother falls into financial straights however, the gov’t has no choice but to support her because there’s no man to go after.

Another scenario gov’t/society seems not to have a problem with is the full support of the gov’t for babies abandoned by mothers at safe baby havens.  There is little clamor for the abandoned child perhaps being “helped” by . . . oh I don’t know . . . being given to its biological father, though there are nothing but stats on biological parents being better than foster care.

Any children born with men having the same choices women have will be wanted children, whether by one or both parents, unlike currently.  Then our issue will become having equal parenting rights, but one thing at a time . . .

-H

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

If a man wants parental rights he has it right now, in a surrogate mother. Parental rights could go by how much each partner put into the trust fund. If a man put in 50% and a woman put in 50% they are allowed equal time with the child. What needs to stop is women s~~~ting a litter of f~~~ing womb turds out across the nation with no way to pay for it. “Let’s work out this food, air deal” first, as Bill Hicks said.

[WolfParticipant 890]

hilowh wrote:

Wolf, To the extent allowing women to terminate (via the morning after pill), kill (via abortion), abandon (via safe baby havens/adoption) helps families and children, is the extent men’s equal right to choose fatherhood should help families/children. Equality and rights are a bitch, that’s why women want it but don’t seem to want anyone else–including children–to have them (children’s rights ALWAYS come after a woman’s).

I agree with your points re family law/”child” support, however the state (and society) doesn’t seem to take issue with women who use sperm banks, as one example. These women go into motherhood knowing there will be no man to support their children and usually have the financial means to make that choice. If this sperm-bank-mother falls into financial straights however, the gov’t has no choice but to support her because there’s no man to go after.

Another scenario gov’t/society seems not to have a problem with is the full support of the gov’t for babies abandoned by mothers at safe baby havens. There is little clamor for the abandoned child perhaps being “helped” by . . . oh I don’t know . . . being given to its biological father, though there are nothing but stats on biological parents being better than foster care.

Any children born with men having the same choices women have will be wanted children, whether by one or both parents, unlike currently. Then our issue will become having equal parenting rights, but one thing at a time . . . -H

All valid points; however, I see it as more of an MRA vice MGTOW issue. My decision to GMOW does not involve advocating for MRA. Rather, I’m just not going to involve myself in a situation whereby a woman can unilaterally decide whether or not I become a father.

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

Wolf wrote:

All valid points; however, I see it as more of an MRA vice MGTOW issue. My decision to GMOW does not involve advocating for MRA. Rather, I’m just not going to involve myself in a situation whereby a woman can unilaterally decide whether or not I become a father.

By paying taxes, you are a father, to millions of kids you didn’t sire(assuming you are living in a society where women have the freedom to have children and you have the freedom to pay for it). The only way you can choose to not be a father is to not pay taxes.

[WolfParticipant 890]

Snake wrote:

By paying taxes, you are a father, to millions of kids you didn’t sire(assuming you are living in a society where women have the freedom to have children and you have the freedom to pay for it). The only way you can choose to not be a father is to not pay taxes.

It’s all a matter of perspective. I don’t consider myself a father. Paying taxes is inevitable. No point in fretting about it. Knocking up some chick and having her unilaterally decide whether or not I become a father can be avoided.

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

Wolf wrote:

Snake wrote:

By paying taxes, you are a father, to millions of kids you didn’t sire(assuming you are living in a society where women have the freedom to have children and you have the freedom to pay for it). The only way you can choose to not be a father is to not pay taxes.

It’s all a matter of perspective. I don’t consider myself a father. Paying taxes is inevitable. No point in fretting about it. Knocking up some chick and having her unilaterally decide whether or not I become a father can be avoided.

If I live off of government assistance, any tax money they get from me is money I already got from them; in other words – paying taxes is avoidable.

[TBirdParticipant 18]

Its just another example of how men are viewed as nothing more than utilities in our society.  Forced fatherhood is disgusting and men are shamed as deadbeats if they want nothing to do with it. Imagine if a woman got pregnant against her consent and society forced her to have the child, then never see the child but still have to pay for it, it would be wrong, and feminists would fight to the death to make sure it never happens, but if the genders are reversed, no one gives a s~~~ because f~~~ men and their reproductive rights, don’t they know they are only utilities?

[Anonymous 42]

Snake wrote:

This money will go into a governmental trust fund for the child before the woman is allowed to conceive and give birth.

Hey Snake, governmental trust fund? Since when could man “trust” a government with “funds”, are you going soft on us? Have you been sniffing pussy fumes? My solution: Baby, bathwater, tub, and government, out the f~~~ing window! ON FIRE!

[J.D SilvernailParticipant 383]

Neither men nor women should have the right to murder their own kids. It’s just sick(especially when they haven’t even been born).

I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.

[scriptxParticipant 10]

Albert Einstein once said: The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.

I am game, did you find the petition?

[hilowhParticipant 1]

scriptx wrote:

Albert Einstein once said: The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything. I am game, did you find the petition?

hey script,

no, haven’t seen one yet (but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there).  we’ll have to come up with one;  when we do, we’ll have a huge headstart, as i’m sure most if not all the mgtow dudes will sign it.

-h

[J.D SilvernailParticipant 383]

scriptx wrote:

Albert Einstein once said: The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.

I am game, did you find the petition?

Albert Einstein was right.

I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.

[Anonymous 13]

Father’s rights is hyperbole, thus a picture of some douchebag laughing at the entrance to the forum.

A crack momma with a meth pipe in hand smashing a 40 oz on her child’s head in public…the father is a douchebag “john” or “pimp”

There’s your father’s rights…they check to see if the daddy (if he locatable) is not in prison and or a violent convicted felon – they apprehensively sift through his profile to see if he has a stable home, doubtfully and reluctantly in defiance of all odds, he may have a good home – he’s not a convicted felon or violent offender.  The bitch puts a protection order on him.  The end.

 

There, that’s an extreme example but it sums up the concept of “father’s rights”.

I call bulls~~~ that father’s rights exist in any genuine capacity of the definition.  There are always exceptions to the rule, but looking at it from an equal perspective – looking at ‘both’ parents from an equal viewpoint – a blind viewpoint – is a not based in reality.

[Author]

Posts