13
0

My Body My Choice for Men


 invite response                
2016 Feb 2, 6:53pm   51,652 views  99 comments

by resistance   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Women, and women alone, currently have the choice to abort a pregnancy or give a baby up for adoption. Men have zero choice in abortion or adoption, yet decades of legal obligation -- entirely at the discretion of the woman. The man has all the obligations and the woman has all the rights. This is obviously unfair.

The law should be made fair. Men should have at least as much control as women over whether or not to have and therefore support children. Namely:

1. If a woman does not tell a man she is pregnant with his child until it is too late to have an abortion, she has zero claim to child support.
2. If a woman does tell a man she is pregnant with his child while an abortion is still possible, and he requests an abortion, then she has a choice:
a: abort the child
b: refuse to abort the child, but give up all claim to child support

3. If both the woman and the man agree to have the child, then both are obligated to support it.

It's only basic fairness that both parties have equal rights and responsibilities. His body, his choice.

Edit -- Of course the assumption here is that the couple is not married. If they are married, he has already promised to support any children he has with her.

#redpill #feministhypocrisy

Comments 1 - 40 of 99       Last »     Search these comments

1   mell   2016 Feb 2, 7:14pm  

Agreed. But they should each write some binding document they can notarize beforehand so they cannot claim they changed their mind, e. g. it wouldn't be fair if the man says he wants the kid and the woman does too and then after birth the man changes his story to get out of his part of the support. If no documents (or other sufficient evidence) exist child support is the responsibility of both (with the exception of cases where the woman disappeared and concealed her pregnancy).

2   resistance   2016 Feb 2, 7:18pm  

mell says

some binding document they can notarize beforehand

agreed too. the woman must have a notarized document proving the man gave up his option to abort if she is to have any claim to child support.

3   Dan8267   2016 Feb 2, 7:45pm  


Men should have at least as much control as women over whether or not to have and therefore support children.

Agreed completely. Parenthood should require an explicit opt-in from each party. Women still inherently have more control and a higher standing under law as they must have the unilateral decision on continuing the pregnancy, but eliminating this inequality is impossible due to biological asymmetry. The plan you propose is the closest thing to equality that is achievable.

I've thought the same thing myself. Great minds think alike.

Also, involuntary servitude violates the 13th Amendment and forcing men to work and pay support for a child they did not want is by definition involuntary servitude.

4   Dan8267   2016 Feb 2, 7:48pm  


agreed too. the woman must have a notarized document proving the man gave up his option to abort if she is to have any claim to child support.

I think that falls under Yes Means Yes.

5   CDon   2016 Feb 3, 6:57am  

Dan8267 says

Also, involuntary servitude violates the 13th Amendment and forcing men to work and pay support for a child they did not want is by definition involuntary servitude.

Fascinating. When the highly esteemed Seth Waxman, Solicitor General under Clinton and longtime champion of the little guy argued Rogers - he decided that Article I section 8, and the caseline steming from Gibbons v. Ogden 22 US 1 (1824) was dispositive on that issue. Assuming that Waxman is an idiot and didn't raise the 13th amendment, why don't you think Breyer, writing for the Court raised the issue sua sponte?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf

6   marcus   2016 Feb 3, 7:22am  

If a man and woman are married, and she gets pregnant (by him) and she does not believe in abortion, and refuses to abort, he's obviously still on the hook to support the kid, and should be.

7   justme   2016 Feb 3, 8:00am  

As I hinted in the other thread, I think this needs to be taken one step further:

If a married man does no longer receive the comforts that this wife used to provide (until he signed on the dotted line of the marriage contract , or sometime thereafter, as commonly is the case) , he should feel free to exercise "My Body, My Choice" as well as "My Property, My Choice", and choose not to go to work, not to provide for his wife, and not to let her live under his roof. Fair is Fair.

I'm sure the intelligent reader is able to guess what common feminist verbiage I am poking at here, but in case of severe myopia or lack of insight (not uncommon) I will explain later, if needed.

No imputed income without imputed children, imputed sex and imputed comfort.

#imputedlabor #imputedchildren #imputedsex #imputedcomfort

8   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Feb 3, 8:08am  

I agree with the premise that this is more fair with respect to the man and woman involved. I've also thought about this plenty of times. But, you should really rename it 'my wallet, my choice' for men. The guys body doesn't have much to do with it.
Also, there are two more problems to overcome:
1) You are now creating a new loophole for low life's to exploit. If two low lives want to exploit the system, they merely have to get the woman pregnant, the guy can deny he wants the kid, then the woman can get state benefits to support the kid. Then the guy moves in and lives in her section 8 housing. If the opt-out also comes with a court order to stay away from the kid, that would get rid of this issue. If the guy wants a relationship with the kid, he can pay child support retroactively to opt-in.
2) This solution presumes that abortion is acceptable and the presumed default solution to pregnancy. The act of not having the abortion becomes the choice to have a child rather than the sex act. I have no problem with abortion, so this is not an issue with me. But at the moment, this is completely untenable politically.

9   justme   2016 Feb 3, 8:10am  

YesYNot says

But, you should really rename it 'my wallet, my choice' for men. The guys body doesn't have much to do with it.

WTF? For most men, their wallet content is a direct product of their body, and nothing else. Trying (and succeeding) to dissociate his wallet from his body is exactly what feminism is all about.

10   justme   2016 Feb 3, 8:19am  

marcus says

If a man and woman are married, and she gets pregnant (by him) and she does not believe in abortion, and refuses to abort. He's obviously still on the hook to support the kid, and should be.

Wrong. A woman has the option of getting a witnessed (notarized) contract that she is permitted to get pregnant (pregnant by him, I guess that needs to be said).

Or, alternatively, we could make the situation fair by decreeing that a married man a similarly has the right to make his wife pregnant whenever he feels like it. And, yes, that means that the whole marital rape thing gets tossed out as well.

Pick one of the above.

11   justme   2016 Feb 3, 8:25am  

CDon says

Dan8267 says

Also, involuntary servitude violates the 13th Amendment and forcing men to work and pay support for a child they did not want is by definition involuntary servitude.

Fascinating. When the highly esteemed Seth Waxman, Solicitor General under Clinton and longtime champion of the little guy argued Rogers - he decided that Article I section 8, and the caseline steming from Gibbons v. Ogden 22 US 1 (1824) was dispositive on that issue. Assuming that Waxman is an idiot and didn't raise the 13th amendment, why don't you think Breyer, writing for the Court raised the issue sua sponte?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf

Right on(?). Men have a constitutional right not to be subjected to indentured servitude (slavery). I sure would like someone to get up in front of the US Supreme Court and argue that a man also has a right to "privacy", meaning in this case the economic privacy of his body, much in the same way that USSC /SCOTUS decided that a woman has the right to the "privacy" of her body when it comes to the decision of whether to bearing a child to term or aborting it.

12   justme   2016 Feb 3, 8:30am  

By the way, CDon, perhaps you could summarize that case (Gibbons v. Ogden) for the benefit of all readers? I probably, don't have time to read it today, and I am sure it might be a bit much for others, too.

13   Dan8267   2016 Feb 3, 8:32am  

CDon says

Fascinating. When the highly esteemed Seth Waxman, Solicitor General under Clinton and longtime champion of the little guy argued Rogers - he decided that Article I section 8, and the caseline steming from Gibbons v. Ogden 22 US 1 (1824) was dispositive on that issue. Assuming that Waxman is an idiot and didn't raise the 13th amendment, why don't you think Breyer, writing for the Court raised the issue sua sponte?

Translation: Fuck Dan. I don't like him. I found a court case that doesn't support (or contradict) what he is saying. I think I can make him look like an idiot because some lawyer didn't use a stratgegy that upholds the principle Dan is defending.

Lawyers try to win cases in a corrupt court system in which judges have prejudices and no rational argument is going to dissuade them. Judges routinely upheld the right of white men to own people before the Civil War. Even an abolitionist trying to save a slave's life would use tactics that were in the best interest of his client given the corruption of the court and government. Slavery didn't suddenly become wrong when the North won the Civil War. It was always wrong, and the courts failed to behave consistently with the spirit or the letter of the Constitution. Even before the 13th Amendment, slavery violated many principles of the Constitution. Slaves had no freedom of religion, press, or speech even though the First Amendment says all people have these liberties. Slaves could not possess arms, a freedom that even today we say the Second Amendment guarantees. Slaves had no property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The fact that the court systems of the time did not recognize these atrocities does not nullify those atrocious.

I am not making a court argument that forced payments under threat of imprisonment constitutes involuntary servitude. I am making a political argument, and that is my right as a citizen of the United States. You are an asshole who consistently disregards the rights of the people to demand grievances be addressed by the government as if the voice of the citizen carried no weight. When it comes to essential issues of government and law, the voice of every citizen carries equal weight. The opinions of lawyers, politicians, and judges do not count more than the voice of anyone else. So your petulant argument does not apply to this conversation.

There is an old saying, all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. You are saying that good people should never do anything because the "experts" should have all the control. Well, when it comes to values, there are no such things as experts. And in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the voice of every single citizen on values and aligning the law with values must count equally. Your argument is a thinly veiled advocacy of tyranny.

P.S. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. We all know how to use Google.

14   NDrLoR   2016 Feb 3, 9:26am  

PCGyver says

Mr. Rhythm says "don't let your dick run your life"

Judge Judy says "keep your pants zipped up".

15   Tenpoundbass   2016 Feb 3, 9:33am  

Guys do have a choice. If they chose to offere up DNA specimens to the woman's ovary. His legal rights to what happens after that is over.
Put a rascal wrap on it. Problem solved.
Women who use their body as a biological psychological weapon. By getting pregnant by trickery and fraud, to trap a man, should get 10 years in jail.
But careless guys boinking without protection offering up his part A, of a two part epoxy system. Deserve what ever they get.

Don't carelessly discard your junk in random holes. You are responsible for it, just as you would be liable for any other damage you may cause by littering.

16   resistance   2016 Feb 3, 9:47am  

exactly.

not only does she alone still have the abortion choice after being equally responsible for the sex, she alone has the option to give up the kid for adoption and avoid support costs.

why should women have greater legal rights than men? it's pure anti-male sexism. if women want equality, let's let them have that.

17   Tenpoundbass   2016 Feb 3, 9:48am  

If I were in charge I'd make all of these people get married or at least cohabit while they raise the kid. And divorces would be next to impossible to get if a married couple had kids.
Then I would close down any media that complained.

I wouldn't be doing anything different than our current government does. I would just be picking the American FAMILY as the winner, instead of foreign socialist billionaires that hates us all.

18   marcus   2016 Feb 3, 10:35am  

justme says

Wrong. A woman has the option of getting a witnessed (notarized) contract that she is permitted to get pregnant

I disagree. I believe this is and should be implied with marriage. If a man marries a woman and they agree before marriage that they are not going to have children, let him put it in a prenup that he will not be liable for child support, due to an agreement at that time that: under the circumstance that she has a child rather than aborting, that they have agreed in advance, that if - after that, the marriage fails, supporting the child will be her responsibility. Obviously other specifics of related one time financial issues could be specified in the prenup as well, if they so choose.

Pregnancies sometimes happen accidentally.

The question is, what should marriage assume, and what should have to be contractually specified separately to modify what is assumed with marriage.

Your way is insane, in my opinion.

19   MisdemeanorRebel   2016 Feb 3, 10:55am  

But, there should be MANDATORY paternity testing.

Don't we need to know who the real father is, in case of genetic diseases? These tests are dirt cheap, and we do many other mandatory screenings at birth.

If you want to know if you live in a Matriarchy or Patriarchy, what the alleged "Children's Rights (Feminist False Front)" groups scream with rage over the suggestion.

20   Dan8267   2016 Feb 3, 11:10am  

marcus says

I believe this is and should be implied with marriage. If a man marries a woman and they agree before marriage that they are not going to have children, let him put it in a prenup that he will not be liable for child support

Anyone who gets married without discussing whether or not to have children, how many, and how to raise them first is an idiot of the highest degree. In fact, these things should be discussed before proposing marriage.

That said, there is absolutely no advantage whatsoever to applying a "default" value to new marriages. Every marriage application should have an explicit opt-in or opt-out choice. Each partner should have to check one and only one of two boxes labeled
- I agree to support any children produce by me during this marriage
- I do not agree to support any children by me produce during this marriage

The later box would be checked by people not intending to have children. In any case, such a fundamental life choice must be agreed upon by both parties or there is no chance of the marriage working.

21   Dan8267   2016 Feb 3, 11:12am  

thunderlips11 says

But, there should be MANDATORY paternity testing.

Agreed. Even ignoring the rights of the father not to be defrauded, mandatory paternity testing is essential for medical reasons. Misinformation is far worse than no information. If you think you're biological father has no history of cancer and it turns out the pool boy is your father and his family does, that freaking matters.

The only objection to mandatory paternity testing is the desire to defraud men and cover up the crime, and that is morally abhorrent.

22   Patrick   2016 Feb 3, 7:35pm  

Dan8267 says

Roe v. Wade made it unequivocally clear that consent to sex is not consent to parenthood

great way to put it actually.

23   ja   2016 Feb 3, 11:19pm  


made fair

And then should be laws in favor of the women, too. If a man that is supposed to give support doesn't, he should get a vasectomy. (same on woman side, but this case is so rare that I don't know if it would be worth the trouble).

24   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 6:21am  

Child support is the child's right, not something the woman can give up on the child's behalf.

What is needed is mandatory long-term contraception for recipients of welfare: welfare recipients of 16 or older have be implanted with long-term contraceptive or vasectomy before receiving any benefits. Tempering with either while receiving welfare should be a criminal offense: potential child endangerment and fraud against the agreed conditions for receiving welfare. To avoid mandatory contraception, a mother raising a child can name the father, who then can either take over custody or pay her sufficiently so she doesn't need to go on welfare, otherwise, the father gets vasectomy as well if proven to be the biological father.

To compensate for the reduced societal birth rate after all those people not ready for parenthood being locked out of the reproduction game, parents of either gender raising a child should get 20% reduction in income taxes, a second child reduces 20% of the remaining 80% (16% of the original), and so on. So more children can be raised in environment where the parents want and can afford children. Raising children to be future productive members of society is a public service, so the tax reduction is quite fair for those willing and able to do it.

Abortion being legal is a practical matter: so less criminals are born in the long run. Abortion being illegal was a perverse-selection mechanism: those women whose family could send her overseas to get one could, so the newborns became over-represented by the low-lives. Optional contraception is having a similar role on society: those responsible having the option of locking themselves out of reproduction whereas the irresponsible become over-represented in the gene pool. That's why mandatory contraception is necessary for welfare recipients. Either that, or everyone is mandated to be on contraception until a hefty fee is paid or bond payment deposited before reversing on case by case basis; i.e. the sale of license to have children.

25   tatupu70   2016 Feb 4, 6:28am  

Reality says

What is needed is mandatory long-term contraception for recipients of welfare: welfare recipients of 16 or older have be implanted with long-term contraceptive or vasectomy before receiving any benefits. Tempering with either while receiving welfare should be a criminal offense

Stop being such a bleeding heart Commie. Anyone on welfare should get 1 year to get their life in order. If they're still on welfare after 12 months, they get the electric chair.

That will get the fat, welfare queens back to work real quick.

26   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 6:31am  

@Tatapu,
haha, genetic termination is a lot more humane to the individual person than physical death sentence is, and achieves the same result for future generations.

27   Dan8267   2016 Feb 4, 7:14am  

Reality says

Child support is the child's right, not something the woman can give up on the child's behalf.

One could just as easily argue that every child has the right to financial support from the state including, but not limited to,
- lifetime health care
- lifetime education including free college
- guarantee housing
- a guaranteed minimum living income

If you want to "protect" children, then the state is necessary. After all, a father can die or become disable or unemployed. The only way to protect the child's "rights" is for the state to bear that burden, and that means using your tax dollars. The only argument that the biological father should pay is that he has to be punished for having sex for fun. If the child is what's important, then the state must bear all the costs of supporting the child's financial rights because there is absolutely no other way to guarantee these rights and otherwise millions of children will have these rights violated when their biological fathers lose employment through no fault of their own, become disabled, or just plain die.

28   Dan8267   2016 Feb 4, 7:25am  

Counterplan: Require parents to pass a financial solvency test before they can reproduce. Make a minimal per child trust fund setup requirement equal to the cost of a median house plus a bachelor's degree.

29   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 7:28am  

The "right" of the child is not entitlement to any material well being per se, but a right to get support from the parents before other people are forced into helping.

Put it another way: the mother has the right not to seek support from the father if she can raise the child on her own. If she is not able to, the child's "right" / father's obligation kicks in, before anyone else is involved (besides forcing the father to fulfill his obligations).

It's simply a matter of precedence: just like bond holder's right come before that of shareholders, but doesn't mean either is getting anything if the corporation has nothing of value.

30   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 7:35am  

Dan8267 says

Counterplan: Require parents to pass a financial solvency test before they can reproduce. Make a minimal per child trust fund setup requirement equal to the cost of a median house plus a bachelor's degree.

Come on now, do you mean Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg were not entitled to have children in your plan when they did?

The rules don't have to be that strict. If the parents can afford to raise their own children, let them. Only welfare recipients need to be excluded; those becoming welfare recipient after first child can be excluded from having more children under the same set of rules requiring mandatory long term contraception as condition for receiving welfare.

31   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Feb 4, 7:55am  

Dan8267 says

The only argument that the biological father should pay is that he has to be punished for having sex for fun.

The guy is not paying because he had sex. He's paying because he got a girl pregnant. There are ways to have sex with minimal risk of getting a girl pregnant and hence minimal risk of any financial burden.

32   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 8:10am  

@YYN

Exactly! That's why paternal responsibility should be raised, not lowered, and the guy unable to pay child support should be given the choice between vasectomy and jail. To make up for the reduced fertility due to losers shooting blanks, tax incentive for having children should be put in place, and not just a fixed child credit, but a percentage child tax credit: 20% tax reduction for first child, 20% of the remaining 80% (16% of original) for 2nd, and so forth. That way, the households that can really afford to pay for children and education have the incentives to do their duty and raise more productive members of society in the next generation.

33   Shaman   2016 Feb 4, 8:14am  

http://www.newsweek.com/roosh-v-uk-ban-423009

Here's a guy who agrees with you Patrick, in fact he's an original founder of the red pill movement! But hey, the values he's espousing are traditional Muslim views about women.
So, did Muslims get that part right? Or does the answer lie somewhere in the middle?

34   mell   2016 Feb 4, 8:24am  

If a society wants to promote kids and parenthood and raise paternal responsibility equally for both parents then (apart from possible incentives) abortion must be made illegal (with few exceptions that existed before). If abortion is legal, then both parents must have the choice to opt in/out. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

35   Ceffer   2016 Feb 4, 10:25am  

It's the "If the male gets duped, the bitch gets scooped" prerogative.

36   MMR   2016 Feb 4, 10:40am  

Dan8267 says

You are saying that good people should never do anything because the "experts" should have all the control.

Isn't that basically the fallacy of 'appeal to authority'; also, this is common in medicine also and I'm sure many other walks of life

37   Dan8267   2016 Feb 4, 11:28am  

Reality says

The "right" of the child is not entitlement to any material well being per se, but a right to get support from the parents before other people are forced into helping.

Financial support from anyone is "material well-being". Anything you can sale about a child having a right to financial support from a man can also be said about such financial support from the state. You are asserting a principle and providing no justification for it while denying an almost identical principle while providing no justification for that denial. The entire basis of your argument is that your opinion is a self-evident truth that all people must agree with. That's nonsense.

The only logically consistent justification for your principle and the rejection of the alternative is a belief that the man should be punish for having recreational sex. Bad man. How dare you pursue happiness. Only women have the rights to be sluts and not have to support a child.

If a woman has the right to have consensual recreational sex without having parenthood forced onto her, then so does a man. It's called equal protection under law. Anyone who disagrees with this principle is a scumbag.

If children must be protected from poverty then the state must be required to step up. For if never experience childhood poverty is a right, the state must provide a minimum level of income because any child could become an orphan. You don't get to act as a champion of children if your not willing to use your own tax dollars to protect and support them.

Reality says

the mother has the right not to seek support from the father if she can raise the child on her own.

Why? What is the justification for this? Why not simply not allow the woman to reproduce if she is unable to financially provide for the child? Why not make a financial requirement for reproduction? Childhood poverty is a serious problem, but the solution is not involuntary servitude. The solution is preventing people from becoming parents if they are too irresponsible. If a person or a couple cannot support themselves financially, they sure as hell cannot support a child. Until a household is financially stable, it should not produce children.

It's one thing if the father opts in to raise a child. Sure, then he should be legally responsible. But to force a man to become a parent when a woman cannot be forced under law to become a parent simply because she got pregnant is utterly sexist and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Both parties must explicitly opt in.

To put it bluntly,

The Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade made it unequivocally clear that consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.

This principle holds for men equally as it does to women. Gender equality matters.

Reality says

Come on now, do you mean Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg were not entitled to have children in your plan when they did?

Maybe. I don't know their situations. However, as a principle, one should not rely on the remote possibility that one is going to strike it rich in the future when deciding whether or not to have a child today. One should prepare for the worse-case scenarios rather than assuming the best-case scenarios.

Reality says

If the parents can afford to raise their own children, let them.

The keyword being "if" and the criteria for satisfying the premise is having a trust fund to ensure that the child will not experience poverty. I'm not talking about a billion dollar trust fund, if you're thinking that because you associate trust funds with only rich people. I'm talking about financial security. If we don't allow financially insecure people to get a mortgage, then why the hell should we allow them to have children they cannot take care of if the children have a right to financial security as you claim?

If the financial security of a child is a right of that child then it's not solely the father's responsibility. The woman should not be allowed to even produce the child until she has secured that child's provisioning. And if any of that provisioning is to come from the biological father, then his consent is required as well because consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent for either men or women.

YesYNot says

The guy is not paying because he had sex. He's paying because he got a girl pregnant. There are ways to have sex with minimal risk of getting a girl pregnant and hence minimal risk of any financial burden.

Minimizing risk does not eliminated it. If a woman giving birth to a child means the biological father must pay for that child's first 18 years or more given college, then that father must have every bit as much right and power under law to abort the pregnancy as the woman does as. In other words, if either the mother or the father wants to abort the pregancy and the other parent does not, the abortion must happen. Are you comfortable with that?

Because the alternative is what Patrick proposed in the original post.

The law should be made fair. Men should have at least as much control as women over whether or not to have and therefore support children. Namely:

1. If a woman does not tell a man she is pregnant with his child until it is too late to have an abortion, she has zero claim to child support.

2. If a woman does tell a man she is pregnant with his child while an abortion is still possible, and he requests an abortion, then she has a choice:

a: abort the child

b: refuse to abort the child, but give up all claim to child support

3. If both the woman and the man agree to have the child, then both are obligated to support it.

You have given us no reason why to accept your assertion that men have no right to opt out of parenthood except by celibacy. If you cannot justify your assertion, you should not expect people to accept that assertion.

Reality says

That's why paternal responsibility should be raised, not lowered, and the guy unable to pay child support should be given the choice between vasectomy and jail.

Should this also apply to a any woman who produces a child that she cannot support by herself? Would you support the forced sterilization of women with the threat of jail? Or are you just a vile, sexist pig? By the way, this isn't an academic question. The state has forced sterilized poor women including those who have never gotten pregnant. Your position is as morally repugnant today as when the Nazis practiced it. Oh, and we all know from history, and the war on drugs, that such a power would never, ever be abused in order to attack racial groups.

38   MisdemeanorRebel   2016 Feb 4, 11:32am  

This is why we need Visa/MC and the government to create "Child Support Debit Cards".

If you pay for a "Junior's haircut" at Supercuts, it works
If you pay for "Coloring and Perm for adult woman" at Lisa's Hair Salon, it's rejected.

If you buy "Girls' Power Rangers Underpants" at K-Mart, it works
If you try to buy "Leopard Hot Sexy Lingerie" at Victoria's Secret, it's declined.

If you buy a "Happy Meal" at McDonalds, it's works.
If you buy "Chicken Marsala, two glasses of White Wine, and a Chef's Salad" at the Chez Royal to take out your pool boy, it's rejected.

Society needs to be sure that Child Support is Child Support, not ex-wife support.

At McDonalds, I want to see divorced women swiping twice. Once for the happy meal for the child, once from their own ATM Card in their own name where they deposit their own paycheck for their Fajita.

Let's cut the Victorian bullshit, working women are normal. When you are divorced, the ex-spouse has no responsbility to support you. You aren't special.

The urge to reform - not just from men but from their new spouses, girlfriends, mothers, sisters - is rising, and the current situation is doomed. It'll end either badly with a breakdown of society, or be reformed into a more just system.

Now that gays are out of the closet, we have a new army, and they're Fabulous Fearless Faggots who have nothing to lose by standing up to the matriarchy, like Milo Yannipolous.

39   resistance   2016 Feb 4, 7:39pm  

Quigley says

Here's a guy who agrees with you Patrick, in fact he's an original founder of the red pill movement! But hey, the values he's espousing are traditional Muslim views about women.

So, did Muslims get that part right? Or does the answer lie somewhere in the middle?

Roosh espouses traditional Muslim values about women? Please explain.

40   Reality   2016 Feb 4, 8:54pm  

Dan8267 says

The "right" of the child is not entitlement to any material well being per se, but a right to get support from the parents before other people are forced into helping.

Financial support from anyone is "material well-being". Anything you can sale about a child having a right to financial support from a man can also be said about such financial support from the state.

No. Unlike the state, a man can die or is disabled or makes so little money that his calculated child support amount is miniscule (like less than $50/wk). The amount is the smaller of (what the child needs, and what the man can pay) according to some state formulae. As you can see, that "right" is less about the natural right of the child but about precedence regarding whose resources gets commandeered before who else's.

Dan8267 says

The only logically consistent justification for your principle and the rejection of the alternative is a belief that the man should be punish for having recreational sex. Bad man. How dare you pursue happiness. Only women have the rights to be sluts and not have to support a child.

If a woman has the right to have consensual recreational sex without having parenthood forced onto her, then so does a man. It's called equal protection under law. Anyone who disagrees with this principle is a scumbag.

The man can choose to vasectomy. Vasectomy usually involves less bleeding and less pain than almost all forms of abortion, and is most certainly safer to the life of the adult than almost all forms of abortion.

Dan8267 says

If children must be protected from poverty then the state must be required to step up. For if never experience childhood poverty is a right, the state must provide a minimum level of income because any child could become an orphan. You don't get to act as a champion of children if your not willing to use your own tax dollars to protect and support them.

The pipe dream of never experiencing poverty has little to do with the discussion, regardless how "poverty" is defined. Before a child has grown up and ready to work, he/she is a resource sink. Someone has to pay for those resources. The mother and father are required to pay first, before other taxpayers are drafted into this. "The state provide a minimum level of income" is a brain fart because the state is a net resource sink itself, not a resource producer.

Comments 1 - 40 of 99       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions