Is the "choice for men" movement anything more than backlash against abortion rights?

Is the "choice for men" movement anything more than backlash against abortion rights?

Is the "choice for men" movement anything more than backlash against abortion rights?


Why do the majority of feminists so strongly defend their own personal freedoms and choices, but so vehemently oppose the personal freedoms and choices of others? "How do we feed, clothe and diaper this helpless infant?" Do feminists have the best interests of children in mind when they defend abortion? Yes, I know feminists will come up with all of these reasons why it's actually better for the child to die instead of to live, but let's be honest with ourselves here. Feminists clearly have their interests in the benefit of women over children. Men's rights groups (like feminists) have their interests in the benefit of men over children. I personally don't agree with either viewpoint. I believe that both men and women need to stop being irresponsible, selfish and instead do what is right, to finish what they have started, to not blame others and to not try to find an escape route at every possible chance. But we live in an age where people clamor to be victims, where people loathe the idea of personal responsibility, an age where few of us want to do the right thing, but what is most convenient and profitable to us. Yet my personal opinion cannot be forced onto others, I cannot force a woman to be a mother anymore than I can force a man to be a father.


What we want is consistency. I've argued this point with you before. The usual straw man you set up to avoid answering my points is that I think that men should be able to force women into abortions or to skip out on their kids as they choose. Basically there are a few potentially fair systems 1) The father has an equal say in abortion AND is financially responsible for the child. OR 2)No abortions, both parents responsible for the child unless BOTH decide to give it up for adoption. OR 3)The father has no say as in the current system but is not held liable for financial support since the choice is out of his hands. Currently we have a system consisting of the most expedient aspects of all the systems for women cherry picked to suit what they want. Whatever the mother wants goes. Now, as someone opposed to abortion I favour option 2. However as you pointed out abortion is legal and that doesnt look likely to change. In these circumstances holding a man liable for child support while he is allowed no say in the abortion decision is tantamount to slavery. As a side note, perhaps you could delineate a system that would be MORE skewed in favour of the mother than we have now? I can't think of any way it could be made easier for them- free abortions paid for by the government, the right to overrule the father's wishes on a potential abortion and also to claim support IF she decides she wants the child, automatic custody if the child IS born. What more could possibly be done to disempower and disenfranchise fathers that is not already being done? Edit: At least we're making some progress. You wont set up a system where a man can impregnate multiple women and have no responsibility? Why not? You're still arguing from the premise that the woman is somehow stuck with the child, if all those women don't want to have children they can abort them. None of them have to have the children. Also, you don't seem so reticent about a system that enables a woman to abort as many babies as she chooses. I live in the UK, here abortion IS free. Well, not exactly free, it's courtesy of the taxpayer. And anyway, you're still making the assumption that the woman has to be taken care of under all circumstances. But let's see, if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, it gets aborted. And he just get's told- ''well, TOUGH ******' $HIT'' If the woman gets pregnant and the father doesnt want to be involved. She should be told the same thing, even if that means she just has to shell out for an abortion. Edit: Yep, that's what I'm saying. Men can have all the sex they want, no consequences. Until men have some rights over their children it is ridiculous to hold them financially responsible. Believe me, I'm all for fathers having responsibilities to their children, but not until fatherhood actually means something besides child support liability. Basically it comes down to this: You are absolutely fine with using force to make men live up to what you consider to be their responsibilities. Yet nowhere do you advocate the same for women. Because to a feminist like you, state coercion is a tool to make men comply with your wishes, women are free to do whatever they want. The state must never stand in her way, it exists to beat men into submission and seize their property for the benefit of the nearest woman.


It's very simple. We want the equality that feminists claim to want. Currently, women have three ways to avoid parental responsibility after conception: 1. They can have an abortion (without even telling the father, never mind asking his opinion). 2. They can drop the child off at safe havens (e.g., local police or fire station) no questions asked. Again, no need to tell the father, so he will never have a chance to bring up his own child. 3. They can give the child up for adoption. No need to tell the father unless they are married or he has already registered with the state as a "putative father" just in case he makes somebody pregnant, which is absurd on its face Once the woman is pregnant, the man has no choice. If she decides to bring the child into the world and keep it, he is a father, whether he wants it or not. If she has an abortion or gives the child away, he typically has no choice either. So in societies that permit women to have post-conception reproductive choice, men should have the right to opt out of fatherhood by a certain date. In societies where women do not have such rights, nor should men. That is what equality is all about. The real question is why feminists, who claim to favor equality, would oppose men having equal post-conception reproductive rights. EDIT: "If we entertain the idea of a legal opt out, we must at the same time offer financial solutions to support the child. What do you propose?" Elf, I don't know if I have all the answers but would just point out that, even as things currently stand, every person who chooses to bring a child into the world should weigh up his or her financial situation first. In a society in which there is no abortion, that calculation must be made before conception. In societies that permit abortion, women currently have the luxury of engaging in that calculation after conception. I am just saying that men currently do not have the latter option and should have if women have it. We men can't be expected to subsidize women's choices forever. It's the 21st Century and we have all been drilled on how independent women are. So now go forth and be independent.


I definitely don't want to go back to the days when abortion was illegal, but I would definitely like to see more men become more involved in the decision. Women will always have the last say as in the end it is their body, and the risks involved health wise cannot be transferred to the man, albeit something they are in truth grateful for. It takes 2 to tango, so in the interests of both parties, I would suggest that they have a written agreement. He wants the rights to the baby, then he has to pay his fair share, if she doesn't she as was always going to be the case goes it alone, which ever path she takes. If she wants the baby and he doesn't, he agrees to waver all rights to the child in the future, and she goes it alone without his help in any way. Sounds fair enough to me?


Yes, you are so right, I want it to be a time when abortion was illegal, I would also love to be a knight errant riding the land saving the fair maiden and then deflowering them as my knightly duty woud require. You sit there, say FU boys, its my body, my choice, i'll keep the baby or abort it, and you'll have no say whatsoever. If the man wants, it don't matter, if he doesn't want it, it don't matter. The only choice you're leaving with him is to shut up and/or pay up. Where's the equality in that choice? It is actually a reasonable retort to your argument that if you don't want the child you don't have to keep it, but if he doens't want the child, why is he still held in some kind of responsiblity? Why can't he opt out of responsiblity like a woman can?


Maybe you should also abide by the Community Guidelines in asking the question also. So you think you can have a child without genetic material from a man? Just because you gestate the baby, it's all yours? So you think fathers have no rights to their children, and if you choose to kill it or not, it's all up to you, since you fertilized your own egg? Funny how you only gave two irrelevant choices. That really shows you don't particularly think very highly of or like men all that much. The entire tone of your rant is very demeaning to men and fathers. At least you didn't call it "anti-choice," that's a start. You see the problem is your anti-male sentiment. Why is the choice all up to you? It takes two to make a baby, but you think you have a right to bear it or kill it, without any say from the person that donated 50% of the genetic material. So it's all up to the woman: If she chooses to kill the fetus and the father wants to keep it, it doesn't matter what he thinks. If the woman wants to give birth to the child, but the father does not want it, and would prefer adoption or abortion, it doesn't matter what he thinks either -- because it's all about you isn't it? He's doesn't have a say in the matter, but you force him through a broken legal system to pay to support a child he wanted aborted in the first place, and if he would like to keep the baby -- without you -- it doesn't matter, you will kill it if you choose. So men are beneath you and aren't entitled to an opinion when it comes to their offspring. You are simply a wonderful person aren't you? How about this, ignoring you misandristic choices, if the pregnancy is discovered at an early time, and the father wants the child, then the mother can't abort it without a waiver from him, provided he accept sole legal and financial responsibility for it. If the father wants and abortion, and the mother is intent of having it and raising it, then she signs a waiver absolving the father of all legal and financial responsibilities if they are not married and living together. If the father doesn't even know about the pregnancy, she is automatically legally and financially responsible for the child alone. Women have a choice -- abortion and adoption. What makes you think you have a right to force a man to support a child he made clear that he did not want? Don't even try to say it's his responsibility, because legally he has no choice! If you want all these "choices" because it's your body, then you get all the responsibility. Of course there are probably certain situations where these rules could be superceded to protect the health of the mother, pregnancy by rape, or some other unforeseen circumstances, but as a general idea it is fairly sound.


There is no such thing as "abortion rights." That, being said, I am pro-choice. Women should have complete control over HER choices, and men should be afforded the very same right over HIS choices. There is no reason whatsoever that a woman gets to choose whether or not a man's life changes for the next 18 years when he can not make that kind of choice for her. Choice for men is the epitome of equality. No feminist should be against choice for men if she is for equality.


Yes... you're right. Men don't want equal rights. We just want to take rights away from women. This issue has nothing to do with men wanting the same rights that women have and be able to opt out of parenthood. After all... that'd be insane! Men with the same rights that women have? See? ...Ridiculous. Men like to be told that they need to be "responsible" and have a legal system that would hunt them down if they refused... Meanwhile they're watching women act as irresponsible as they wish and it's all perfectly legal. Men LOVE that. ...And women would love it too. Yea, so men are starting this "choice for men" campaign simply to strip women of their rights and I'm glad you were able to see that and expand on it. Thanks for the question. EDIT: My questions kept getting deleted and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I know it's not the anti-feminists that are having them deleted. It's the feminists that once again try to silence and censor people rather than have open discussions. You were on many of the threads that were deleted, so I did the easy math. I wouldn't block one person here if there wasn't a way for people to get my threads deleted. I WANT people to talk about these issues. It's important. Don't feel bad... you weren't the only feminist I blocked this morning. (pssssst.... you knew I'd answer this question, didn't you? In fact... the wording of the question makes me wonder why you'd even mention questions getting deleted. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?)


Not likely, I'd say it's much more about custody ,finance and the decisions that effect them. Example, If a guy does not want kids and does not want to pay support do you think he's going to have any objection to abortion ? The desired outcome would be some type of balance in the decision making ,rather than the imbalance feminists have become accustom to. Don't kid yourself ,that day is not far off.


To me it seems perfectly reasonable that, if a man gets no say at all in whether or not his child gets to be born, then he shouldn't be forced to provide for the child, if he doesn't want to be a father. I don't see how you can allow th emother to opt out of her responsiblities, without extending the same rights to the father.



Popular Q&A

How offensive is the phrase "Merry Christmas"?
I think it's sad that some folks in our society actually get offended by something as simple as a well-meaning holiday wish. I'm not religious, and I don't do much to celebrate this time of year. If anything irritates me about the Christmas season, it's the rampant materialism & commercialism...

Should gender specific statistics decide what is crime against humanity?
1) Studies show that women initiate DV more often and tend to be the ones that do more of the serious harm (they use weapons). 2) No, the definition of rape excludes most of the rape that women commit on...

Why was Reagan more concerned about "Welfare Queens" than the ultra high abortion rate at that time?
Abortion was interpreted as a right in 1973 by the Supreme Court, right or wrong. The President has no say in abortions,unless he is willing to go to court.

Should Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson pay more attention to Black genocide via abortions?
I was going to say that Al and Jesse should try to instill a father figure into the lives of those in the community, but they are not really role models for anyone. Especially, Jesse the shake down artist and father of a child from an almost child born while he was married to someone else....