simplicitypvp.net

ok i seem to have gotten a bad rep of being a MRA supporter and want to clarify my opinions in a setting that better let me express myself as u all know my english is not that great.

first of for u that dont know what MRA is.
MRA is a group called "Men's Rights Activists" that defends, upholds, or ensures the civil rights of men (i.e. fathers).
i dont call myself an MRA but i do support them in many things.

i am not against women rights in any way infact i like to see myself as a humanist thinking both men and women inequality's are important to solve.
the reason i express more men problems then women problems is both that i think its an mostly untouched subject
and that i think its is more interesting to think about because of the bias i have been raised up with. the bias being that women rights are important and men are subjugating women.

now to the specific subjects.

we start with the smallest and the one that most agree to.
i think that a man could have the rights to a baby both by law and social in the same way as woman's have.
that include "ownership" to a baby outside marriage that in my country (sweden) is up to the woman to confirm. a father can not claim the child in any way.
and i thinks is wrong that socially men are depicted as bad fathers until proven otherwise and the women have all the "real" authority.

secondly the more complicated subject about mens right to "abortions" .
1974 a law was created in sweden that say that women have the right to abort a pregnancy. this was to give women more rights over their own bodies.
this is a good law. there are many occasion where a abortion is needed.
it is 40 years ago this law was written and now abortion is a common thing (to common) but mens rights have been left 40 years in the past.

as forcing the women to an abortion is absolutely wrong i propose an emotional abortion.
where the father refuses responsibility of the child and loses all rights to the baby and gives sole custody to the women.
this is of course restricted to the same time frame that women have for real abortions.
this refusal forbid the father contact to the child until the child is an adult by law.


ok i stop there. this post is already to long. im open for discussions and take gladly counter arguments.

Since you already say a women has the absolute right to say what procedures get performed on her own body (to which I agree, I also like to have this right!), if a woman wants to carry a baby to term, there will be a new person in the world. You don't like this? Too bad, women are the ones with the womb. Yell at mother nature.

If a man can "opt out" of all financial responsibility after getting a woman pregnant, and the mom wants to keep it, in your scenario many moms would just go on at least partial welfare and have the state contribute to raising the child.

That's MY tax dollars. So I vote no -- you and your fuck buddy should pay for it, you knew when you pulled your pants down you weren't getting any say in any outcome of any possible pregnancy. At least you got a fuck, the only fuck I'm getting is to my wallet.

Are you going to argue now that there should be no welfare or assistance for single moms who choose to have their babies alone? That is the next logical step, unless you really do think it is ok if everyone else pays for your mistake.

QED

LoneSoldier55 wrote:

I didn't really read the entire thing either... [Sorry Mitte!]

Ontopic though, I think one of the major issues with mens rights is while a lot of rapes by men go unsolved many women abuse the system. It's quite easy for them to say 'I was raped by xxx] when in fact they were drunk and consented to sex, and the list goes on.

P.S Mitte go onto reddit and check out /r/mensrights and /r/Shitredditsays

SilasOfBorg wrote:Since you already say a women has the absolute right to say what procedures get performed on her own body (to which I agree, I also like to have this right!), if a woman wants to carry a baby to term, there will be a new person in the world. You don't like this? Too bad, women are the ones with the womb. Yell at mother nature.

If a man can "opt out" of all financial responsibility after getting a woman pregnant, and the mom wants to keep it, in your scenario many moms would just go on at least partial welfare and have the state contribute to raising the child.

That's MY tax dollars. So I vote no -- you and your fuck buddy should pay for it, you knew when you pulled your pants down you weren't getting any say in any outcome of any possible pregnancy. At least you got a fuck, the only fuck I'm getting is to my wallet.

in many scenarios the women need welfare in both instances is it the cost of court to force the man to take responsibility or that the man dont have money.
the women need to think about her financial situation before going thru the pregnancy.
the women have the right to abort for whatever reason, financial or other reasons.
ur argument lay all the financial burden on the man and takes his right to chose his own life away in favor of the womens right and ur money.

SilasOfBorg wrote:
Are you going to argue now that there should be no welfare or assistance for single moms who choose to have their babies alone? That is the next logical step, unless you really do think it is ok if everyone else pays for your mistake.

QED

why is the financial burden only on the man? the woman have the same burden to care for her child as the man do but only woman get to chose.

u know women's like to have sex to? why are they not blamed for choosing to use ur money to raise her child.

mitte.. I know English is not your first language, so I will try to reduce my argument to simple questions:

1. Would you give both men and women the right to determine what medical procedures are done to their own bodies (ie abortion)?

2. Would you deny welfare / social assistance to single moms where the father had "opted out" of support?

These are the important questions. Anything more is just whining about life being unfair, which we already know.

lysergidi wrote:Everybody knows womans cant drive any vehicles. That means no drives licenses to them.

What if the man wants the child? The woman can just get an abortion. And if the man doesn't then he's screwed 'cause he's gonna have to raise that child. Not sure how this works in Finland though... Here the parents get like 100 euros support per one child.

SilasOfBorg wrote:mitte.. I know English is not your first language, so I will try to reduce my argument to simple questions:

1. Would you give both men and women the right to determine what medical procedures are done to their own bodies (ie abortion)?

a man cant do an abortion they dont have the womb.

SilasOfBorg wrote: 2. Would you deny welfare / social assistance to single moms where the father had "opted out" of support?

welfare have nothing to do with this subject... its the woman choice to raise the baby by herself if that involve welfare or not dont matter. u cant punish the man for the woman's choice.

SilasOfBorg wrote: These are the important questions. Anything more is just whining about life being unfair, which we already know.

ur arguments are based on the man have responsibility for everything just because he have sex with a woman. this is not fair because u dont lay any responsibility on the woman that knows very well that SHE can get pragnant.

KennyKatsu wrote:What if the man wants the child? The woman can just get an abortion. And if the man doesn't then he's screwed 'cause he's gonna have to raise that child. Not sure how this works in Finland though... Here the parents get like 100 euros support per one child.

if the woman wants the abortion the man can do nothing. we cant force someone to go throw an pregnancy is it a man or a woman