A possible shift in men's reproductive rights?
Key point:
A Missouri Republican is pushing a bill that would allow a man who gets a woman pregnant to stop her from having an abortion. The measure would force a woman who wants an abortion to obtain written permission from the father first—unless she was the victim of "legitimate rape."
Rick Brattin, a state representative from outside Kansas City, filed the bill on December 3 for next year's legislative session. The proposed measure reads, "No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion."
The bill contains exceptions for women who become pregnant as the result of rape or incest—but there are caveats.
"Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it," Brattin tells Mother Jones. "So you couldn't just go and say, 'Oh yeah, I was raped' and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.
oldredder 10y ago
How about a legal right NOT to be a father, biologically or legally/financially?
I'm not surprised US republicans want to keep the birth-rate up but I'm also not surprised none of the politicians dare say a man has a right not to be roped into being a father against his will.
deathwalkingterr0r 9y ago
That has nothing to do with this argument, but this is somehow top comment
oldredder 9y ago
has everything to do with the argument - that's why it's a top comment
edit following downvote-tards:
GOVERNMENT NEEDS BABIES. New babies = more tax-payers
Repubs fighting abortion is ONLY to ensure more babies become adults paying taxes later because they are TAX-SLAVES.
They don't give a flying fuck about men's rights nor about YOUR rights to be a child growing up instead of aborted. If it got them more tax dollars to abort, they'd say ABORT.
The INSTANT anyone pushed for a real law protecting a man's right NOT to be financially enslaved to a pregnancy he disagrees with, WOMEN WOULD STOP GETTING PREGNANT BY ACCIDENT because it's not a fucking accident.
Birth rate would drop because women would have no getaway mechanism for free money and TAX PAYERS 20 YEARS LATER would decline, which hurts government's ability to ENSLAVE YOU.
The red pill = exit from the Matrix. The door is right here. You think you took the pill but I see you still staring at it not taking it.
nopetrol 10y ago
You can not have sex. Pregnancy doesn't just happen.
zyk0s 10y ago
If we're going to go with "just don't have sex", let's apply it consistently and outlaw abortions. That's what the GOP is trying to do in some states, but of course, it's oppressive speech when directed at women.
oldredder 10y ago
Or we could kill all humans to prevent pregnancy. That would work. Or wipe out all life. Those outcomes are just as reasonable as "can not have sex". Men are meant to have sex & have a right to do so with no babies as the outcome, especially with a woman claiming she's not going to get pregnant as the lure to get sex.
[deleted]
RedPillProphet 10y ago
Not exactly unreasonable to want a backup plan in case the brilliant plan A of celibacy doesn't work out.
[deleted]
vicious_armbar 10y ago
No you don't have sex you incel loser. The rest of us who aren't genetically deficient untouchables want equal rights. Either both genders should have the option to unilaterally abandon their parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has occurred, or neither gender should. That doesn't only apply to abortions, but to adoptions, and legal abandonment.
nopetrol 10y ago
No, that's not a good idea. Then we'll have more people turning out like you.
TRPtruth 10y ago
Dont agree. You stick your dick in crazy and get crazy knocked up it's your problem not mine or my tax dollars. Crazy isn't supporting the baby on her own. That much we know.
oldredder 10y ago
crazy: not the topic
Sorry you think it is but it isn't. The only thing stopping a girl from getting knocked up is if you refuse to be tricked when she offers the temptation of "I'm on the pill" but she's lying.
That's not the realm of crazy. That's the realm of devious.
Crazy IS supporting the baby on her own if she's unsuitable as a mother - look at how many baby mommas there are who are fucked beyond belief.
A man should have the legal right to be detached, at his word, from any legal or financial obligation to a child he didn't want. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
That much we actually know.
Nothing about this requires or implies tax dollars or other men must step in. That woman is free to get an abortion, or let the baby go for adoption or push on family to help raise the child or somehow find a way 100% alone to make the money to pay for everything. It's only your personal fancy of bias that you prefer to believe it must be welfare & tax-payers.
TRPtruth 10y ago
Devious is crazy in my mind. But fair enough.
oldredder 10y ago
I guess we can't agree on what 'crazy' means but to me 'devious' means sane, stable, unable to be trusted & highly intellectual, whereas 'crazy' means delusional, self-harmful, not able to hold to a plan, in addition to problems with aggression, emotional outbursts, being socially incompatible with most people.
I just consider lumping in 'devious' planners with 'crazy' girls who can't keep a day straight is too many different things all in one category.
If it suits you... that's fine. As long as we actually understand each other we accomplished something today
vicious_armbar 10y ago
If you have a problem with the state taking your tax dollars to support deadbeat moms, then you should take it up with the dead beat mothers taking your tax dollars. When we stop paying women [via child support and welfare] to have out of wedlock children, then less illegitimate children will be born. Which is good for everyone.
TRPtruth 10y ago
Wow this is legendary hamstering here. If you inseminate a woman it's your problem not society's. Don't like it don't do it. Someone has to pay.
vicious_armbar 10y ago
No if a woman becomes pregnant that's her problem. Not the person she chose to have sex with, and not societies. We need to stop holding men responsible for the choices women make with their bodies.
She was the one who decided to have sex, she was the one who chose not to use protection, she was the one who chose not to get an abortion, she was the one who chose not to put the child up for adoption, she was the one who chose not to take advantage of legal abandonment laws, so she should be the one who has to live with the consequences of her choices.
Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
sir_wankalot_here 10y ago
The left and right are whip sawing the masses. But as usually 50% of the crowd cheers when the saw cuts on way, then 50% cheers when it goes the other way.
If you are too young to know what a whip saw is google it.
oldredder 10y ago
I'm 38 and from Zerohedge. I'm far, far from too young.
The entire panorama of American politics, seeing it from the Canadian side, looks like a circus that no one should take seriously & everyone there is taking far, far too seriously.
I feel like in Canada at least a much larger portion look at our own politics and know they're looking at a 3-ring circus without any doubt.
sir_wankalot_here 10y ago
I was clarifying for the other readers. The plan in western countries is to reestablish a feudal system. A feudal system is great if you are the top 5%. The feudal system is being established with multiculturalism, massive immigration and feminism. Zerohedge mentions the more monetary side of the plan.
The top 5% of Indonesia makes about the same wages as Canadians, but the cost of living is 1/5. The top 5% of Indonesia has no desire to leave the place. There are two sets of laws. One for the 95% and one for the 5%. So when the 5% gets drunk, speeds around in his BMW and runs over a family he just throws some money at the problem.That is if he even bothers to stop.
Muslim country. But then again only the 95% follow the rules. The 5% are boozing away and shoving lots of pork in their faces.
Zerohedge is a TRP site.
oldredder 10y ago
Actually it's the non-multicultural systems that have feudalism, like the caste system of India or the economic class system of Europe replicated in America and so on.
The more cultural mixign there is the less feudalism there is, hence the drive to remove multi-culturalism as much as possible. Few places are multi-cultural. America certainly isn't. It's primarily European-puritan christian-driven & unaccepting of almost anything else.
Cost of living: that depends on work-vs-currency-vs-goods/wages meaning purchasing-power-parity. I have my doubts Indonesia truly is so well off when you compare the real hourly-wage to the real cost-per-x like x=bread or x=rent, etc.
Zerohedge is most certainly the most red pill of red pill, looking at total global evolution / devolution. I'm sure the purchasing-power-parity chart was posted in the last year going over dozens of nations there & can be updated with a little digging to account for the current oil-shock vs currency-devaluations.
sir_wankalot_here 10y ago
How many official languages are in India ? How many unoffical ? Think about that for a bit. What race unified India ? Did British colonialism help or hinder Indian feudalism ?
oldredder 10y ago
Without living in India I couldn't be sure.
sir_wankalot_here 10y ago
Fair enough. India like China was initally united by the Mongols. It has countless ethnic groups each which was ruled by a Sultan, Raj etc. Each Sultan would pay tribute to the Mongols. The British pretty much took over the system.
India's population in the 1500s was huge compared to Europe. Same with China. When Marco Polo described things like great wall of China and the bridge in Peking. No one believed such things could exist. Similar stories with the huge temples in India. Until the 1800s it was debated by westerners if the great wall actually existed.
Many of the cathedrals in Europe took 200 hundred years to construct. The largest wall known by westerners was Hadrians wall in Britain. Meanwhile Marco Polo was claiming that the great wall had been constructed in less then 100 years.
A really big number multiplied by a small number is still a really big number. So in China majority of the peasants where subsisting, but the emperor had a lot of them.
walkingthelinux 10y ago
I'll respect anything coming out of Canada when you become a real nation. Like have a real military. It must be nice to have the USA here to protect you with our military - whilst you guys live in a farcical socialist republic.
You guys are an entire nation of coddled children, and nothing that comes out of canada has any significance to any other nation.
If it wasn't for the USA, the Russians would have rolled through and taken the entire country fifty years ago.
Talk to me when Canada joins the adult world.
Manuel_S 10y ago
Walking, you can respect the country's military and population but have no respect for its regime or government.
I very much respect american soldiers. You get given a bad deal as far as care for veterans go - considering the nation you have - but you guys go and do it.
I also respect the patriotism of americans - you believe, and you act on it.
Can't really respect your politicians there, the way they betray you to every fucker with a wad and the ham-fistedness in dealing with the outside world.
The difference, and what oldredder there say, is that we ALSO don't respect our shit politics. We see them for what it is. He's not attacking americans. He's saying you buy the line, hook and the sinker with it.
You guys just believe in that shit, and its so transparent it hurts yet you keep taking it seriously. Never figured it out why.
When a guy tells you: "I want you to do this because patriotism", just read "I want you to do this" and then try to understand what his agenda is. Who's his biggest campaign contributor, Patriotism or Goldman Sachs/ the koch brothers / fucking macdonalds?
Cherchez l'argent. Old saying. Follow the money.
oldredder 10y ago
Having a real military means not having one designed for global empire domination - that's what America did and like the USSR has lead to America being bankrupt beyond repair.
You seem to think this utter failure & collapse is victory. It's actually defeat.
Canada is a nation of hard adults who can handle snow & cold vs Americans who get into hissy fits over 1 inch of it.
Russia & Canada have plenty in common - we're not scared of them. They roll tanks in & we'll just offer a barter of beer for vodka & we're square. We'll all be drunk and laughing at dumb Americans before the sun sets.
Canada is the adult world.
The USA is the failing over-extended empire. Your entire nation is delusional and run by the most immature children on earth.
walkingthelinux 10y ago
And nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. I say again; without the USA's military deterrent keeping bad guy from attacking your completely undefended nation - you would disappear.
The bad guys of the world is why you have a military. Cowardly hiding behind US and then criticizing the very strength that keeps you free is ridiculous.
oldredder 10y ago
Wrong.
There is no such deterrent. Canada isn't a target because we're not assholes.
USA is a target, not a deterrent, because of asshole military rape & mass murder that's unlawful to enforce an empire. It's doing more harm than good to your nation & all allies. It's actually going to make Canada a target and be the opposite of a deterrent.
The bad guys of the world ARE the USA.
and Israel.
To some extent Russia, China but not nearly as much.
The strength that keeps Canada free is that we do not attack others for no reason. Afghanistan was a mistake for that reason.
The weakness that hurts Canada is alliance to the US military. It will draw fire to us for no reason.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
walkingthelinux 10y ago
Who wants you? And again, if we sent a email to Putin that we wouldn't be paying attention for the next few months - you'd have russian tanks on your streets and your country would burn.
Think about it.
Manuel_S 10y ago
You have a strong military, for sure.
You also live in a police state where looking sideways at a cop can get you shot dead without justification, or jailed without a right to trial if somebody decides to stick a label of "terrorist" on you because you dig felaffel.
What other proper democracy in the world has police riding around on armour and sporting assault rifles?
Seuguh 10y ago
Why are these states allowed to pass law lol? Mississipi, Kansas, Ohio, Iowa etc, all these bumblefuck places with no real cultural diversity and little towns where everybody knows everybody etc.
[deleted] 10y ago
silly /u/bama79rolltide, you must have thought you were in a sub that actually values human beings. (This was written in response to the comments).
Adolf_ghandi 10y ago
Punishment of poor decision making aka. Whoreing around without protection? Yes I can support this!
NardDoug 10y ago
Yea, imma say the same thing here that i did there. A man should have no say in abortions, but given that abortions are a viable means of terminating pregnancy, it only makes sense that the law recognize the freedom this gives men from fatherhood. A man should be able to sign a waiver to abandon fatherhood responsibilities (financial and all) so long as it is signed and submitted before the child can no longer be legally aborted. The law needs to understand that due to abortions (and contraceptives in general), having a child is a woman's choice, and no longer the "natural" consequence on both parties for sex. What do you all think about that? I'd say it's a win-win, both parties get full control over their reproductive rights, with responsibilities placed where they'd logically go.
The only real abuse of this system would be women hiding pregnancies until abortions cannot be preformed. I would say a good fix would be that the mother would have to get a signed form proving of the fathers awareness for their to be any paternal claim, so each has an incentive to inform the other, and a proactive duty.
[deleted] 10y ago
So it seems TRP is against this decision but i dont really understand why? All it does is actually give some power to men in deciding whether or not you want to abort the child you TWO created. Im sure a quick dna test will figure out who is the father and if they were too drunk or had a one night stand and cant remember the father good. Shit is on them. Maybe women can practice safe sex and lower there count again. This forum bitches about how women are always on the CC and complaining how only virgins are relationship material yet when something like this comes up we all stand for abortions and feminist ideals. I would typically like a girl to at least go on record if she has had an abortion like a registry. I could personally judge her and ask her why. I use to be against abortions but now i personally think its okay to be for abortions like okay if your a shitty enough human being to abort your child cuz like "life" is going to get harder? boo fucking hoo then im glad that you are childless and im all for it that you get an abortion and save the world from you having a child who chances are will repeat the cycle and if not make it grow stronger. A registry can at least provide some consequence to the women who ride the CC and have an abortion for us men to judge them. Thats something that should never be hidden from a person.
For men if you don't want to pay child support all it says is giving you the right to consent to the abortion which you can. sooooooooo please explain???
JackGetsIt 10y ago
Because the law maker isn't really proposing the law to give men more rights. He's proposing the law as another front on abortion. I guarantee you his funding is coming from groups that want to see abortion outlawed in all cases: rape, incest, etc..
This law would be a step in that direction. If he were interested in male rights he'd propose 'Legal Paternal Surrender.' In theory LPS should be more passable because it doesn't go up against Roe V. Wade or any constitutional law.
IVIaskerade 10y ago
Here's the thing. We have two choices to make men and women equal in this area: We can ban abortions (thus removing women's right to choose) or we can allow men to opt out too (thus giving them the same choice as women currently get). One involves taking away rights, and one gives more rights to people overall without affecting people's current rights. We're arguing that taking away rights (what this rep is suggesting) is the worse decision.
Banning abortions won't work - it will only force women into getting them illegally. Much like prostitution and drugs, it would be better if it were out in the open and properly regulated (and safe for everyone).
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
IVIaskerade 9y ago
Considering that the freedom that they already have seems to be working fine with regard to abortions and such, this statement makes no sense. You were suggesting reducing people's personal freedoms to make choices, which I absolutely do not agree with.
[Citation needed]
I think that what you consider "moral values" might not be considered "moral" by others.
That's not what we see happening. Look at Portugal. They decriminalised drugs as long as you have less than 10 days' personal supply, and the effects have been largely positive. One of the more striking ones is that fewer young people are taking drugs, which can be attributed to the lure of forbidden fruit being removed.
Compare and contrast Prohibition. Redulation didn't work then, either, and all it did was force people underground to drink poorly-brewed moonshine which often contained traces of lead from unsafe stills. Sure, binge drinking is currently a problem, but the solution is not to ban all forms of alcohol outright.
Also, [Citation needed] on that one too. I don't see how this is an argument for banning abortion.
I wouldn't class having to go through an unwanted pregnancy and then raise an unwanted child as "tough love", I would class it as "life-ruining".
[Citation needed]
To be clear: I think that men should have access to an equivalent option to abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. I think that making abortions illegal again is a bad idea, and will lead to greater harm overall. I also think you need to cite some sources for your assertions.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
IVIaskerade 9y ago
That is a ridiculous assertion. You should always be able to cite sources to back up your opinions. Otherwise, you're essentially trying to get me to believe it "because you said so" and since I don't know you from Jack, that won't work.
And I don't think that the assertions you are making are "common fuckin (sic) sense", so I'd like to see some sources, please.
Ok, so you don't care. It's probably a good thing then that the people who do care are the ones making the laws. Would you want someone who didn't care about you to make laws restricting your personal rights?
I'd say that getting an abortion is being responsible. They fucked up, now they're trying to set that right. Maybe they did use birth control and it failed. They were responsible, but they're still in that situation, and it would be better for them to have the option than not.
Once again, you seem to believe that
Do you have data to back that assertion up? The part about society going back to the 60s, I mean. I think that it's unlikely. Whether or not people were happier back then is moot, since the rapid progress of both technology and society cannot be undone. Even if we did regress to the social mores of that time, I'd wager that people would still be unhappy since all the modern sources of stress would still be present.
Be that as it may, aboriton is hardly "destroying themselves" and the problem I have with your argument at the moment is that nobody is giving women more rights. I am just saying that we shouldn't be taking them away either.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
IVIaskerade 9y ago
Thanks for providing sources.
So what you're saying is that even if they didn't fuck up and used birth control, you would deny them an abortion? That's not "fucking up", that's an un-preventable mistake that you think they should be punished for.
Now, if you're going to offer abortions to people who had a legitimate accident, you have to offer them to everyone, because there is no way to tell whether or not they are lying about the circumstances.
So either you must be willing to punish the innocent, or you have to allow abortions for everyone. I'm saying that I'd rather offer men the option, too, than punish the innocent.
Amorevolous 10y ago
I believe the consent on having a child is given at the point you decide to have sex with eachother.
Sex makes babies. If you want to protect yourself from having a child with a woman, don't fuck her. It's your responsibility as a man not to allow a crazy bitch access to your seed.
rockumsockumrobots 10y ago
What is this, I love logic day? Why does this misogynist want to oppress womyn by forcing them to prove they were raped. Afterall, women never lie and men are always to blame for everything.
Limekill 10y ago
Actually this will just increase the false rape claims (even if she claims she was raped y an unknown male in a deserted area).
foodnettwerk 10y ago
The consensus in the red pill community & the field of developmental psychology is that in general, it is much more beneficial for children to grow up in an environment where both parents are together, present, & equally committed to & involved in raising the child.
If this bill passed (it won't), it would:
All things society in general, in addition to the rp community, can agree are bad news.
garlicextract 10y ago
Not sure I agree with this law. While RP makes you strive to be the best of yourself, there are a lot of deadbeat fucks out there.
Not sure if it's a good idea to require the signature from a guy who knocks up 3 women and leaves the state. How are they supposed to get that signature anyway?
The law does make sense in its core ideals, just there are too many problematic cases it may apply to.
cocaine_face 10y ago
I'd prefer the ability to sign away your rights to a child.
The only problem with that is you'd see thousands of more alpha bastards being born.
popthatpill 10y ago
If you oppose male permission being required for an abortion, then logically you have to oppose female permission being required for a paternity test.
stoicly_whimsical 10y ago
The fact does stand that a woman who has to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want is as shitty a situation as a woman getting an abortion against the father's will.
This would give more power to men's reproductive rights however it creates a situation that could be ripe for abuse. It is not beyond the realms of possibility a man could deliberately force a woman to carry his baby in an abusive relationship or other circumstance.
The issue as well though of gettjng the father's permission also opens a whole pandora's box of paternal responsibility. How to prove who the father is and so on, paternity fraud or even unknown paternity.
Do we really want someone who had a one night stand without getting any details being forced to have a baby or file a false rape accusation to try and get an abortion.
I am all for the ability for a man to get a legal/financial abortion, that is a no brainer and good idea.
This is just the right wing's slant on a very difficult subject thats needs a fair and well defined middle ground, it's going too far the other way.
Also it is too often trotted out by feminists and far exaggerated in this day and age. But a pregnant woman is taking on the burden to her body and risk of complications, for 9 months, with massive lifestyle changes and effects on body and payche.
That still needs to be acknowledged by us as men, as it is something we do not have to burden ourselves with. It is something us men cannot relate to.
Having said that, the argument of pregnancy being about womans bodies and their agency and power to do as they so choose by feminists massively strips men of any say whatsoever which is just fucked up.
Granted custody, childcare and reprodcttive rights issues for men do need to be sorted out, thi sisn't the way to do it.
Oh and I'm pissing myself laughing at 'real rape'. Feminists will have a giant hissy fit with that one. "What do you mean 'real rape' ? Imagine being stare raped every day by red pill shitlords, MA FEELZ!!!!!"
MachineGunTeacher 10y ago
Or she can claim it was a one night stand and doesn't know the father.
[deleted] 10y ago
This would make that criminal, but only after the fact
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
stemgang 10y ago
Nah, she can "remember" who the father was, after the child is born.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
JackGetsIt 10y ago
It is insane. However it's a good chance to circle jerk about abortion.
IVIaskerade 10y ago
OP, apparently. I don't think many others here do - generally, people here would support making people equal by giving the lesser party more rights rather than taking away the rights of the greater party (which, interestingly, is the exact opposite of what the SJWs are doing).
[deleted] 10y ago
TRP has a strong Retard-level conservative population. I think this bill is insane. By having a woman all you need is respect which can manifest itself differently from person to person. There is no need for a law to dictate this.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
NeopolitanAfterglow 10y ago
Yeah, sorry, I don't agree with this.
phungus420 10y ago
Ultimately if you look at the legality of abortion (and not it's emotionally charged arguments) you come down to the argument that the supreme court in Roe vs Wade actually tackled: This is argument is about a citizen's rights vs the government's domain. What the supreme court decided in Roe v Wade was that the government's domain only extended as far as the fetus was practically viable outside the womb (at which point the state had a right to protect the fetus). Before this point the citizen's rights over her body had supremacy. You can disagree with where the supreme court drew the line, but ultimately you need to understand abortion comes down to government power and how far that extends and can supersede a citizen's rights and power over their own body.
This law would make it so that a man could force a woman to carry a fetus for at least 9 months in her womb, giving him direct power over her body and using The State as the mechanism of enforcement; in effect it would force the government to override a woman's power and rights over her on body for nearly a year at the request of another individual. I can't agree with this idea; at the end of the day my libertarian bent finds that concept very disturbing. To quote the feminists I normally parody and rail against "It's her body and her choice", this is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with them.
There are many arguments to be had about paternal rights. It's disgusting really how men have no reproductive rights; only obligations. In my opinion this is not a place to have this argument.
Demonspawn 10y ago
Yep. Exactly.
Compared to the 18+ years of state power over the man's body for the same situation, I don't see much of a substantial difference here. Society already accepts the government power of a woman over a man, why not the other way around?
Society has a massive reproduction problem. Society also has a massive debt problem. Think of this as "conscripting" women into making more future tax payers... but due to their own choices rather than against their will like men get conscripted.
In the end, I feel returning consequences to sex for women is something society needs to do for the benefit of society. Unrestrained hypergamy is obviously harming society, a big portion of it needs to be reigned in.
As I said to another poster, TRP is about understanding reality: what works and what doesn't. While I don't feel that society should be the main focus of TRP, it does have a place here to be discussed.
Limekill 10y ago
Yes it is, but what are we going to do - start banning condoms too? Stop the pill? (this was the thing that actually started the sexual 'revolution').
Really I don't think anything will change until around 2035-2050. At that time sex bots will come into existence and the Betas will switch their attention to these things rather than continually be hurt by women who screw with their emotions, etc.... And they will stop orbiting... And that will remove a good 30% of guys (20% are Omegas anyway; with 10% in jail, leaving only 40%). And women will be desperate to bed down a mate, but they won't be as good as a robot (e.g. a robot doesn't age, doesn't get fat, doesn't steal 50%+ of your assets/income, doesn't cheat, etc, etc).... And then you will see the whole thing reversed....
I mean it's happening in Japan, but with robots the physical intimacy will be there... I mean it sounds pretty weird but thats how I think it will pan out.
zyk0s 10y ago
There's different ways to bring back consequences of sex for women. If you want to be libertarian about it, you can stop requiring the pill to be covered by medical insurance, stop subsidizing abortion (thus making it a significant expense) and remove child support. It seems that most people on this sub would prefer this approach, but that's not the only way to achieve this goal. Other political inclinations prefer other means, you can disagree with them, but one isn't more objectively "right" than the other.
Demonspawn 10y ago
Why not? It's within the realm of possibility to restrict birth control to married couples.
Actually, I think the biggest thing that started the sexual revolution was the tender years doctrine. Previous to that doctrine, fathers were the protectors and providers of children, and as such got custody of them in the rare cases of divorce.
But tender years gave custody of children to women and created the concept of child support. That was then expanded to unmarried women (who, previously were considered responsible for their bad choices) and removed a lot of accountability from women in the instances of pre-marital sex. Sex became a way for a woman to trap a man's wallet.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
Demonspawn 10y ago
It's quite possible that there are sufficient answers. I'm willing to discuss them. What do you propose?
Limekill 10y ago
Why do married couples get it??? And single people don't??? Why don't we just impose a bachelor tax to make men marry (if we are going to start denying rights to people - and this was denied via the Courts). And of course no one can get a pill form an overseas pharmacy....
Tender years started in 1873 or so... And the last time I looked, being divorced up until the 1960s was pretty bad... Even if women received beatings they stayed in relationships.....
To have consequences we must reject women who make bad choices, not force them to have babies (as they will just get an illegal pill or an illegal abortion).... Plus children of single mothers are more likely to go into crime, have poor education outcomes (so don't earn very much - minimum wage - so pay less tax) etc, etc which is a huge cost... so it's not like we are getting more tax payers with no cost.... In fact I would argue that the cost could even been negative, when you add the females babies women are having (higher chance of getting on the Government teat, etc).
And what sentence do we pass on women using the pill or getting an abortion? They are killing a child!!!! Death penalty? Life imprisonment?
Slut shaming worked pretty well up until beta males caved in - it still works in Arab countries...
Anyway, it feels this aint going anywhere, so over and out from me.
Limekill 10y ago
No... it's not stopping a man saying no to a child, it's only stopping the woman from saying no to a child.
And this is just dumb..... it's trying to force Christian morals of behaviour on everyone.... even if they are not Christian. And most women whom have abortions do not want children, so why would we force them to have one?
[deleted]
Opioidus 10y ago
It's not about ''Christian morals'', it's causing demographic decline in all western societies. Women do not make the right choice of keeping their babies like progressives used to say in the 60s, they kill their children to hold meaningless jobs and ride the alpha cock till they're 35, and then they go on to become bitter, selfish single mothers of loser bastards that you and I have to pay for with our tax money.
Christian morality has proven to be vastly superior to modern thought in predicting and controlling sexual behavior in a manner that is suitable for a prosperous civilization, that's why we should force it onto people instead of modern degeneracy.
NeopolitanAfterglow 10y ago
This is consequentialist "the ends justify the means" mentality. Believing that men dominating women is the natural order of things is one thing, but trying to use the government to enforce male dominance and to trample on basic human rights and enforce some Utopian fantasy of a superior male dominated society is NOT what red pill is about.
Opioidus 10y ago
Male dominance and female sumbmissiveness aren't evils that need justifying, women desire to be dominated by strong men, and men must abide by what women desire if they want to reproduce. There's no other way this could or should ever work differently.
Traditional government, social order and religion are about taking little boys away from their mommies and turning them into strong, stoic and responsible men that women cannot and do not resist. However this system like any other will have losers, and will need centralized institutions that prevent those losers from destroying an otherwise functional social system. It's not your basic human right to kill my child, it's a perverse ideological attack on everything necessary for a civilized society.
Your appeal to what "trp is all about" doesn't impress me, I've been around long enough to not care about circkejerks.
Demonspawn 10y ago
What basic human rights?
Humans have one basic right: the right to violence.
All other rights stem from concessions such that their basic right is not undertaken as often.
JackGetsIt 10y ago
You could make the same argument about Islamic sexual control or a dozen other religions. Would you encourage those forced onto society?
Edit: This is what your argument sounds like to me
Opioidus 10y ago
Yes I do, Islam has also proved to be capable of creating and maintaining very advanced civilizations, not as advanced as those created by Christianity and Christians, but certainly much better than what we have today. Religion is a response to extreme evolutionary pressures that populations faced in their habitats, it's not a bunch of random craziness of a bunch of delusional people, and the catastrophic effects we are now experiencing in the west are the results of trying to abandon that set of ideas we call ''religion''.
Christianity is my religion, and it worked perfectly fine in giving ordinary people ordinary, yet fulfilling lives until losers, degenerates, perverts and leeches decided restrictions it placed on them was ''oppressive''. Newsflash, a good religion is supposed to oppress those who would otherwise destroy healthy societies.
JackGetsIt 10y ago
Thanks for a thoughtful response. At the very least you're intellectually consistent.
Just had a few counter points:
I didn't say that.
This is a whitewashing. Religion like any human behavior control system has flaws. There was a recent story on the podcast "This American Life about a father who left the Warren Jeffs sect in Utah and took his five kids to go live in Colorado. He would be one of many to disagree with you that religion is "perfectly fine."
These aren't the only people that "suppress" healthy societies. There are perfectly wholesome good people that have ideas that lead to oppression. It really looks like you want to the problems and solutions to be black and white. I'm confident that they are not.
IVIaskerade 10y ago
I think you'd like it better over in r/DarkEnlightenment, or maybe /pol/.
We don't care about "degeneracy". This sub is about how to deal with what is happening in reality, not talk about how one morality is better than another.
sunwukong155 10y ago
Yes but its very on topic.
We have a society and legal system that supports the irresponsibility of women. It is what is creating a system that shits on men and creates broken children.
Most of the commenters here just want to extend the legal rights of men to be just as irresponsible.
NeopolitanAfterglow 10y ago
The solution is to repeal existing laws that grant special privileges to women, not create new laws that give special privileges to men to "even it out". In this case, the phrase "2 wrongs don't make a right" applies.
IVIaskerade 10y ago
Even if it was "promoting irresponsibility" as you claim, it's still a better option than removing people's rights in the name of progress.
Demonspawn 10y ago
This sub it about understanding reality, what works and what doesn't.
How society fails is a subset of red pill. The TRP member can use that knowledge to evaluate their society and use that knowledge to further himself (e.g. deciding to expat).
IVIaskerade 10y ago
TRP isn't about understanding reality. TRP is about using that understanding to have lots of good sex. TRP is the application of a philosophy to sexual strategy, but does not concern itself with the larger picture.
We get a bit of it bleeding through anyway, but it was never what TRP stood for, and TRP is not the place to discuss the overall philosophy.
zyk0s 10y ago
Reproductive strategy is part of sexual strategy. Some men want to have sex while avoiding having kids, but some are very much interested in securing the interests of their progeny (hence why we have discussions about the worth of marriage, LTRs, how to navigate family life and what to teach our kids). Ultimately, TRP is about becoming better men, and no matter how much society wants to change that fact, men are still in charge of society. Enjoying the decline is a perfectly valid stance to take, but so is trying to prevent it, or direct it into a new direction.
IVIaskerade 10y ago
Sure, but TRP is "how to have good sex and worthwhile relationships", not "how to change society for the better". That's a bonus, but isn't the main point of the sub.
zyk0s 10y ago
One person cannot change society for the better. We're individual agents, so it's obvious we're not going to go on a concerted effort to do it. But a society is made of individuals, and by reproducing you are going to influence it in some way. If I have kids, and I can do something to push the world in a direction where they will be happier, I want to know what that is.
[deleted] 10y ago
I can't agree with this because at the end of the day we gotta concede that carrying a baby isn't very pleasant.
I think the law should be that a woman needs a man's consent to have his baby so that he isn't stuck paying child support for a child he doesn't want.
deathwalkingterr0r 9y ago
My logic in response to this is, unless it was planned and she decided to leave him and stick it to him, he got her pregnant and should therefore support the baby
walkingthelinux 10y ago
By all means, if avoiding unpleasantness can be accomplished by the mere killing of a child - go for it.
Every women for herself; right?
tenthirtyone1031 10y ago
Either it takes two people to make a child or it does not.
Feminists want all the advantages to a two parent system but want to exclude the man as much as possible.
TimGuoRen 10y ago
This!
This subreddit is always complaining that society acts like women and men are the same, even if they are not.
Here we have a clear case in which we see that women are not the same as men. Women can get pregnant. Therefore there is nothing wrong if they can decide alone if they want to keep the baby.
On the other hand: I think if she wants the baby, but he does not, he should not have to pay child support. There should be a legal way a man can declare that he does not want this kid. As a result, he loses all legal rights to see his kid. On the other side, he does not have to pay child support.
RedHeimdall 10y ago
Paying child support for 18 years is also rather unpleasant
oldredder 10y ago
One doesn't require the other: unless you live in a feminazi police-state.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
zyk0s 10y ago
It's not that simple. If a woman wants to rope you in for child support, the legal availability of abortion won't change anything. What that law would do is shift some power from women to men. Now, instead of women having all the choices, the man who can choose between giving support or not, under some circumstances (he still can't force a woman to abort).
Amphabian 10y ago
It's for this reason that I feel men should be given the chance to opt out. Men have to concede that it's a woman's choice to keep the child, but it should be our choice to leave if we want nothing to do with that child.
Give up all paternity rights. You'll just be another stranger to that kid if she wants it so bad.
1independentmale 10y ago
I can't upvote this enough. It's frustrating that a pregnant woman literally holds my child's life in her hands, while figuratively holding my own and I have absolutely no say in the matter. She can choose to keep it and force me to provide both her and the child with a decent standard of living, or she can kill it and there's not a damn thing I can do.
That's harsh. So harsh that I went and got a vasectomy so I don't ever find myself in this situation again.
I don't agree with the proposed law here and I doubt it will survive the inevitable legal fight if it passes. Forcing a woman to carry your child is wrong to me. Just as wrong as forcing a man to keep it and pay for it for the next 18 years (21 - 24 in some states). I'd much rather see a law that allowed fathers to opt-out within x amount of time after being informed of the pregnancy, but that will never happen because it would put the burden of paying for these children onto the state.
Overkillengine 10y ago
When things like vasagel become more common and thus as such men have access to hard to detect/tamper with birth control methods, watch the old "oops" pregnancy rate decline very fucking fast.
It will eventually force a change in paternity and child support laws because lack of children being conceived means no more future tax slaves.
It's either that, or the government will have to outlaw male birth control methods and risk insurrection. If they do that though the smarter politicians won't do it openly all at once, they'll boil the frog in the hopes of getting people slowly acclimated to fewer rights every few years after some sort of periodic event based hysteria that will be used to justify it.
[deleted] 10y ago
my (slightly feminist) gf's response to that: If you get someone pregnant, just man up and take responsibility for what you did.
I said, if you're so into equality, why shouldn't women do the same? They have the option to get rid of it. why don't we?
RedPill_Rorschach 10y ago
Then again, the correct (as in it mirrors her argument) answer is that women who are pregnant need to take responsibility and should be denied both abortion and the right to give the baby for adoption.
1independentmale 10y ago
That shit works both ways.
vicious_armbar 10y ago
Absolutely. Why should men be held responsible for women's choices? Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Also any time a young woman talks about males "manning up"; just look her straight in the eye and tell her: "You're a 20 year old girl. What the hell do you know about being a man?!"
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
alpha_n3rd 10y ago
except for species where the male raises the young
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
alpha_n3rd 10y ago
Very rare but extant; hence your assertion is false.
Eg birds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_care
Also note the emperor penguin; the male sits on that egg all through the fucking antarctic winter while the female swims around eating fish.
In addition in a number of fish species care is exclusively paternal, including seahorses and some mouthbrooders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouthbrooder
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_frog
You could probably also find some examples in biparental species where the male make an investment >= the female's. E.g. in many species of birds the male invests tremendous resources into reproduction, e.g. snowy owls. The male must hunt daily to feed himself, his mate, and his several owlets. In a bad year he may not even find enough food to keep them all alive.
Also this is interesting
*Too much science for you fags? Fucking idiocracy...
Manuel_S 10y ago
Dude, those guys lost the shit test once. See where they ended, looking after the kids.
Just shows you: keep your frame.
Bitches do kids, food and laundry.
Opioidus 10y ago
So your ingenious plan is to give men the ability to be irresponsible as well? No, women should not be allowed to kill their babies out of inconvenience and no, men should not be allowed to be deadbeat and let government take care of their bastard spawn. I hate this ''let us be equally irresponsible'' bullshit that flies around in the MRM, men should be ''creating'' desirable women for themselves through extreme selective pressures, shaming, exclusion and so on, not running away scared and begging to ''be left alone''.
This is pathetic.
sunwukong155 10y ago
I completely fucking agree and its annoying you are downvoted.
I do not support abortion. I also agree it is wrong. I also don't want to see children left without parents. The best situation is a situation where hypergammy is kept in check with widespread social pressures so that families can stay together at a higher rate.
BrunoOh 10y ago
That's right. It's solely a woman's choice to get a baby, thus follows that it is also solely her responsibility. You want your kid to have a father? Then also make it his choice to have the baby so you two can share the responsibility.
If a woman gets herself pregnant without the man's consent, then tough luck for her.
Opioidus 10y ago
Yeah, and then lets program our sims to have nice little colored beards to go with their personality codes! Human beings have a very wide set of natural drives and tendencies that have been ignored and denied by your ideology for the past three hundred years, and are now firing back. We know a couple of things at this point: Children need their families, if women are given the power they will abuse it, if men are allowed they will chose the easy option over the right one.
So, lets bring down no fault divorce laws, take away alimony and child support, stop subsidizing female education and employment, take away the ''right'' of women to murder their unborn children, take away the ''right'' of men to be deadbeat and leave their pregnant partners so we can have well adjusted children, less bitter women and more productive men.
I refuse to take leftist stupidity to its natural extremes, there is a better way.
[deleted] 10y ago
Sometimes the best way to get what you want is to give the other party what they want, let them take it to the logical extreme.
The main problem is that no one holds leftists to a logical standard.
sunwukong155 10y ago
Fucking damn straight. This is what we need CIVILIZATION for. Fuck all this enjoy the decline bullshit.
Everyone is just spouting cultural marxism in this thread and ignoring the fact that several generations of young men and women are being raised by broken families.
JackGetsIt 10y ago
You can't change the already entrenched leftist system. You can only force it to be as equal as possible. Head over to /r/mensrights if that's your hope. If you could take away abortion entirely than yes, both parties should financially support the child.
If we had legal parental surrender some women would change their tactics; they would be less likely to sperm jack men because there's 'less' financial support for that option.
BrunoOh 10y ago
I am in no way taking away rights. In fact, I'm giving rights and the responsibilities that come with those rights. This, I hope you realize, is how we expect both men and women to deal with reality.
1) You (woman) want a baby? Great, get some sperm from a sperm bank and have fun. Hopefully you've saved up some money.
2) You accidentally got pregnant but don't want a kid right now? Your body, your choice to abort it.
3) You (man) got spermjacked and the bitch is now pregnant? Not your choice, not your responsibility. See point 1.
4) You (man) and your girl agree to have a kid, she gets pregnant and spawns a kid? You are both responsible.
Do you see how I'm treating people like adults?
sunwukong155 10y ago
His point is, given the choice, people do whats easy.
Giving people all these options and choices and ways out of a pregnency is not "treating them like adults" its creating a legal system that copes with widespread irresponsibility and punishing the children for it.
His answer is much better.. because its a system that worked for thousands of years. The system is that you fucking take care of your children and you shame individuals who break up families.
BrunoOh 10y ago
You're saying this as if it is possible for a (sexually active) woman to get pregnant against her will. And I'm not even taking into account the morning after pill or abortions.
[deleted] 10y ago
Replublicans are all about governing what you do with your body and not governing the rich who drain the money from the rest of the country into their pockets.
The dems are the opposite. Bodily freedom, rich regulation.
I wish there were a party for bodily and economic freedom.
I bet OP wished slavery still existed.
[deleted] 10y ago
Abortion should be illegal except in extreme circumstances (mothers health, rape).
That is all.
[deleted] 10y ago
Putting moral arguments aside, I am pretty sure this would be unconstitutional.
Any lawyers here want to weight in?
[deleted] 10y ago
Honestly, I find this an interesting approach on the matter.
Sure, it might stem from some sort of Religious/Republic morality on the subject of abortion, but consider:
A) Men would finally be afforded a key right in the reproductive process. Believe it or not, some guys don't want girls to murder their unborn kids. As a guy who's seen to 7 abortions with 3 girls (I'm serious, blow me), this isn't how I think, but it's easy enough to describe how they feel about the matter. Considering how 0% of the rights men have in women fucking them for child support, this would be a small victory.
B) It's actually a reasonable way for (Religious/Republic) lawmakers to get in on the whole "fucking with your reproductive rights". It takes two to tango, and the mother shouldn't have the 100% say in what happens to the kid. (It's your body? It's my sperm). (Obviously, this doesn't apply to parents/friends/religion, whatever, but let's face it, it's going to be or would have been YOUR kid.)
C) The rape thing. I honestly see this as common ground finally being made between religion and free will. Many religions, and depending on where you live in the states, don't give two shits about whether or not you were raped. You're gonna have that fucking kid whether you like it or not mentality. For once, religion is letting women have this one.
D) The rape thing part 2. It would help force a women to confront her rapist, something actual rape victims have problems with. If you want that abortion, the guys gotta go behind bars for it. Obviously, there's the immediate problem of just naming a guy as the rapist for the abortion, you can always claim "whoopsie" afterwards, or not at all. I'm a fan of women actually facing their problems, so this gets a 2/10 for an idea with a good intention getting the shit abused out of it.
E) Wrong state. Put this in Texas, or some other abortionless region and it would actually be a fair compromise. Abortion -should- be the decision of two parties. After all, parenting should be. (Obviously, both aren't, hence the "should").
Thoughts?
Edit: Words
kristaph 10y ago
I agree with you. Plus if one of parents decides that he/she doesn't want the kid then they should legaly be freed from any responsabilities. Because now if women wants to keep baby but men dont then men is stuck whit payments for 18 years. If it is the opposite then there is abortion and man can't do anything even if he wants to rise it on its own. Sorry for bad English.
[deleted]
BloodRoseTRP 10y ago
I automatically agree because you used all caps.
Opioidus 10y ago
And progressives are so tolerant of opposing moral systems, inviting all them backward, semi-retarded, poorly educated inbred racist, misogynist, chauvinist and bigoted republicans to open discussion about matters such as this. Heh..