And what advice are you seeking? Asked due to the post being in the Advice section...

Where are you from Kevin?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

BOTH parents ought to be Totally, Wholly, Jointly and severally, responsible for all aspects of their child's well-being.

canada

sorry, i must have posted here in error

Added after 5 minutes:

well, i cant and wont be forced into being a father. children need two parents that are married, happy, and financially secure to raise a child. THE CHILD WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF TO BE ADOPTED, IN MY OPINION

No error. There are several different views in the MRM.

A chap ought not to be forced into fatherhood, and he can ensure that by avoiding shagging a woman who is not his wife, and accept that the biological purpose of shagging is to make babies.

It ain't rocket science but it is science!

But once she is pregnant, it is the woman that makes all the choices. And she is making choices for the man too. She is doing his family planning for him. No one would enforce that on a woman, so why should it be enforces - with the weight of the state - on the man?

Quote from oilerny

But once she is pregnant, it is the woman that makes all the choices. And she is making choices for the man too. She is doing his family planning for him. No one would enforce that on a woman, so why should it be enforces - with the weight of the state - on the man?

Amazing how feminist's can whine and cry untill they get their way,isn't it?

Her body, her choice, her fuckin responsibility. You want to make men half responsible, you give men all the rights women have including an opt out after conception.

You can just throw all the moralistic arguments about a man's duty right out the window when the custody determination is made initially by a mother abducting the child away from a willing and capable father, and only endorsed by the state because it is less paperwork and more politically correct than prosecuting the woman for felony kidnapping. Laws on the books in many states specifically prohibit parental abduction, and there is even a Uniform Code across the states on how to prevent it, but nobody knows how to prosecute it, or wants to.

A man abandoned in that way is morally free of any further obligation to such a woman, who chooses single parenthood in the face of viable options. And, given that women are not accountable to anyone for how the money is spent, and that the child may never see a penny of the father's hard-earned income spent in their behalf, child support then becomes an ugly, evil, state-sponsored blackmail on behalf of an unindicted felon.

I am proposing that the MRM, whatever form it may take, get organized on the issue of enforcing existing laws regarding parental abduction, and draft legislation for a Uniform Code governing procedures by law enforcement, prosecutors and courts to take immediate action on the criminal matter of seizing custody illegally, before the civil issues of parenting plans and support determinations may be heard by the court.

As it stands now, any woman can pack up the kids and head for Mommy's house and start crying "victim", every bit of it unlawful under existing statutes, and expect to be awarded custody and child support for her trouble. It is so commonplace in the US that police and prosecutors don't even consider criminal prosecution of the mother, but just shunt the whole case into civil court and place the man on the defensive for whatever wild tales the ex and her mom care to tell, when by existing law the woman and her accomplices should begin the proceedings as felony defendants.

This may be the most egregious example of unprosecuted criminal conduct since Prohibition, and the numbers of children seized in this way for generations now may not even be possible to determine. If men can't identify and stand up to this injustice as one of the very lowest forms of sexual assault on ourselves, our children, the institution of fatherhood and even manhood itself, we may not deserve to get any of the lesser grievances about gender addressed at all.

Quote from Percy

Two wrongs do not make a right.

BOTH parents ought to be Totally, Wholly, Jointly and severally, responsible for all aspects of their child's well-being.

I agree.

Quote from Percy

A chap ought not to be forced into fatherhood, and he can ensure that by avoiding shagging a woman who is not his wife, and accept that the biological purpose of shagging is to make babies.

It ain't rocket science but it is science!

Quote from llllKEVINllll

well, i cant and wont be forced into being a father. children need two parents that are married, happy, and financially secure to raise a child. THE CHILD WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF TO BE ADOPTED, IN MY OPINION

Or, you can not have sex until you are ready to have a child. Death does not come from abstinence, but freedom does.

Quote from oilerny

But once she is pregnant, it is the woman that makes all the choices. And she is making choices for the man too. She is doing his family planning for him. No one would enforce that on a woman, so why should it be enforces - with the weight of the state - on the man?

Again, I agree with Percy.

Dinohip51 makes an interesting contribution.

In para one though there is a logical syllogism that does not work. There is no consequence that can negate a moral causative. It is no use throwing the book of navigation rules overboard just because a rogue boat driven by a drunk rams you.

But the point is made that a failure to prosecute the rogue boat driver is a major problem. And only the morally-based arguement that follows can fix that.

The entire thrust of the peice underscores the primacy of morality. The proposition that a woman can do something illegal and get away with it by claiming victimhood, is based on intellectual DISHONESTY on her part and the reliance upon coercive power against the innocent by the legal system.

These are moral issues.

"Throwing away" all the moral arguements will simply disarm us totally and leave us in the maw of the beast.

Whether she kidnaps the child or not, in most cases she is the one choosing to tear the family apart. I don't think she should be rewarded for that as that only encourages more single motherhood. It's funny that morality comes into play when it comes to fathers paying but not when the mother decides to destroy the family for the smallest of reasons.

Quote from Garak

Her body, her choice, her fuckin responsibility. You want to make men half responsible, you give men all the rights women have including an opt out after conception.

Repped. You hit the nail on the head.

Wasn't there some protest a couple of hundred years ago like this? It had something to do with "No taxation without representation?"

I seem to remember that it had quite a lot of long term consequences...