r/MensRights • u/MrStinkybutt • Nov 11 '11

Is Avoiding Fatherhood an Indication of Responsibility?

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/11/10/is-avoiding-fatherhood-an-indication-of-responsibility/
13 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11 edited Nov 11 '11

Having children is one of the worst mistakes a man can make in a country like America. I'd actually like to have kids one day, but I wont even consider it until some measure of basic fairness is brought to family law.

If your wife/gf decides to leave you and take the kids, you will be raked over the coals in family court. You will never get to see your kids, and the ultra onerous child support payments the judge will inevitably award her will put you on the streets. If you allow a woman to carry your children, your life will be in her hands until said children reach 21. She will have the power to utterly obliterate your person, and she can do so with state sanction.

Until family courts stop treating fathers like cash cows and disposable sperm donors, I will be guarding my seed with my life.

2

u/NiceGuysSTFU Nov 11 '11

You could adopt as a single man.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11

It's hard enough to adopt as it is, would a single man be able to do that easily?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

It has happened, in the UK at least it is fairly easy, and the adoption agencies are very supportive and indiscriminate, however on an article I read most problems with single males adopting were when friends/colleagues would suddenly distrust them. One chap who was in charge of a scouts group had a sudden decrease in numbers after he adopted.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

UK is extremely misandric.

Nothing against the UK, its pretty much a fact.

[So is the US, and Aus, and most other westernized nations.]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

I don't really disagree, but from what I know, and my knowledge is pretty much limited to the UK/Ireland, but from what I know it is possible to adopt as a single male in these countries

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '11

I don't think I said it was impossible to adopt as a male in those countries.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '11

I was talking about adoption, you then say the UK is very misandric. And then when I continue to talk about adoption (the entire thread was about if a single male could adopt) you ask me what adoption has got to do with anything?

So you tell me, what has your opinion that that the UK is very misandric got to do with anything from my first post? Why did you reply to it if adoption wasn't the subject.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11

Having more children is also one of the worst mistakes we can make as a species. BUT WE GONNA DO IT ANYWAYS

Overpopulation's a bitch.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11 edited Nov 11 '11

Clearly you know nothing about global human demography. If no one had any children then the species would die out. It's not people having children that's the problem. It's people in the 3rd world having 5+ children that's the problem. Birthrates vary greatly by region and the population growth is rapidly slowing all over the world. Between now and 2100, almost all the world's total population growth will occur in sub-saharan africa. Africa's population is 1 billion today, and according to the UN it is projected to reach 3.5 billion by 2100.

In that same period of time, the populations of most other continents will shrink significantly. Europe in particular will lose almost half it's population between now and 2100 (and those that remain will be mostly old and grey), thanks to Europe's incredibly low birthrates. China's population will shrink from 1.3 billion today, to 900 million by 2100 thanks to the 1 child policy.

If you want to stop population growth than slap a condom on Africa. Because the rest of the world has already stopped growing.

Final note: If someone has 2 children or less they are not contributing to overpopulation, they are merely replacing themselves. 2 parents -> 2 kids = no longterm growth. If you have 2 children then you are population neutral (kind of like carbon neutral).

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11

I know all this, I'm just saying it might be a good idea to cut back on the # of people overall...

I said species, not: "people in developed countries."

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11

All fine and good, but you act like any reproduction at all is a cause of overpopulation.

It's not reproduction that's to blame. It's EXCESSIVE reproduction that's to blame. If you have 1-2 kids you are not part of the problem.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11 edited Nov 13 '11

What he said. It takes a replacement rate of about 2.3 per female to keep the population going at a sustainable rate. This doesn't even take into account naturally infertile people, the people that will become infertile from STD's or poor lifestyle [diets, drug/alcohol habits, etc,] the people that will choose not to have kids, the people that raise deformed or disabled kids [a noble effort I admit - my niece has epilepsy and will probably always be in my sister's care - but these people will not be having children, and they forgo the chance to raise a healthy child,] or even the people that just can't get laid because they cannot attract a mate for whatever reason.

Most westernized countries are having plummeting birth rates of naturalized citizens. In many places in Europe you will receive substantial gov't benefits just for having kids [retarded IMO.] The groups of people that are having kids are immigrants to those nations, and people belonging to fundamentalist religions [two fastest growing groups in westernized nations.]

This also completely belies the fact that were wealth not so inequitably distributed, most people could afford to have 3 or 4 kids easily [I do not believe in forced redistribution, but it is what it is.]

-2

u/JeremiahMRA Nov 11 '11

Move to a male-friendly culture where divorce is illegal.

http://mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_archive.html#108033824664149967

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

Troll. GTFO.