The man wouldn't be able to abdicate responsibility at any possible moment?
He would have (ideally) a little less time than the woman would have to abort, that way she could abort if he waits until the last possible moment to sign away his rights/obligations. If he fails to do so by then he's on the hook provided princess can prove he knew about the pregnancy.
Biology is not unfair.
Biology is what it is. It's a set of constraints we have to work under. It's silly to talk about how fair or unfair it is since we can't change it.
MGTOWs and MRAs, like feminists, are at war with biology.
Depending on what you mean by this I may or may not agree with you. If you're talking about denying its basic realities then only the feminists do that. If you mean going against the evolutionary imperative of continuing the species at all costs, then yeah they all do that. The difference is that the MGTOWs and MRAs are doing so as a rational response to the incentives they face. Their behavior will change when and if their incentives change. The feminists do it because they're hateful pieces of shit who are bent on destroying anything that doesn't exclusively cater to them. The only solution to that is to set society up in a way that makes their antisocial behavior impossible.
Seems a rather illogical reason for an abortion ban.
Only if you think that personal responsibility is a burden that only hated classes of people should have to carry like the left does. For some reason people stop giving a shit about her sacred choice when they're the ones who have to suffer all the negative consequences of it. Funny how that works.
saying that nature and biology is terribly unfair and that we need to equalize things by means of social engineering
This is a total straw man of the MGTOW/MRA position. A woman getting a free meal ticket at a man's expense when she pops out a kid against his wishes isn't an immutable result of biology. It's a result of a rotten culture that values her whims over his survival. This has nothing to do with the "my body my choice" bullshit that only applies to favored groups. It's about her getting to offload all the negative consequences of her precious choice onto someone else because the society doesn't value that person. It's the culture they're saying is unfair, not biology.
My ideas are no more social engineering than the current system, or even the prefeminism days. Men evolved to spread their seed as widely as possible, and sticking with the first woman he knocked up would have gotten in the way of that. We also evolved to solve our conflicts violently and engage in a lot of other antisocial behavior because it served us well in nature. Women have a horrible taste in men for the same reason. Our natural state really isn't conducive to civilization, which is why we set up rules and punishments to keep people from acting like animals all the time. You can call that social engineering, civilization, or whatever you want. But it's silly to act like we don't create social structures that encourage behavior we wouldn't otherwise get all the time. The problem with feminism is that it incentives rotten behavior that harms society instead of helping it, often with a justification that denies biological reality. If you want to make the case that financial abortion makes society worse and not better I'll listen with an open mind. But we're really not discussing an attempt to deny biological reality like your social engineering comment suggests. We're just debating the merits of different approaches within the constraints that biology creates.
He would have (ideally) a little less time than the woman would have to abort, that way she could abort if he waits until the last possible moment to sign away his rights/obligations. If he fails to do so by then he's on the hook provided princess can prove he knew about the pregnancy.
Biology is what it is. It's a set of constraints we have to work under. It's silly to talk about how fair or unfair it is since we can't change it.
Depending on what you mean by this I may or may not agree with you. If you're talking about denying its basic realities then only the feminists do that. If you mean going against the evolutionary imperative of continuing the species at all costs, then yeah they all do that. The difference is that the MGTOWs and MRAs are doing so as a rational response to the incentives they face. Their behavior will change when and if their incentives change. The feminists do it because they're hateful pieces of shit who are bent on destroying anything that doesn't exclusively cater to them. The only solution to that is to set society up in a way that makes their antisocial behavior impossible.
Only if you think that personal responsibility is a burden that only hated classes of people should have to carry like the left does. For some reason people stop giving a shit about her sacred choice when they're the ones who have to suffer all the negative consequences of it. Funny how that works.
This is a total straw man of the MGTOW/MRA position. A woman getting a free meal ticket at a man's expense when she pops out a kid against his wishes isn't an immutable result of biology. It's a result of a rotten culture that values her whims over his survival. This has nothing to do with the "my body my choice" bullshit that only applies to favored groups. It's about her getting to offload all the negative consequences of her precious choice onto someone else because the society doesn't value that person. It's the culture they're saying is unfair, not biology.
My ideas are no more social engineering than the current system, or even the prefeminism days. Men evolved to spread their seed as widely as possible, and sticking with the first woman he knocked up would have gotten in the way of that. We also evolved to solve our conflicts violently and engage in a lot of other antisocial behavior because it served us well in nature. Women have a horrible taste in men for the same reason. Our natural state really isn't conducive to civilization, which is why we set up rules and punishments to keep people from acting like animals all the time. You can call that social engineering, civilization, or whatever you want. But it's silly to act like we don't create social structures that encourage behavior we wouldn't otherwise get all the time. The problem with feminism is that it incentives rotten behavior that harms society instead of helping it, often with a justification that denies biological reality. If you want to make the case that financial abortion makes society worse and not better I'll listen with an open mind. But we're really not discussing an attempt to deny biological reality like your social engineering comment suggests. We're just debating the merits of different approaches within the constraints that biology creates.