or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Body My Choice- For men too.. - Page 4

post #121 of 382
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl. This may seem completely ridiculous and paranoid, but it is known to happen (the hijacking).
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #122 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.

Uhh, NO! Just like you can't force a woman to have a baby, you can't force a woman to abort a baby. NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT. The woman has all the rights to her body as she wants. It is male opt-out that is being proposed here. The male should be able to opt-in (assuming the female is A-OK to proceed with the baby) or opt-out (still giving the female the choice of whatever she pleases to do with her body). She may even be smart and "opt-out" herself, if she realizes there won't be a man there to support her little project. If she is still opt-in, then she knows she will be on her own in the endeavor. Sad, but that's what she wants. The man shouldn't be "forced" into anything anymore than the woman is "forced" into anything.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #123 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Because the courts are slow, you don't mess something else up.

This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.

They can't have a physical abortion since they don't have the child on them. But they could have a "legal" abortion with regard to being able to terminate their parental rights.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Uhh, NO! Just like you can't force a woman to have a baby, you can't force a woman to abort a baby. NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT. The woman has all the rights to her body as she wants. It is male opt-out that is being proposed here.

No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.

There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #125 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.

There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.

How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?

Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?

As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #126 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?

No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?

Ends don't justify the means.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?

Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.

With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #127 of 382
Quote:
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?

Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?

As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?

Damn you and your infernal logic!!!!
post #128 of 382
As long as I'm allowed to consider the men who "opt-out" worthless sacks of amoral garbage I'm fine with it morally as long as it is done before the second trimester of pregnancy is over.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #129 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'

Ends don't justify the means.

Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.

With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.

The assumptions about where the argument leads are your own. I stated quite clearly that men should have an opt-out for parental rights. I have continued to say so in this thread even when others have claimed it would INCREASE the number of abortions.

Second part... silly...ends don't justify the means..

Why don't you just admit that instead of giving women equality, you want to give them a protected status. It would be more intellectually honest of you. Giving men the ability to opt out changes nothing, I repeat NOTHING, about a woman's current rights.

Just cough up that women would rather remain weak and needing both men's money, repression of men's rights and governmental money to truly have their "choice" and be equal.

Otherwise you should give men the opt-out and stop protecting women while allowing them to exercise both true choice, rights and responsibilites for their actions. True empowerment and equality doesn't require repression.

As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.

Men should be afforded the same level of equality.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #130 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
As long as I'm allowed to consider the men who "opt-out" worthless sacks of amoral garbage I'm fine with it morally as long as it is done before the second trimester of pregnancy is over.

That's fine with me, but I'm curious. What do you consider the woman who opt out via an abortion?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #131 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That's fine with me, but I'm curious. What do you consider the woman who opt out via an abortion?

Nick

I consider her as a woman who does not want to be a mother or ruin her life at least on the moment the pregnancy occurred.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #132 of 382
By your standards, she should also be a "deadbeat mom" who would not be in such an unnecessary predicament if she had exercised abstinence. Being that this is an "unnecessary predicament", she should just "deal with it", have the baby, and pay the consequences.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #133 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl. This may seem completely ridiculous and paranoid, but it is known to happen (the hijacking).

Hehe. Another listener. I love it. Happy birthday Tom!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #134 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl.

Oh, you put the tabasco sauce in AFTER.
post #135 of 382
Well, I did say "used condom", unless your into absurd degrees of conservation and recycling. eeww!

That Tom, living the "man's life" just how nature intended...
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #136 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Oh, you put the tabasco sauce in AFTER.

Oh come on BRussell, you know you liked all the comments about your spicy love making.


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #137 of 382
Oh now I figured out why there are 18 bottles of tabasco and other hot sauce in someone's fridge
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #138 of 382
"Tom Leykis [radio talk show host in Seattle] encourages guys to put Tabasco sauce in used condoms before disposing of them. The idea being that if a woman tries to retrieve the "juice" she will be in for a nasty surprise.

One hardcore listener did this and the girl attempted to inseminate herself with the used condom. The resulting burns prompted her to take him to court where the judge threw the case out as he is welcome to dispose of his bodily fluids in anyway he sees fit.

Then the good part comes. The guy counter sues for emotional distress." [here]

" - Never @#%$ without a condom. No matter how much she says I just want to feel you dont @#%$ her without a condom. But, thats not enough. When you finish, you must dispose of the condom properly. At her house you flush it. At your house you keep a bottle of Tabasco in the bathroom and you put two drops in the condom, and throw it away. (you dont want to stop up your own plumbing with condoms)
" - [here]
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #139 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.

Men should be afforded the same level of equality.

I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #140 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.

I think you need to stop attempting to delay the question to the time when both parties have fewer rights because the baby is born and deal with it when both parties have maximum rights because it is a fetus.

Likewise you still make assumptions about a man and what he would have to do to claim his parental rights. In what surely demonstrates the absurdity of the law, he couldn't renounce the rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father, and likewise he couldn't claim them even if he was the birth father if the mother claimed he wasn't.

She has all the power in this instance. He can gain some after lengthy testing and court hearings. You claim we need to shorten the time, but don't state how when the courts are already overloaded.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #141 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.

Men should be afforded the same level of equality.

I've already explained that to achieve this you just have to sponsor a campaign for men to kidnap their newly born children and then leave them in dumpsters to die.

That's what women did to earn these 'rights'. If you're not prepared to put the effort in then you don't deserve them.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #142 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I think you need to stop attempting to delay the question to the time when both parties have fewer rights because the baby is born and deal with it when both parties have maximum rights because it is a fetus.

Likewise you still make assumptions about a man and what he would have to do to claim his parental rights. In what surely demonstrates the absurdity of the law, he couldn't renounce the rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father, and likewise he couldn't claim them even if he was the birth father if the mother claimed he wasn't.

She has all the power in this instance. He can gain some after lengthy testing and court hearings. You claim we need to shorten the time, but don't state how when the courts are already overloaded.

Nick

You're just wrong. A man can 'renounce [his] rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father. You say so yourself above. He has to go through a court process but he can. You're upset because it takes a while. Sorry. The problem with this particular facet of the issue is the length of time, not the existence or non-existence of certain rights. So if a man is not the father, he does have that right.

If a man is the father, he can offer the kid up for adoption if the mother is willing. The mother can offer the kid up for adoption if the father is willing.

If the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't, he gets it. He can, in some instances, get child support too.

The only issue left is the 'opt-out' clause you want. You compare it to abortion but they're not equitable. If an abortion left the father with a child to raise on his own, then they would be more similar. An abortion doesn't.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #143 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead.

Only if the father has also abandoned the child. Otherwise the father gets custody and can even get child support.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #144 of 382
The fundamental issue here is that a woman has the sole authority to abort during her pregnancy. She has a limited time frame to do so, limited by both a delayed recognition of her pregnancy and the third trimester restrictions placed by the states. A man has no authority in these matters, as it is a woman's body and subsequently a woman's choice that matters. This biological difference between the sexes gives disproportionate authority to women, who may decide whether to have that child with a husband and/or significant other, to have that child and collect child support payments from the baby's biological but estranged father, or finally to not have that child. A man is sidelined by these biological differences that have also granted disproportionate (but parallel) legal rights to women.

Some suggest that it is unfair for men to have consensual safe sex with a woman, have contraception fail, subsequently impregnate his partner, and have the woman decide to give birth to the child (which he is then liable for child support payments). The imbalance here, of course, is that women can use abortion as a form of post-contraception, whereas men can only hope for low failure rates of contraception and the exercising of a woman's right to choose (should he impregnate his partner). By no means can I say that this is fair. As a man who relishes the idea of nonreproductive safe sex, I am at financial risk every time I have sex. Whatever the circumstances may be, I could be liable for 18 years of payments based on one night and a broken condom.

I accept the unfairness as biological. If one believes it is a woman's body and a woman's choice, then we must submit to this biological difference that is, yes, unfair. Some suggest we correct the imbalance by giving the same opportunity to men... that is the opportunity to relinquish parental rights to a child. This is foolish. In a woman's case, by no means does she have the right to relinquish her parental rights to a child without paying child support payments or by some extenuating circumstance. To give this legal right to men would be unconscionable and a superficial way of trying to achieve "equal rights" where they cannot be made equal. What women have is the legal right to terminate a pregnancy before it comes to term. By no means can you abdicate parental responsibilities to an unwanted, unborn fetus/child. And that is the distinction- the fine line that so many bulldoze over in their ongoing struggle with the consequences of sex and how it affects who.

Men have to pay.
Women have to pay.
But women can avert the whole ordeal by receiving an abortion....and it pisses some men off.

Women have something that men want- the womb and the limited legal rights to do with it what they please.
post #145 of 382
It's late, and I may be wrong, but that post pretty much sums everything up perfectly.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #146 of 382
How is it that people keep imagining that men are pursuing some great mission to exact control over a woman's womb??? It's a good headline, but are there really men out there who really give that big a damn over what a woman does to herself? She wants an abortion- fine. She wants to keep it- fine. If he doesn't want it, she can deal with the child support on her own. If she doesn't want to deal with the child support alone, then she shouldn't have it or give it up for adoption. Less babies will be born into half-assed home environments. Less inroads for fraud and manipulation. Everybody gets what they want.

The only people getting "forced" and/or exploited as of now are the men. Anybody who thinks everything is "just fine" the way it is now, is either delusional or seeks to be an accomplice to the ensuing exploitation.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #147 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You're just wrong. A man can 'renounce [his] rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father. You say so yourself above. He has to go through a court process but he can. You're upset because it takes a while. Sorry. The problem with this particular facet of the issue is the length of time, not the existence or non-existence of certain rights. So if a man is not the father, he does have that right.

If a man is the father, he can offer the kid up for adoption if the mother is willing. The mother can offer the kid up for adoption if the father is willing.

If the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't, he gets it. He can, in some instances, get child support too.

The only issue left is the 'opt-out' clause you want. You compare it to abortion but they're not equitable. If an abortion left the father with a child to raise on his own, then they would be more similar. An abortion doesn't.

Bungie,

The real issue with all of this is you assume a best case circumstance. A father can eventually get his himself declared not the father against a mother who has named him so. However do you know there are courts that still haven't removed the support owed during the time he was the "father." Likewise there have been men named who were never even associated with the woman and find out five years later when all the suddent their tax returns disappear after they have been "located" and suddenly have to begin paying their "support" for a child they never knew about.

Likewise you have seen me post direct from the websites state laws that courts cannot give back or reduce owed child support. They can only credit it on future child support. Well what good does that do you if someone has named you and they have been garnishing your wages for 2 years? You don't get a dime of that money back.

How is that equality? A two year court fight against the county with unlimited (compared to your salary) resources while at the same time they are taking your wages that you would use to win the fight. When you do, you don't get a dime of it back.

You wish to avoid the issue of opting out because the county would have to notify the father and let him terminate his rights just avoiding this whole court issue, all of which is based off the simply hearsay of the mother, nothing else.

Likewise you just don't want to admit that women have a pretty nice racket knocking themselves up and getting 33% of a man's take home pay for the next 18 years while having to provide nothing in return. They can even use the fact he didn't see his child, that he didn't even know about, to show what a bad father he was to deny his custody.

You should just admit your biases. You don't see women as equals. You think that for 15 minutes of fun, they should get all control, all authority, and a heck of a lot of money for 18 years. Not because you consider them equal, but because you consider them weak and needing a man's money and disproportionate protection from society.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #148 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
The fundamental issue here is that a woman has the sole authority to abort during her pregnancy. She has a limited time frame to do so, limited by both a delayed recognition of her pregnancy and the third trimester restrictions placed by the states. A man has no authority in these matters, as it is a woman's body and subsequently a woman's choice that matters. This biological difference between the sexes gives disproportionate authority to women, who may decide whether to have that child with a husband and/or significant other, to have that child and collect child support payments from the baby's biological but estranged father, or finally to not have that child. A man is sidelined by these biological differences that have also granted disproportionate (but parallel) legal rights to women.

Lots of words, little time addressing the issue. Additionally you forget the history that gets us here today.

Biology does not give disproportionate advantage to a woman. It gives her a distinct disadvantage. Science, and society have turned this disadvantage into a protection. In the past if a woman got pregnant there were no support laws and also no abortion. Thus society used social coercion in an attempt to keep women out of a bad spot. (names like bastard son, etc.) The bad spot was 15 minutes of sex could guarantee a woman 18 years of raising a child alone with no assistance from a man.

Women, of course objected to this. Why should men be able to have sex without recourse (with no support laws it was without recourse) and women not be able to do so? So they mobilized and worked with the assistance of some men as well, to pass laws, bring about lawsuits etc that legalized abortion nationwide and also brought about a means of collecting money from the fathers of the children.

At this point their biology, because of the twin ability to demand both equality and societal protection in the same breath, has become an advantage. Our society loves to believe women innocent of all wrong doing. So if she aborts it is her choice. If she wants give it up for adoption, she can refuse to name the father and deny him his rights. His rights typically terminate within 6 months after the baby is given up for adoption. Likewise she can abandon the child and the state will not prosecute her for abandoning her parental role. In all these scenarios the man's rights can simply be ignored by her not naming him. The state gives a claiming timeframe, but they do not have to notify the father. In otherwords if she wishes not to be a parent, they will help her terminate both her and his rights.

The differences again are not caused by biology. That is a false premise. Biology has given the mother a disadvantage which she has sought, through societal protection to turn into an advantage. The man is not sidelined. He is ignored until the woman decides what she wishes to do. If she decides to not name him, he could pursue the matter with his own money. Regardless of what she decides, the government will pay for her to be given her rights.

Tell me something Shawn, how can something be a right if there is an entry bar of cost associated with that right? You don't have to pay to keep soldiers out of your home, nor to have free speech. A man must pay to establish his parenting rights. What happens if he cannot pay? He loses them. Likewise many states put the onus on the father and simply declare him to have abandoned the child and his rights if he has not established paternity by the time the child is born. Most states treat a child from an unmarried mother as if it has only one parent and thus only need one persons consent.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the issue.

Quote:
Rights of Unwed Fathers
The identity of the father of a child born out of wedlock is not always certain. A man may claim to be a child's father or is alleged to be by others. Historically, unless fatherhood was legally established in a paternity action, such "putative" or unwed fathers had few rights with respect to their children. But, since 1972, and following a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases, State laws have changed. Today, unwed fathers may have full rights to have custody of their children and may consent to or veto their adoption. Unlike other fathers, however, they must earn these rights. State laws set
forth what actions an unwed father must take. The most common steps are as follows:

Submit one's name to a registry of putative fathers or State registry of vital statistics

Acknowledge the child by signing the birth certificate or by some other act

Act, or attempt to act, like a father, by providing care and support and by communicating with the child

Obtain a court order establishing paternity.

These steps usually must take place prior to the petition for adoption. It is usually too late to seek or exert parental rights once the adoption effort is under way.

In recent years, a number of highly publicized adoption cases involving the late emergence of unwed fathers have captured the attention of the public. Typically, these cases involved an unwed father who, pleading ignorance of the child's birth, seeks to set aside or prevent an adoption. Several States have responded by limiting putative fathers' rights through changes in consent provisions. Others have enacted more sweeping changes. In 1995, for example, Utah enacted a new state law that presumes a father is on notice that a child may be born and an adoption may occur simply if he had a sexual relationship with a woman. Thereafter, actual notice of an adoption proceeding is limited to fathers who take affirmative steps, such as initiating a paternity action.

Then we move on to this part...

Quote:
Some suggest that it is unfair for men to have consensual safe sex with a woman, have contraception fail, subsequently impregnate his partner, and have the woman decide to give birth to the child (which he is then liable for child support payments). The imbalance here, of course, is that women can use abortion as a form of post-contraception, whereas men can only hope for low failure rates of contraception and the exercising of a woman's right to choose (should he impregnate his partner). By no means can I say that this is fair. As a man who relishes the idea of nonreproductive safe sex, I am at financial risk every time I have sex. Whatever the circumstances may be, I could be liable for 18 years of payments based on one night and a broken condom.

The imbalance is not in contraception. It is in the family court and societal view that men parent by giving a paycheck. The notion that women nuture and parent while men provide is the most antiquated aspect of this entire debate. It shows the twin trails that feminism has followed. Equality, but with new protections that force men even more rigidly into a narrow gender role. Within a marriage both adults parent and both provide financially as they are able. A wife would never be allowed to declare a husband a bad father because one week he brough home a $1000 paycheck and the next week he was only able to muster up $400.

Child support has is established using formulas dreamed up by a governmental agency and declared "what a man is able to pay." You can find them on websites and see that as the woman choses to earn less, the man must pay more. Even when the custody time remains the same. You can of course declare that the reverse is true, but you would also have to show statistically that men are is likely to receive joint or full custody which is simply untrue. A formula can work both ways, but not if a court will only rule one way.

Likewise this is shown by courts that will given men absolutely no custody at all, often based on nothing more than a woman's word that the man could be menacing, abusive, etc. When this happens she has effectively denied his parental rights. She can move away and not allow him to see his child. If a man does it, it is kidnapping, if a woman does it, it is an unauthorized custody issue which must be resolved in the family courts. Amazingly enough the woman can often use these actions as signs of abandonment, actions she took can be used as abandonment signs by him and she can get the court to order that he have no custody of his own child.

So as you can see the unfairness goes well beyond conception.

(See more)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #149 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I accept the unfairness as biological. If one believes it is a woman's body and a woman's choice, then we must submit to this biological difference that is, yes, unfair. Some suggest we correct the imbalance by giving the same opportunity to men... that is the opportunity to relinquish parental rights to a child. This is foolish. In a woman's case, by no means does she have the right to relinquish her parental rights to a child without paying child support payments or by some extenuating circumstance. To give this legal right to men would be unconscionable and a superficial way of trying to achieve "equal rights" where they cannot be made equal. What women have is the legal right to terminate a pregnancy before it comes to term. By no means can you abdicate parental responsibilities to an unwanted, unborn fetus/child. And that is the distinction- the fine line that so many bulldoze over in their ongoing struggle with the consequences of sex and how it affects who.

You are welcome to accept your unfairness. It seems you have been well trained/brainwashed. A woman does have a choice regarding her body. However a man should have a choice regarding his as well. A woman, when having relations with a man to whom she has no legal commitment ought to have to do more than just blurt out a name and expect support for 18 years. The state may provide protections during the pregnancy but after the pregnancy they should be considered equals. The custody should be joint default with the man financially responsible for his time, and she for hers. If she is abandoned, or even feels abandoned, then there is abortion, adoption and abandonment.

You say that men opting out is a superficial way of attemping to make equal what cannot be made equal. I would ask you then, what are child support, abortion, and custody. They are superficial societal attempts to make equal that which cannot be made equal. Women have the womb and thus must have the ultimate responsibility. Abortion, adoption and abandonment are there if they choose not to take that responsibility. If they are uncommitted they have the resposibility to decide what to do. If they choose a child, that is fine but we must stop criminalizing men for not committing to something they never committed to in the first place. Commitment involves two people, not one person and various state and police agencies forcing the other party to comply. Women ultimately decide their own fate. Men should be allowed the same right.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #150 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Bungie,

The real issue with all of this is you assume a best case circumstance.

Yes. I assume a man is keeping track of his sperm.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
A father can eventually get his himself declared not the father against a mother who has named him so. However do you know there are courts that still haven't removed the support owed during the time he was the "father."

Well, then we've found another broken law opting out doesn't effect. You see, you're leaving the system fscked. That's backwards. If a law is bad, fix that law. Don't apply a band-aid.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You wish to avoid the issue of opting out because the county would have to notify the father and let him terminate his rights just avoiding this whole court issue, all of which is based off the simply hearsay of the mother, nothing else.

Try again. Don't tell me what I wish and then make up some bullcrap that no one believes or understands. Argue what I've written and don't make stuff up.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise you just don't want to admit that women have a pretty nice racket knocking themselves up....

How can a woman 'knock herself up'? Where do you come up with this crap? Keep track of your sperm.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You should just admit your biases. You don't see women as equals. You think that for 15 minutes of fun, they should get all control, all authority, and a heck of a lot of money for 18 years. Not because you consider them equal, but because you consider them weak and needing a man's money and disproportionate protection from society.

Try again. Don't tell me what I wish and then make up some bullcrap that no one believes or understands. Argue what I've written and don't make stuff up.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #151 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Yes. I assume a man is keeping track of his sperm.

Well then you assume too much because courts will name a man the father of a child without a paternity test. They will do so when the mother names a name. So argue with reality, not your assumptions.

Quote:
Well, then we've found another broken law opting out doesn't effect. You see, you're leaving the system fscked. That's backwards. If a law is bad, fix that law. Don't apply a band-aid.

Opting out does fix it because now you must get his consent to parent instead of just assuming it. You can't go get a support order for someone who never consented to be a parent. The law isn't bad, the assumption behind it is bad. The assumption is that fathers want to parent just because they had sex. When we make this assumption with women we are called neanderthals and sexist. Sex is sex and parenting is parenting. This is why you likely arguing that father's being able to opt out is closely tied to abortion rights when it isn't. Women and woman's groups have made clear that sex is for pleasure, parenting is a choice. That should work both ways.

Quote:
Try again. Don't tell me what I wish and then make up some bullcrap that no one believes or understands. Argue what I've written and don't make stuff up.

I am arguing what you have written. You just won't address the issue. You want women to be equal but have additional protections. That isn't equal. Men and women being equal means having the same rights regarding a choice about parenting. You refuse to acknowledge or even discuss that. You keep harping on an extreme to prove a generalization. I know if I did the reverse you would call me on it. Declaring that a woman doesn't have a right to refuse parenting because she choose to have sex, choose to have the child and choose to do so knowing she named, or had an involved father is still three more choices than the man was ever given.

Likewise I suppose you would endorse restricting abortion to only those cases where rape, incest and physical health is involved. I know for a fact that you would not let the extremes dismiss the generalize application there and you shouldn't with father's rights either.

Quote:
How can a woman 'knock herself up'? Where do you come up with this crap? Keep track of your sperm.

First I don't have any outstanding sperm issues, so keep your condemnations to yourself. Secondly a woman can knock herself up by taking the contents of a condom and using it on herself. Likewise when she takes no responsibility for her actions, nor her own birthcontrol, I do consider that knocking herself up even though another party is involved. It is sort of like being choosing to make yourself a deadbeat dad by having sex for 15 minutes.


Quote:
Try again. Don't tell me what I wish and then make up some bullcrap that no one believes or understands. Argue what I've written and don't make stuff up.

I have argued what you have written. You just won't admit why you prefer an unequal solution. If you argued that whites were smarter than blacks, I wouldn't have to argue what you have posted to know you were racist. Likewise when you argue that women inheritly need protections and the expense and rights of men, it is sexist. Those are your biases. They are revealed by what you post and that is the title given to it.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #152 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You just won't admit why you prefer an unequal solution.

If a man is the father, he can offer the kid up for adoption if the mother is willing. The mother can offer the kid up for adoption if the father is willing.

If the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't, he gets it. He can, in some instances, get child support too.

What situation is unequal? You bring up bad laws but offer no solutions to fix them. You bring up the opt-out clause as a band-aid for other bad laws you're unwilling to fix. What situation is unequal? That a mother can have an abortion? I'll send you back to the first post I made in this thread.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #153 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
[...] a woman can knock herself up by taking the contents of a condom and using it on herself. Likewise when she takes no responsibility for her actions, nor her own birthcontrol, I do consider that knocking herself up even though another party is involved. It is sort of like being choosing to make yourself a deadbeat dad by having sex for 15 minutes.


Thatswhy the canadian radio star suggested the single guys to have a tabasco bottle in your bathroom. Put a few drops of tabasco to the condom after the use so she'll feel something nasty is she is bitch enough to try to do what you describe above. .. And there are more effective and nastier liquids to drop to the condom as well. Some liquids used for washing clothes are quite odorless and colorless but if they feel like they are burning your skin if you accidentally drop a drop of it t your skin, I can only image what would happen if that stuff ends inside someone. AFAIK by the law your are allowed to do what ever you want with YOUR body liquids, at least in your own house.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #154 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
If a man is the father, he can offer the kid up for adoption if the mother is willing. The mother can offer the kid up for adoption if the father is willing.

Incorrect the father cannot claim paternity unless the mother has named him. Likewise the mother does not need his consent for adoption unless she has previously named him as the father, or he has been notified and attempted to prove his paternity before the adoption proceedings began. If he has not been notified and thus not claimed paternity, he has no rights. The all revert to the woman to do with as she wishes.

Quote:
If the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't, he gets it. He can, in some instances, get child support too.

And what does this have to do with the reverse? She does not, "in some instances" get child support. She walks in, declares that he hasn't paid, gives them a date and a supposed amount per month, and they take it from there.

Likewise you still make assumptions that the mother would forgo the parenting role after having several other choices to forgo it previously. She only ends up "trapped" with support when she chose not to abort, adopt, name the father and give up her custody to him.

Men would love to have three choices to make before they ended up paying support.

Quote:
What situation is unequal? You bring up bad laws but offer no solutions to fix them. You bring up the opt-out clause as a band-aid for other bad laws you're unwilling to fix. What situation is unequal? That a mother can have an abortion? I'll send you back to the first post I made in this thread.

That is incorrect. I specifically mentioned that men should be required to have notification and a right of refusal regarding their parenting. This would at least force the woman to name the man who is the father. Secondly I said in a post to Shawn that custody should be joint default legal and physical with the man financially responsible for insuring against neglect for his 50% and she being responsible for her 50%. (Thus no support issues)

Both instances assume treating a man as more than a paycheck ,having him named and involved. They assume that in support the child he spends his money so that he may be a parent and for the child's benefit. He shouldn't have to support the mother. He has made no commitment to her and owes her no obligation. His commitment is to the child which he can have default 50% of the time.

If he doesn't want to be a father 50% of the time, that is why he should have refusal. If she doesn't care to have a man she is uncommitted to involved in her life via the child, she can abort. If neither of them wish to deal with this agreement, they can mutually agree to adoption.

All of these things I have mentioned previously.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #155 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
Thatswhy the canadian radio star suggested the single guys to have a tabasco bottle in your bathroom. Put a few drops of tabasco to the condom after the use so she'll feel something nasty is she is bitch enough to try to do what you describe above. .. And there are more effective and nastier liquids to drop to the condom as well. Some liquids used for washing clothes are quite odorless and colorless but if they feel like they are burning your skin if you accidentally drop a drop of it t your skin, I can only image what would happen if that stuff ends inside someone. AFAIK by the law your are allowed to do what ever you want with YOUR body liquids, at least in your own house.

I really don't care about radio shock jocks and tabasco sauce. I would rather have the laws changed to create equality. I'm sure black folks could have left nails on the seats when they had to give them up or move to the back of the bus. I think they preferred the boycott and equality.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #156 of 382
if the others lose their interest in this argue, trumptman, i assume that you take it as a victory to your point of view. i was for a moment thinking about answering something else on this thread but i'll just save my time. if your partner is female, you always have a minimum, existing risk of her getting pregnant unless a) you are unable to reproduce yourseld (have a vasectomy etc) and b) she is unable to reproduce herself (bmi under 13 or uterus removed etc).
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #157 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Incorrect the father cannot claim paternity unless the mother has named him.

Life's a bitch, ain't it? A woman can prove she's the mother because the baby is inside her. A man can't prove anything until there's a paternity test. There's no way around this. The law assumes the woman is telling the truth when she signs the birth certificate and there's no way to judge. Life's a bitch and sometimes it causes problems.

Opting out doesn't fix anything other than legalizing dead beat dads.

Let's take an account of the situation now.

After a birth, there is no disparity. Adopotion is available when both parents allow it. Dumping the kid at a firehouse too. No disparity here. If the father is 'unknown' then he's S.O.L. until a paternity test can be done. But a test can be done and solves any problems. There's no other way.

Before a birth a woman can have an abortion. That's it. A man can't have an abortion. That's it. There's is nothing equal to an abortion for a man.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #158 of 382
Sure there is. It's called the "opt-out", which is currently only sanctioned for women.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #159 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Sure there is. It's called the "opt-out", which is currently only sanctioned for women.

Explain this, because it's just not legally equal.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #160 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Explain this, because it's just not legally equal.

Functionally, it is. It's as simple as the sentence itself. What else is there to explain?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..