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 6

post #201 of 382
Yes, a test that the alleged father has to push for through the court system (potentially over the course of years) under the premise of guilty until proven innocent.

Better to just employ a system where the man can call "opt-out", suggest that the woman do the same, and if not, she bears the burden entirely upon herself. If she was lying, that forces her to reevaluate her sinister plan. If she really just wanted to be a single mother with baby, she is free to do so, but the "tab" for her "choice" will strictly be on her. If she wasn't lying, but was "mistaken" of who the father is, that forces her to think wisely about who she declares the father, if she really wants to keep the baby and seeks child support for it. Better declare one that actually wants to be a father and is confident he is actually the genetic donor for the baby.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #202 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Better to just employ a system where the man can call "opt-out", suggest that the woman do the same, and if not, she bears the burden entirely upon herself.

Again, you want more rights for a man than a woman. That's silly.

Opt-out /= abortion.
"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 #203 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Again, you want more rights for a man than a woman. That's silly.

It's only silly because you are waiting for some ideal solution to arise that never will. For the rest of us, it is a step forward that brings things closer to equal than it was before.

Quote:
Opt-out /= abortion.

This is entirely beside the point. There is no cosmic rule stating that it need be. You're repeating it only shows your intent to prevent the progression of this topic. "Opt-out" is a solution that brings the playing field closer to level. Some would say it would be functionally level, but I'll give you "closer" just to placate the sensitive types. At the very least, it blocks a major exploit in the system that women are fond to utilize at their whim.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #204 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's only silly because you are waiting for some ideal solution to arise that never will. For the rest of us, it is a step forward that brings things closer to equal than it was before.

I'm not waiting for anything, you guys are. Opt-out wouldn't be a step forward in the least. You guys just want no responsibility. Sorry.

If there are flaws in the system, opt-out doesn't fix them. Go fix them instead.
"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 #205 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
We can't protect men from women lying. It's just not possible. She has to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.

Of course it is possible. There are plenty of attempts to legally force women to name the father. They are fought tooth and nail by women's groups. Why? Because of course they make it harder for a woman to opt out of parenting via adoption. The real crux of this is women opting out of parenting. Letting her not name a father has absolutely nothing to do with innocent or guilty. Unless we believe in immaculate conception, there was a father and she should be compelled to name it.

Quote:
See, you want to push all the blame on to the mother. You want extra rights for men, not equality. Certainly the system can be exploited, but it can only be done by a women willing to lie, cheat and steal. Any system can be exploited by people willing to do that. You want to codify that right for men and that's wrong.

How it unequal or pushing the blame on the mother? I said the mother could still choose abortion if she didn't want to raise the child alone. If she chooses to abort before he makes any sort of decision, then it really doesn't matter what he chooses. I had to name a scenario where he chose first because the other is of no relevence. Men and women being allowed to opt out of parenting is equal, regardless of what you want to believe.

Quote:
No. It's her choice because it's her body. Like getting a tattoo or a piercing.

Don't side step. It is about reproductive rights. Any website you look into that is pro-choice calls abortion a reproductive rights issue. It isn't about privacy or just her body. It is about whether or not she chooses to parent.

I'll link to someone I think you would agree has a little experience with this. Planned Parenthood.

9 reasons for abortion

The clearly relevent ones..

Quote:
4. Being a mother is just one option for women.

Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom.

Quote:
6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

If there is any matter which is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

Just a little more..

Quote:
At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision?

It is as clear as day. Change compulsory pregancy to compulsary parenting, and you have my argument through this entire thread.

The arguments are clear. Parenting is a choice. Compulsary pregnancy/parenting is incompatible with a free society. Lastly abortion isn't about abortion. It is about making your own decisions regarding family, career, and how you want to live your life. Take the last sentence, "Do women have the option of when or whether to have child?" and you will see that men should have the same right.

Quote:
50-50 isn't 100% correct. I believe the decision has to go up in front of a judge and that's where the situation is decided. Going to a 50-50 system would create problems just as it fixes some. As I told you, I know of a case where the father was given custody. If it had gone 50-50 likely one of his children would be dead right now. The judge made the right choice.

Judges aren't always correct, but I trust them more than I do a blanket 50-50 situation.

Default means it would be the starting point. Believe it or not right now most custody does not start out equal. Obviously the judge still has discretion or even the ability to deny custody, especially with compelling reasons like one parent might kill the child. What I am speaking about is many women request sole custody, many men request joint and the court often awards men something like 3 out of 4 weekends per month with absolutely no compelling reason for the inequality. Those scenarios, where both parents are competent, caring and safe should default joint.

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 #206 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not waiting for anything, you guys are. Opt-out wouldn't be a step forward in the least. You guys just want no responsibility. Sorry.

No, that would be "default release of liability"- an unconditional release of responsibility. What has been suggested here is simply "opt-out". Each partner is given the choice to parent or not to parent, with the associated responsibility. If the would-be father wants to have the baby, then there would be responsibility. Right there, your description is not consistent with what is possible with an "opt-out" system in effect. Maybe you are expecting every would-be father to bolt, given this "equality". Maybe they would. However, that would also strongly indicate a whole lot of cases of births that should not be allowed to proceed (should the mother be capable to acknowledge the reality of the situation), instead of railroading their way to motherhood, everyone else be damned. The better father would be one that is so willingly, not one that is compelled to do so, and certainly not one that is forced to do so simply as a means of monetary child support. The babies that are born will then be the ones who benefit from 2 willing partners or 1 willing partner with focused determination, not 1 willing partner plus one legally-sanctioned labor slave to provide the actual child support.

Quote:
If there are flaws in the system, opt-out doesn't fix them.

Only from your narrow, inflexible viewpoint. Repeating over and over that nothing is fixed won't make it so. You just refuse to accept it (in exchange for no better solution, I might add). Functionally, it accomplishes quite a bit for real people involved in real situations.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #207 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
What has been suggested here is simply "opt-out". Each partner is given the choice to parent or not to parent, with the associated responsibility.

That is not what's been suggested. What's been suggested is to give that right to the man and not the woman.
"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 #208 of 382
The woman already has her rights wrt opt-out (though not precisely analogous, functionally it accomplishes the same). I thought this would be obvious, but maybe not for some people. It's either that or you are intent on grabbing at any remaining inconsistency you can think of and proclaiming, "ha-HA! I told you it won't fix anything!"
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #209 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
The woman already has her rights wrt opt-out (though not precisely analogous, functionally it accomplishes the same). I thought this would be obvious, but maybe not for some people. It's either that or you are intent on grabbing at any remaining inconsistency you can think of and proclaiming, "ha-HA! I told you it won't fix anything!"

That's precisely my point: abortion /= opt-out.

A woman can abort because it's biologically connected with her body. Shawn posted a good few paragraphs a little while ago. Give it a read.
"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 #210 of 382
Here's my opinion sans a throrough reading of the thread...

Choice means responsibility. If a woman has the choice to end her pregnacy then she can't obligate a man to pay for her choice to keep it.

HOWEVER, if a man and women are married then it is implicit in the traditional contract of marriage (unless otherwise agreed to by contract) that they will share the costs of raising any children resulting from their union.

My wife knew of several girls back in high school who purposefully tricked guys into getting them pregnant in order to get child support and welfare. That wouldn't happen if women owned up to what it means to be the gender that has the ultimate choice in reproduction. Given the biological realities I don't deny them that right, but they must accept the responsibility as well.

BTW, not being pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-mind, I do not accept politically convenient thresholds like "life begins at conception" or "as long as it's in the women's body." The issue of at what point sentience forbid's abortion is a much longer, and more complicated discussion.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #211 of 382
A few more points...

The only instance where "opting out" could ever legally apply would be casual consensual sex.

Not married partners.
Not rape victims.
Not incest victims.

This whole "opting-out" thing is just one big swipe at women's right to choose. Men have no business telling women they can or cannot give birth to a fetus. Yet, implicit in the "opting-out" argument is that men should punish women for their choice. The idea goes: if women have that child or those children, then a man should have the right not to recognize any legal responsibility. The right to choose then will be less of a choice and more the result of the impossible economic reality of raising a child on one's own. Both more children will be aborted and more children will be povertized by a man's selfish act.

"Opting-out" threatens the right to choose, plain and simple.

EDIT:
To clarify:
From a man's perspective, I see "opting-out" as an attack on women's right to choose.

EDIT 2:
This view is apparently paranoid, chauvinistic, and advances dangerous notions about the (made up) verb form of the noun "poverty." Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children. Perhaps this is the reason that Groverat considers men who "opt-out" to be "worthless sacks of amoral garbage." A man who financially "opts-out" of his child's life virtually condemns his child or his children to more poverty-like situations. The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.

Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.

However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.

I don't.

And it's Argumentum ad Verecundiam, stupid-head. The translation is "Argument from respect (modesty)" (Latin). It's otherwise known as an appeal to authority, where Idea I is correct because authority A believes it is. And yes, a woman's right to choose is a woman's right; therefore, it is not a logical fallacy.

The guilt by association fallacy is concerned with discrediting ideas. George F. Will is a women's rights activist; therefore, women's rights is wrong.
post #212 of 382
Quote:
"Opting-out" threatens the right to choose, plain and simple.

As long as you're only willing to see that from a woman's perspective, that is correct.

You think the reverse isn't true for men who get stuck with child support for 18 years and have no chance to turn down that life altering "choice"?

Oh, wait, that's right, they don't have a choice once a child is conceived.
post #213 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
If a woman has the choice to end her pregnacy then she can't obligate a man to pay for her choice to keep it.

Except...

a woman doesn't 'choose' to keep it. She only chooses to get rid of it. Like a kidney. You don't really choose to keep both of your kidneys, but eventually you might choose to get rid of one of them.
"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 #214 of 382
[QUOTE]Except...

a woman doesn't 'choose' to keep it. She only chooses to get rid of it. Like a kidney. You don't really choose to keep both of your kidneys, but eventually you might choose to get rid of one of them.
QUOTE]

That's a texbook Semantics case there!
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #215 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Except...

a woman doesn't 'choose' to keep it. She only chooses to get rid of it. Like a kidney. You don't really choose to keep both of your kidneys, but eventually you might choose to get rid of one of them.

Wrong because she is born with two kidneys, but she isn't born pregnant. There is no "choice" regarding her kidneys because she didn't need a partner to create them.

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 #216 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
A few more points...

The only instance where "opting out" could ever legally apply would be casual consensual sex.

Not married partners.
Not rape victims.
Not incest victims.

I think if you check I specifically mentioned that this related to casual consensual sex. No one here has suggested that husbands, rapists, or incest should be grounds for opting out.

As for the rest...

Quote:
This whole "opting-out" thing is just one big swipe at women's right to choose.

You are paranoid. Men's choice determines nothing about what a woman can and cannot do with her body.


Quote:
Men have no business telling women they can or cannot give birth to a fetus.

Strawman, a man opting out does nothing to a woman's body or it's ability to give birth.

Quote:
Yet, implicit in the "opting-out" argument is that men should punish women for their choice.

It is only implicit if you are chauvinistic. Why would you assume that a single mother is going to be "punished" by not having a man around. Why would you assume she needs his income and is not capable of providing for a child on your own. I say assumed because you say all this is implicit. A woman can earn enough to have and raise a child on her own. As planned parenthood mentioned, parenting does have the possibility of impacting her livelyhood, schooling, etc. but that is why it is her choice to have the child instead of the abortion. This would be true regardless of whether a man has the right to opt out or not.

You are using a fallacy called the association fallacy. That means the choices a woman has to make regarding parenting are true regardless of whether the father has the right to opt out or not. It could just as likely affect her schooling and livelyhood if she were married with no children, or if she were single. Thus saying she has to consider these attributes is grounds for abortion, but not grounds for denying men the right to opt out.

Quote:
The idea goes: if women have that child or those children, then a man should have the right not to recognize any legal responsibility. The right to choose then will be less of a choice and more the result of the impossible economic reality of raising a child on one's own. Both more children will be aborted and more children will be povertized by a man's selfish act.

Is povertized a word? Have you been listening to too much Snoop Dog again?

Your argument that more children will be aborted is inconsequential. A woman's right is her right, regardless of how many or how few exercise it. You should know better. Perhaps we shouldn't allow women to work full time, advance at jobs, or maybe even own property because those all lead to more abortions. (birth rate has declined as all those rights and roles were gained)

The right to parenting can be affected by the partner a woman chooses. However this is an association fallacy because again this is true regardless of whether men have the right to opt out or not. Her choice is less of a choice if she is dating a janitor instead of a lawyer. (props to Shawn, boy-ee...) Thus should women only be allowed to have sex with well employed men?

As for the economic reality of raising a child on ones own. Do you support no fault divorce (which women initiate at a rate of more than two to one compared to men) If a woman is going to make a decision that can destroy the family unit and their finances, shouldn't there at least be a reason? Should we take all impoverished single mothers and take away their children? (Rhetorical I know the answers are no)

A woman has her rights and her choices regardless of her economic level. They exist regardless of the parenting or earning ability of the man. Thus men should still have the right to opt out.

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 #217 of 382
It's funny how the typical "woman's rights" arguments are suddenly a problem when the logical conclusion of said rights and the arguments that support them are applied to men's rights.
post #218 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Longhorn
It's funny how the typical "woman's rights" arguments are suddenly a problem when the logical conclusion of said rights and the arguments that support them are applied to men's rights.

women's rights DO NOT EQUAL men's rights
post #219 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
women's rights DO NOT EQUAL men's rights

Likewise women's rights DO NOT EQUAL subjugation of men's rights.

There can be equivalents. Obviously men can't have an abortion. Thus they can only have the ability to opt out.

Men can't benefit directly from breast cancer awareness. However when equal numbers or more die from prostate cancer, it can be equal to demand that prostate cancer receive public awareness funds, research funding, etc. that is equivalent to breast cancer.

Stop avoiding the point and just admit that your brand of male chauvinism views women as weak and needy. You say they MUST have a man and his money to survive. That is not equality to me. It isn't feminism. It is male protection/chauvinism masking itself as compassion.

Nick

Edit:Feel better?

"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 #220 of 382
You missed a substantial edit.
post #221 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Longhorn
...the logical conclusion of said rights....

Unfortunately for your argument opt-out is not the logical conclusion of said rights.
"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 #222 of 382
Thread Starter 
You two are just going to repeat yourselves while adding nothing new?

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 #223 of 382
I'll say this once.

I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.

We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.

A few fundamental points:
  • women's rights do not equal men's rights.
  • women's right to choose does not imply an equivalent men's right.
  • men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.

Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.

-Amorph
post #224 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
[B]I'll say this once.

I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.

We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.

LEGALLY FORCED? Please.... she made the choice to have the sex. She made the choice not to abort. In all instances she does this by choice, not because she is legally compelled. The fact you would claim this when we have nation-wide legal abortion is comical.

As for what you have not proven, you call them "fundemental points." They aren't fundemental to me. They are just your assertions, unproven assertions.



Quote:
# women's rights do not equal men's rights.
# women's right to choose does not imply an equivalent men's right.
# men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.

First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights. You have given no reasoning at all besides assertions for your sexist belief that men should have fewer rights than women.

Second you claim a woman's right to choose is not equivalent to a men's right. They both concern whether or not to take on the parenting role. You have not shown in any manner why one should have a choice and the other should not. The fact that biology dictates that one exercise this right by signing a paper (man) and the other exercise it by signing a paper and having an out patient medical procedure has nothing to do with denying a man his rights.

Lastly, you claim that a woman really can't choose if a man has rights because her choice to parent is dependent on a man's ability to provide for her. (Think about how sexist that sounds.)

However abortion isn't about a man's ability to provide. It is about a woman choosing to parent. If she doesn't wish to use her body to produce a child to whom she must provide and parent, it is her choice not to do so. Likewise if a man must use his body to parent and provide, it should be his choice to do so.

You fail to touch on the following points.

If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.

Second, address head on why a man should be forced to parent against his will. You keep using association arguments, but you don't make a case. A woman currently would consider a man's ability to provide in deciding whether to abort or not. The fact that he has a choice does not change the considerations a woman makes when considering abortion. You have not addressed this. You must show, aside from normal considerations the woman would make regarding whether or not to have an abortion, why a man should be denied his rights.

In fact to deny individual rights, the considerations for state interest should be extraordinary. If the state shouldn't have an interest in why I have sex with a man, then why should it when I have sex with a woman? The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well. If she doesn't want them, then abort. Not caring to exercise her choice and taking the consequences of it is not grounds for denying a man his rights.

There are more but address these instead of ignoring them and I'll be happy to chime in with more.

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 #225 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.

I can't imagine what tortured reasoning led you to the conclusion that now the woman is being FORCED to do something. No one is asking for a man's right to force her to HAVE a child. Women can abort with or without the say of the man.

The decision to deal with "harsh economic realities" will be entirely left to the discretion of the woman in these cases, who can choose to avoid the situation completely through abortion.
post #226 of 382
Legally forced single parent child raising is what "opting-out" creates. A man opts out of his parental responsibilities to his child or to his children; therefore, he creates a single-parent family situation for his children. Granted, a woman can then abscond her own parental rights to her children through adoption, or later become a two-parent family again through marriage (or...ahem..civil unions). But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out." Despite the existence of a capable man, a woman is legally forced to become a single parent trying to make up for the lost child-support payments that would assist her child.

Let's be honest here, trumptman, for a change.

Tell me what you consider the major negative aspects of "opting-out."

Every plan has to have flaws or disadvantages, and it seems like advocates have disregarded them all in the race to "equivalent rights." Remember, the burden of proof is on the proponents while the burden of refutation is on the opponents. And you cannot prove something without addressing a plan's disadvantages.

To me, both the welfare of "opted-out" children and the weakening of the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose present major, untenable disadvantages.

An explanation:

This view is apparently paranoid, chauvinistic, and advances dangerous notions about the (made up) verb form of the noun "poverty." Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children. Perhaps this is the reason that Groverat considers men who "opt-out" to be "worthless sacks of amoral garbage." A man who financially "opts-out" of his child's life virtually condemns his child or his children to more poverty-like situations. The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.

Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.

However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. A man could punish a woman for choosing to give birth to a child by "opting-out" of his parental responsibility his child. Men hold the upper hand now. In no other context could it be considered as anything but a punishment for a woman's right to choose. A man is neither entitled to a woman's body nor entitled to a choice beyond conception simply because he has no choice to make. Those are the terms.

In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.

I don't.

And it's Argumentum ad Verecundiam, stupid-head. The translation is "Argument from respect (modesty)" (Latin). It's otherwise known as an appeal to authority, where Idea I is correct because authority A believes it is. And yes, a woman's right to choose is a woman's right; therefore, it is not a logical fallacy.

The guilt by association fallacy is concerned with discrediting ideas. George F. Will is a women's rights activist; therefore, women's rights is wrong.
post #227 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out."

How exactly does that statement correlate with this one: "A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children".

Really what you are saying is that your argument is all about money, rather than principle. I guess we now need to legislate a minimum income and/or wealth level below which it is illegal to have sex?

"sovereignty of a woman's right to choose"
The woman's "right to choose" is the "right to have an abortion" (she could "have the child" well before Roe v Wade). Giving a man the option to opt out doesn't in any way prevent a woman from having an abortion. So how are her rights being infringed?

EDIT: I'm not saying anything about good or bad in my post, just following the logic of "rights". In a situation where a child is being born and one or more parents don't want it, and may actively resent it, the possibility of a "good" outcome is limited under any circumstance. Basically, the situation being described is one where ALL of the outcomes are bad.
post #228 of 382
This has been quite an interesting thread to read through. I think there are some underlying assumptions that need to be addressed though.
I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty.

A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.

The act that invokes this 'Duty of Care' is called sex (for want of a better term. This act, in and of itself, signals an acceptance of the possible (both for protected and unprotected sex) arisance of a 'Duty of Care' to a created child.

In general this is understood, accepted and works. It is the basis for the foundational building block of society, the family.

To be effective, a system of law must do two things. It must firstly promote the proper procedures as the primary and preffered arrangement (in this instance, the conception of children within the bounds of a marriage until death). It must also be able to deal with exceptions to this case, and render them as closely as possible to the desired outcome.

To my mind there are three basic situations that act as exceptions to this basic situation:
  • Sex outside of marriage
  • One or both parents unable or unwilling to care for the child
  • Sex without consent

These can be combined or separate, and cover most situations as far as I can see.

The first issue is the easiest to resolve. Any difficulties in resolving this usually have to do with one of the other two exceptions.

The third issue is probably the most difficult, and includes situations such as rape and 'sperm theft'. In all situations, the benefit of the child must be considered first. It is likely that in many of these cases adoption would be the best solution.

Adoption is the transferrance of 'Duty of Care' from one couple to another.

The second case I skipped because it has the most permutations.

The simplest case is where both parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child. Again, adoption provides a solution. In the case where this is because the parents are unable to provide, the state should cover the costs involved to the point where adoption takes place. In the case where the parents are unwilling to take care of the child, they should remain liable for the costs involved until the adoption takes place. Alternatively, if the inabilty is merely finanical, support can be provided from the state to enable a child to remain with parents otherwise unable to provide for their child (child support allowance).

The cases where one parent is unable or unwilling to provide can be treated in essentially the same way, but applying to each individually.

As a final point, I would suggest that the only situation in which this 'Duty of Care' to the child may be terminated at any point by the premeditated causing of the death of the child is where the continued life of one of the parents will be extiguished by the continued existance of the child and there is no other avaiable option to save the parent..
post #229 of 382
I'm glad you showed up to help, James808. It gets tiring responding to those who won't respond to reason.

Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.

If he did understand that all of this pertains to before birth and still made the comments that he did, then I'm afraid he is utterly beyond reach of reason for coming up with the notion that a woman could be "forced" into a single-parent family role. It's like saying I am being "forced" to drive an old, barely-running car because I can't use the law to force someone else to pay for a new car for me.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #230 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Stecs

I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty ... A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.



Naturally, I completely disagree with that statement

Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
post #231 of 382
Good eye!
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #232 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights.

Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.

You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well.

This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.

You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
"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 #233 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.

You do realize that any operation, even legal abortions, can be dangerous, don't you?
"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 #234 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.

I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.

They are not equivalent in the least.
"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 #235 of 382
You have a peculiar thinking process. What does your comment have to do with my post that you quoted?

Where was I arguing that abortion is some care-free, lickety-split procedure? I know it is painful for the mother, too. What's your point? Nevertheless, people go through with it. Doctors perform the procedure. Life goes on. (imagines all the "witty" pun remarks that will now ensue from the bleeding hearts)
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #236 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.

Perchance it's because your "reasoning" there has utterly no merit, except to yourself? You've already been told how ludicrous this notion was. It has been ignored thereon because it is, well, ludicrous and not worth discussing further. Your persistence upon bringing it up again and again, claiming that no one can counter you on it, won't bring it any more credibility than the first time you did so.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #237 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.

However they can have a right not to choose to parent which is what abortion is about. I quoted from Planned Parenthood to support my point. I do believe we can all agree they authoritative in understanding what the abortion procedure is about.

Quote:
You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.

Incorrect. I am comparing a fetus to a fetus. You've already had this explained to you. What it becomes later is of no concern. The rights of the present individual always prevail over future citizens. Thus abortion is legal and so is opting out. There is no right to a two parent family, nor a right to financial support of a certain level provided by two parents. Show me that right in the constitution. The fetus becomes a child and a child has rights. Two parents don't happen to be one of those rights.


Quote:
This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.

You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.

A woman does have 100% control in case you hadn't noticed. She alone will determine if the child will live, be born and become human with rights. Likewise her parental rights are automatically granted while that is not the case for the father. You are correct that it is not right, but that is the way it is both from biology and from the law. If you care to suggest an alternative that also gives the father some say, I am more than happy to listen to alternatives.

As for the second part, as I mentioned earlier, the Constitution does not guarantee a baby two caring, loving parents nor even a certain level of financial support provided by a man.

Those factors, financial support, involvement, desire to share responsibility and parent, should be and are part of what a woman considers when she decides whether to parent or abort.

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 #238 of 382
Randycat, I don't see any of posts in the last 4-5 pages containing anythung _really_ new.
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 #239 of 382
Did you mean "any of my posts" or just "any posts" in the topic?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #240 of 382
any posts, anyone's post.
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
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..