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 9

post #321 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Any sperm doner? So if she goes to a sperm bank she can then legally oblige the doner to be 100% responsible? What, exactly, would be the legal distinction between a sperm bank doner and a participant in a one night stand? The sperm bank doner is at least fully aware that his sperm is meant to result in conception.

'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The ONLY counter-argument to my position is that engaging in sex implies consent to bear the responsibility of raising a child. I don't accept this proposition. It certainly doesn't apply in the case of the woman, because she still has the choice to terminate the pregnacy.

The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?

Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.

So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is 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 #322 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.

In other words, women have all the say and men can go **** themselves, literally.

 

“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 #323 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Why not "opt in" for the mother? After 9 months she's done her job. After that any sperm doner is 100% responsible unless he can get the mother to sign on the dotted line.

That makes just as much sense as your example.

Except she is making a choice to not abort, or adopt. Those relieve her of responsibility as well.

You make it a vindictive thing. She does not have to give the father 100% of the responsibility to get rid of hers.

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 #324 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
In other words, women have all the say and men can go **** themselves, literally.

In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.
"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 #325 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.

Whatever happened to the responsibility of the woman to make sure that A) she uses enough protection if she doesn't want a child and B) the person she is consenting to have sex with wants one as well?

This is typical of the most recent women's rights movement. The proponents think women should have more rights but fewer responsibilities.

 

“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 #326 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.

Nevertheless, I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?

Quote:
The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?

Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.

Quote:
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.

As I suspected, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't accept engagement in sex to be a contract to raise a child (it's an entirely different kind of handshake ) I maintain that since the final choice rests with the woman, the responsibility rests with here as well. Furthermore, I assert that if this was fully accepted by our society we would have less abortions and less unwanted pregnacies.
Quote:
So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is for a man. [/B]

I see that your strawman argument is folly. I've never argued that legislation can somehow alter the burdens that biological reality places differentially on the sexes. But for the sake of folly, let's explore your counter-proposal. So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.

Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate? It would probably still result in less abortions because woman would be less likely to "trap" a man for whom they could exact no support. It seems to weaken the woman's hand as she only has a choice of terminating, accepting full responsibility, or giving up full responsibility. If she's destitute and the father want's the child he simply waits out the pregnacy and she has to sign it over to him.

--
"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 #327 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
In other words, if the man opts-out then the woman can just go **** herself up with a surgical procedure or by being a single mother. Literally.

Or she can carry it to term and give it up for adoption.

What do you want next Bunge? People suing each other over STD's? There is at least some risk associated with living this thing called life.

Abortion is done as an outpatient procedure. If it is so dangerous how come we allow minors to get it done without even notifying their parents?

You sound like a closet pro-lifer.

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 #328 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
...I'm still interested in learning why you think a man who donates sperm for the purpose of producing a child should not be obligated to pay child support and a man who donates sperm as part of a sex act with no intention of producing a child should have to pay?

Presumably there's a written or implied contract.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Do you have a new one you haven't posted yet? You're free to argue against my points, but the existence or absense of implied consent is pre-eminent here as I suspect your elaboration of the sperm bank doner example would demonstrate.

I wasn't referring to sperm bank doners.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I see that your strawman argument is folly.

What strawman?

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So a woman can have the baby then they have the legal right to pass 100% responsibility to the father. Ok, fine. Then the father has the right to give the baby up for adoption, presumably without ever meeting the child or paying support.

Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Aside from denying the obvious reality that most women who take a child to term actually intend to keep it, what does this example illustrate?

Equality.
"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 #329 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There is at least some risk associated with living this thing called life.

Yeah, and getting a woman pregnant is one of them.

No, I'm not a pro-lifer. I support the pro-death movement even if BR likes to attack me.
"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 #330 of 382
Get a life, guys. You can't get it all. You can't eat plenty of junk food and stay in optimal health and skinny, nor can you eliminate completely the potential consequences if you are fscking a person of opposite sex. Get over it.
Panther.
Reply
Panther.
Reply
post #331 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Panther
Get a life, guys. You can't get it all. You can't eat plenty of junk food and stay in optimal health and skinny, nor can you eliminate completely the potential consequences if you are fscking a person of opposite sex. Get over it.

Why must the burden fall on the male? What happened to equal responsibility?

 

“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 #332 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Why must the burden fall on the male? What happened to equal responsibility?

A burden falls on both parties though.
"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 #333 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
A burden falls on both parties though.

Woman supplies egg.
Man supplies sperm.

Woman can opt-out.
Man cannot opt-out.

It's just that simple.

 

“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 #334 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Woman supplies egg.
Man supplies sperm.

Woman can opt-out.
Man cannot opt-out.

It's just that simple.

Biology sucks, doesn't 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 #335 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Biology sucks, doesn't it?

Yeah, that about wraps it up. I think all that can be said has been said.

It simply boils down to this:
You are in favor of inequality.
I am not.

 

“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 #336 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Yeah, that about wraps it up. I think all that can be said has been said.

It simply boils down to this:
You are in favor of inequality.
I am not.

So wait...does that wrap it up, or do you need to get one last dig it?

I've said time and again I'm in favor of something equitable. Opt-out isn't 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 #337 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Presumably there's a written or implied contract.

Yes, a written contract exempting the donor from any parental responsibilites. In consensual, pre/extra marrital sex the vast majority of participants are engaging with the understanding that there is no intent to produce a child. The implied consent is NOT to have a child.

Quote:

What strawman?

You were suggesting that my line of reasoning led to your proposed scenario, it does not. That's a strawman argument.

Quote:

Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.

No, your scenario doesn't require the man to keep the baby anymore than the women. You simply wish to ceremoniously pass the responsibility of putting the child up for adoption to the man. I'm not even sure if you would require the woman to inform the man prior to passing over custody. The end result, however, is the same number of children given up for adoption, but by a more circuitous route. Your scenario differs from mine on the following points...

1. It denies the reality that a woman makes a choice to continue with the pregnacy, thus affirming her intent to raise the child or give it up for adoption.

2. A biological father can blackmail a mother into turning over sole custody without any compensation or commitment of support during pregnacy.

Quote:

Equality.

It's possible we are getting tied up in semantics, but to be clear there is no such thing as true equality in reproduction. I can't legislate into existence a menstrual cycle for men or mandate that they gain 40 lbs, get kidney stones, have an episiotomy, or lactate. You are quite aware of this reality since you don't propose that a man have any say in whether a women can get an abortion or not.

I accept these realities and propose a division of responsibilities that results in the least number of single mothers, fatherless kids, unwanted children, and abortions. I accept the reality that most of the time when men and women have sex out of marriage they are proceeding with the understanding that they do not wish to produce a child and that it is a change of intent on the part of the woman that alter's the situation.

I'm curious as to what you would think of the following scenario...

There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent. Now, what if in addition to this the wrapper explicity stated that opening this condom exempted the man using the condom from any future responsibilities for a child conceived during sex. You can also have a line of condoms that DOES commit the man to provide child support. The writing is bioluminescent (green for no child support commitment, red for child support required) and can be read easily in the dark, they are standardized and a widespread education campaign informs the public of their use and implications.

Would this be ok with you?

--
"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 #338 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Would this be ok with you?

At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.

Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
"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 #339 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent.

Damn, and people claim I have issues.

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 #340 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system.

Really? It's that hard to save a wrapper?

 

“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 #341 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.

Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.

I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.

 

“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 #342 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.

Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.

BTW, just over 80% of paternity cases are default.

bunge would find at about it when he suddenly couldn't renew his license. However they used the application to update his address and soon after are garnishing his wages.

His time for appeal would already be past.

No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.

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 #343 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.

Thatswhy he has 18 different tabascos in the fridge (maybe) ...
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 #344 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.

So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..
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 #345 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Really? It's that hard to save a wrapper?

If you have sex three times, can you connect one wrapper out of three to a pregnancy?

Let's think clearly about the issue.
"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 #346 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.

I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
"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 #347 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.

Ok, at least we are getting somewhere. I don't see why it's an impossible system. She opens the wrapper and gives the man her fingerprint on the contract, he gives her his. A woman can make all sorts of arguments about foul play, but those can always be argued in nullifying any contract. I certianly think you would support a man getting out of financial responsibility if he could prove the woman tricked him or stole his sperm from a discarded rubber after sex.

Anyway, at least in principle you are ok with the man and woman agreeing in advance, so all it really comes down to is what is the default condition without a contract. In my scenario the default state is no implied consent to parental responsibility in consensual, non-marrital sex. A women would be free to use a "red" condom to commit her partner to potential parenthood, but by default a man could not be tricked into being a parent.

Quote:

Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.

Exactly, post conception is too late for a woman to change her mind and decide to alter the purpose of a casual sexual encounter into producing a child.

I'll grant that there are many complicating factors to the situation. You could, for instance, argue that if a man and woman have consensual, unprotected sex and the woman is not on birth control (and doesn't lie about that fact) and doesn't communicate that she doesn't want to produce a child that in this situation the man cannot assume anything. BUT, if the woman indicates the use of birth control or agrees to the man wearing a condom or coitus interruptis or indicates that she does not want a child, then the man is given the clear indication that they are not going to have a child. Since such subtle factors are at play it's best from a legal standpoint to establish a salient, simple standard and that should reflect reality. And the reality is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters both parties do not want a child and only the woman can alter the intent of the act by proceeding through an unintended pregnacy.

--
"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 #348 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.

I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
"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 #349 of 382
Quote:
Opt-out doesn't stop this.

Sure it would. 3 months from finding out that he's supposed to be a dad (or 3 weeks, whatever) that "father" can decide he wants no part of it. BAM. Not a problem anymore.
post #350 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Opt-out doesn't stop this.

My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.

--
"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 #351 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..

Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.

However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.

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 #352 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.

Actually opt out would stop that. He would have to be notified of his right to opt out of parenting. Right now they hold a hearing to determine the father and requested custody. They will default on both based off the woman's word.

However they could not take a woman's word that the man choose to be a father and didn't forgo his right not to parent. She would have to prove that.

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 #353 of 382
Opt-out is the equivalent of banning cars because you want to stop speeders. Instead of that, cops target speeders with radar guns and other methods.

Opt-out is a blanket approach that covers more than the unjust-ness of what you're speaking about. Target that alone and you'll have a solution.

Why not opt-in for both?
"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 #354 of 382
Let's take a realistic look.

The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.

Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.

How is that equal?

The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
post #355 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.

...

The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.

This
is
true.
"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 #356 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.

The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.

Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.

How is that equal?

The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.

Or perhaps women could be more responsible too and not have kids to trap men when they can't afford one themselves.

 

“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 #357 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Or perhaps women could be more responsible too and not have kids to trap men when they can't afford one themselves.

Just because a women gets child support doesn't mean she couldn't afford to raise them on her own.
"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 #358 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.

I actually do like this opt-in approach much better. It will make women think twice before telling a guy she's on the pill when she really isn't. It's entirely fair.

 

“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 #359 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.

The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.

Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.

How is that equal?

The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.

I'm still waiting for you to address the two points I made in my last post to you. Instead you just repeat yourself.

Kids these days...

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 #360 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.

However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.

Nick

I think they should require the DNA testing of both parents for any of those cases. It is unfair if someone can claim falsely anyone to be her child's dad. If the child is not genetically his (it is, untill otherwise proven), at least in that case I think it's unfair to make the guy get his punishment.

But for the rest, the best solution I still see is a man keeping track of his sperm. Don't leave it in places where it can be hijacked or abused, and never trust the word 'pill'.
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..