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 10

post #361 of 382
8/21/03 at 4:11am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
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'.

It is unfair. Yet if you go read that thread there are folks advocating that not only is it okay for them to have been declared the father, but to continue paying support as well.

Likewise they really don't require the testing of both parents since the mother's motherhood really isn't in question.

The courts don't resort to paternity tests in these interests because the father isn't even there to demand it. As I said the word of the mother is very powerful in these instances.

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 #362 of 382
8/21/03 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The courts don't resort to paternity tests in these interests because the father isn't even there to demand it. As I said the word of the mother is very powerful in these instances.

This is the guts of the true problem, not equality of choice.

Look at it this way. Instead of trying to level the playing field by giving men a 'My Body My Choice' choice, for the sake of argument let's take it away from the woman. So, after conception, she's not allowed an abortion.

Under this scenario, with true equality, none of the problems you discuss is fixed. Why? Because 'equality of choice' isn't really the root of the problem. Direct your attention to those problems and we'll all be better off.
"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 #363 of 382
8/21/03 at 7:24am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
This is the guts of the true problem, not equality of choice.

Look at it this way. Instead of trying to level the playing field by giving men a 'My Body My Choice' choice, for the sake of argument let's take it away from the woman. So, after conception, she's not allowed an abortion.

Under this scenario, with true equality, none of the problems you discuss is fixed. Why? Because 'equality of choice' isn't really the root of the problem. Direct your attention to those problems and we'll all be better off.

*watches as the point whizzes past bunge's head again*

 

“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 #364 of 382
8/22/03 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
*watches as the point whizzes past bunge's head again*

And you expect people to listen to someone with a tagline like 'Justified Arrogance?' I guess you're probably arrogant enough to think so.
"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 #365 of 382
8/23/03 at 12:01pm
There is just no compelling case for why child support payments should change from mandatory to voluntary. It would obviously hurt real children and punish real women. Having a child or not having a child is at least mutual in regard to whom supports a child: both or no-one. While the strongest point advocates can make is that abortion is not unlike "opting-out," it at best compares a legal right unique to a woman's biology to a legal right proposed in spite of it. I suspect that explains why the thread is titled "My Body, My Choice- for men too." The title should at least suggest that the case is weak enough to use a specious comparison so prominently.
Reply
Reply
post #366 of 382
8/23/03 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
There is just no compelling case for why child support payments should change from mandatory to voluntary. It would obviously hurt real children and punish real women.

No, real children would be "hurt" due to the poor decisions of a mother who chose to proceed with an ill-planned pregnancy. Women "punished" would, again, be the result of their own poorly made decisions. If a woman has a baby and then somehow gets hooked into a drug addiction later on, is the man who pays child support then responsible for "hurting children", since he is arguably funding that drug habit? An addict mother certainly will have ramifications wrt hurting "real children". However, it was a "choice" the mother made- unfortunately, a bad choice. The first step to empowering women is making them responsible/accountable for their choices, not letting them doing whatever they please and then slipping them some "bills" to smooth the f*kup later on.


Quote:
Having a child or not having a child is at least mutual in regard to whom supports a child: both or no-one.

The decision should be mutual, as well. If 2 people cannot even reach a common ground on that point, the rest is utter BS. What we have now is a system that rewards women who go forth with ill-conceived plans, thus dragging even further parties into the mess.

Quote:
I suspect that explains why the thread is titled "My Body, My Choice- for men too." The title should at least suggest that the case is weak enough to use a specious comparison so prominently.

I think the title is a reference to a "man's body" being used as legalized slave labor to support a child that was not consented, not some unrequited wish to be able to biologically participate in a physical abortion.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #367 of 382
8/23/03 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
There is just no compelling case for why child support payments should change from mandatory to voluntary. It would obviously hurt real children and punish real women. Having a child or not having a child is at least mutual in regard to whom supports a child: both or no-one.

No compelling case? Women getting pregnant on purpose, lying about birth control, being encouraged to be single mothers by a system that rewards them for bad decisions.

And as for this notion that support is "mutual", can you really compare a child support check to the kind of personal attention provided by a commited, voluntary father?

As for your exception to the title (not my picking obviously) it is at least a somewhat apt analogy because a man involuntarily surrenders the toil of his body (half his wages for 18 years). Indentured servitude I believe they used to call it.

Here's the bullet points again.

1. The reality is that there isn't biological equality with respect to reproduction responsibilities between women and men. No legislation can change that.

2. Women have the final say and the final choice, so the responsibility does fall on them.

3. Most casual sexual encounters proceed with the understanding that no child will be produced and a change of heart is required by the woman to change the situation. A lot of this "shared risk" nonsense is rooted in a puritanical moralism that sex is evil and you should get punished for having it out of wedlock.

4. Providing money for almost anything tends to increase the activity being funded. If you give money to woman to have kids, more single-parent kids will be produced, therefore harming more kids. It doesn't matter if the money comes from the state or a strongarmed father.

5. Lastly, marriage should mean something. I don't mean the man-woman, holy bond crap. The only really important aspect of marraige is with respect to child rearing. All other aspects are just agreements between two mutually consenting people. But when it comes to raising a child I believe marriage should mean a formal agreement to put the child above the parents, to be jointly responsible for the childs upbringing and well being. People should arrive at this by carefull forethought, resolve, and dedication not by accidental fusion of egg and sperm
--
"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. Claiming...
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. Claiming...
Reply
post #368 of 382
8/23/03 at 2:16pm
Excellent bullet points!
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #369 of 382
8/23/03 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Excellent bullet points!

Back at you on your points Randycat. I think we were writing our posts simultaneously. I could have saved some of my time if I'd read your's first.
--
"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. Claiming...
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. Claiming...
Reply
post #370 of 382
8/23/03 at 7:24pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I guess you're probably arrogant enough to think so.

Justifiably so.

 

“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 #371 of 382
8/24/03 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
5. Lastly, marriage should mean something. I don't mean the man-woman, holy bond crap. The only really important aspect of marraige is with respect to child rearing. All other aspects are just agreements between two mutually consenting people. But when it comes to raising a child I believe marriage should mean a formal agreement to put the child above the parents, to be jointly responsible for the childs upbringing and well being. People should arrive at this by carefull forethought, resolve, and dedication not by accidental fusion of egg and sperm

So you're saying that raising a child with ample opportunities comes before worrying about how much money a father has to give. Good.
"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 #372 of 382
8/25/03 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
So you're saying that raising a child with ample opportunities comes before worrying about how much money a father has to give. Good.

No, precisely the opposite. Anyone considering having children MUST consider whether they have enough resources (financial and personal) to properly care for a child PRIOR to having the child. To do otherwise is irresponsible. I can't imagine how you could interpret "forethought" to mean "not worry about how much a father can contribute."
--
"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. Claiming...
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. Claiming...
Reply
post #373 of 382
8/25/03 at 9:05am
Thread Starter 
I'm just glad to know that Shawn and Bunge are the only ones around here who support modern "But it's for the children!" day slavery.

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 #374 of 382
8/25/03 at 9:20am
trumptman i don't see how you read bunge's or shawn's posts. if it's better generally for kids to have 2 parents than 1, it does not mean automatically "we do this (beat you, have this horrible, unfunctional facade marriage) only for YOU (their kids)".

most of the time the impression between the line many of you give is that you just want the women to be home cooking and taking care of kids. and the other times they should be single, home and cooking .. whereas the men should be leagally allowed to fsck whoever they want, sign out their potential responsabilities on anything resulting from the action. fsck freely and be single, childless peter pan. drink and conserve you liver. and eat junk and make macdonalds pay. grow up.
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 #375 of 382
8/25/03 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm just glad to know that Shawn and Bunge are the only ones around here who support modern "But it's for the children!" day slavery.

Nick

I'm just sad you read into way I say instead of just reading what I say.
"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 #376 of 382
8/25/03 at 3:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
trumptman i don't see how you read bunge's or shawn's posts. if it's better generally for kids to have 2 parents than 1, it does not mean automatically "we do this (beat you, have this horrible, unfunctional facade marriage) only for YOU (their kids)".

most of the time the impression between the line many of you give is that you just want the women to be home cooking and taking care of kids. and the other times they should be single, home and cooking .. whereas the men should be leagally allowed to fsck whoever they want, sign out their potential responsabilities on anything resulting from the action. fsck freely and be single, childless peter pan. drink and conserve you liver. and eat junk and make macdonalds pay. grow up.

I'm going to do my best with Gia, and I assure you that your written English is much better than my Portugese.

I have stated many times that I believe two parent families best. I have also stated that I do not care which parent stays home. I am not the type of person who has joined the "rat race" to see who can kill themselves working the hardest first. The fact that more women choose this idea than men is I believe, enlightened, and not a bad choice. Americans as a whole work too hard and should learn to care about more than just money.

However the way the family courts treat men is not enlightened. They say, hey you only are valuable for making money and do so whether you want to or not. In the U.S. if a man misses his support payments, he can have his credit destroyed, his drivers license taken, and be thrown in jail. When the consequences of failure are so severe, there should at least be a choice about taking that responsibility.

If the choice is only you screw, you lose, then women should lose some rights with regard to abandonment and adoption. There are laws that have been passed where they basically attempt to embarass the women into naming the father but they are usually (wisely) overturned since it is really not in the best interest of anyone to do this.

As for fvcking whoever they want... why should we seek to criminalize sex? I find the paradox created by feminism very amusing. It says women should be able to me like men. Fvck whoever they want and get an abortion, repeatedly, underage without consent or even notification, and suffer no consequences. Also we see that the government shouldn't make laws telling homosexuals that they cannot sodomize each other.

At the same time we have laws saying men should be indentured for 18 years for 15 minutes of fun. Men and possibly women should be fired or sued for telling a dirty joke or giving someone a compliment, etc.

People in the U.S. complain about the war on drugs and the number of people it has put in prison. These same folks should not be endorsing basically a war on sex that criminalizes people and attempts to put them in jail for things sexual that are within norms.

I hope this makes my position on these issues clearer to you.

Now get back in the kitchen and take off those shoes.

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 #377 of 382
8/25/03 at 3:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm just sad you read into way I say instead of just reading what I say.

I have asked you and Shawn repeatedly to address why a father, in a situation where he has made no commitment and the intent is obviously not to produce a child should be made to pay for it for 18 years.

And Bunge, I do encounter and read what you post not only in this thread but in others. You weren't even willing to let the guy off when DNA testing proved he wasn't the biological father.

You have not addressed why you believe men should be forced to parent against their wills. You haven't even stated why you believe they should be FORCED to do so when they are not the parent.

I'll be happy to address what you say. Just please hit it head on and don't keep circling around to why you believe a) abortion and opting out aren't equal and b) Men opting out will doom women to single parent status.

Just please address head on why men should be forced to parent against their will. I hope your definition is at least enlightened enough to be more than just child support.

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 #378 of 382
8/25/03 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why a father, in a situation where he has made no commitment and the intent is obviously not to produce a child should be made to pay for it for 18 years.

If he has no commitments and no reproductional needs or instincts, why does he fsck with a woman in the first point? The woman in the case she does not abort, loses 18 years of her life, and her body. Or 40 years if she has an Italian kid.

They should really develop and start selling [IMG]male pills[/IMG]. I personally hate the idea of using a pill myself so I won't mind if the guy used it. I'm sure you guys would be potential customers too. And no complaints on the potential effects on your body, think about what the female pill does. Yuk.
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 #379 of 382
8/25/03 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
The woman in the case she does not abort, loses 18 years of her life, and her body. Or 40 years if she has an Italian kid.



Low. But funny-low.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #380 of 382
8/25/03 at 4:05pm
Yea. Never let an Italian woman screw you. You'll be made to support the kid in the worst case even when he's 40!!!!
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 #381 of 382
8/25/03 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
No compelling case? Women getting pregnant on purpose, lying about birth control, being encouraged to be single mothers by a system that rewards them for bad decisions.

And as for this notion that support is "mutual", can you really compare a child support check to the kind of personal attention provided by a commited, voluntary father?

As for your exception to the title (not my picking obviously) it is at least a somewhat apt analogy because a man involuntarily surrenders the toil of his body (half his wages for 18 years). Indentured servitude I believe they used to call it.

Since some women can be deceptive about pregnancy and the use of contraceptives, all non-custodial fathers should not have to pay child support? What harm will you do to children and single-parent mothers who conceived, birthed, and raised a child or children with a father's full support? It's a horrific story to tell- that a woman can trap a man into paying child support. But advocates really cause significant harm by making voluntary what was once mandatory payment of child-support. How can one objectively distinguish intent in a pregnancy? How can one distinguish between an accidental pregnancy and a deceptive one? Can't a man just accuse his partner of "trapping" him as opposed to accepting a woman's choice about an accidental pregnancy?

(ASIDE: As for the mutuality of child-caring, it's understood that custodial and non-custodial parents have different roles and different levels of responsibility. By no means can anyone suggest a paycheck is equal to personal attention. The two are not equal. But a custodial mother already supports her child both financially and emotionally. The role of the non-custodial father is to provide additional financial support to assist the custodial mother in raising their child. It only makes sense that the person with whom the child lives should receive extra financial support from the other parent of the child. Of course, non-custodial parents often provide more than just financial support- which is commendable.)

Environmental Science defines reproductive rights as "Essentially, a womans right to determine for herself if, and when, she will bear children."

Does a man have reproductive rights given its biological basis?
Reply
Reply
post #382 of 382
8/25/03 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Just please address head on why men should be forced to parent against their will. I hope your definition is at least enlightened enough to be more than just child support.

You tell us why 'just child support' isn't a valid reason. People are responsible for lots of problems they create. If someone borrows your car and gets into an accident, you might pay. A man can be responsible enough to avoid the particular problem of a child and if he doesn't it's partially his problem.

The pro-opt-out crowd yammers for an abortion if the woman doesn't want the kid. A man can save some sperm in a freezer somewhere and get a vasectomy. Sometimes that can even be reversed making the frozen sperm unnecessary. Each one has a surgical procedure they can use to save themselves from unwanted pregnancies.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
And Bunge, I do encounter and read what you post not only in this thread but in others. You weren't even willing to let the guy off when DNA testing proved he wasn't the biological father.

Not true. Read what I write, not what you want to read into what I wrote.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll be happy to address what you say. Just please hit it head on and don't keep circling around to why you believe a) abortion and opting out aren't equal and b) Men opting out will doom women to single parent status.

a) I haven't mentioned the equality issue in this post and I'll continue to refrain.
b) I've never made this argument. But since you brought it up, a woman might object to abortions like a man might object to a vasectomy. This would 'doom' a woman to a single parent lifestyle because neither party took the necessary precautions.
"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
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..