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 3

post #81 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
However is the woman allowed to let go of her parental rights and thus not be forced to provide financially for the child?

Men aren't allowed to do this. If women want the child and the men don't, even if they are willing to sign away their parental rights, they are still held financially responsible by the state. What do you advocate for both?

Nick

If a woman wants a child and you don't, don't f*ck with that woman. That is the most simple solution.
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 #82 of 382
After reading the last post before Giaguara's, I said to myself, her next post is going to retreat back to the "prevention" stance. I thought of making a post to that effect, but I didn't want to spoil the natural flow of what was about to happen. Sure enough...I knew it! I freakin' knew she would go there!
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #83 of 382
Randycat99-

We Men simple need to realize that we're nothing. We are simply fodder for this Earth. Whether we be the bodies blown to bits on the battlefield or the Financial Life Support system for whoever we must accept this reality with little complaint. There is no room in the Male Psyche for weakness. It's our our job...it's our responsibility...it's our fault.
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 #84 of 382
With an outlook like that, it's like women are hellbent to make even the "good men" of this society want to just bang anything, give a few squirts, and then bolt as efficiently as possible. Then they have something to complain about why men are such pigs.

Same thing goes for marriage with its inevitable coupling with divorce, and thus vaginamony- err, I mean alimony. (Anybody remember that Chris Rock bit?) Thingsa gotta change or it's just going to push the sexes even further and further apart. Lashing out at a group for the wrongs done by a few won't get humankind anywhere.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #85 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.

The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?

As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them. If a mother wishes to give up a child for adoption, can the father prevent her and force her to retain her maternal rights? I understand that he can assert his rights to keep the child. However can he prevent her from giving up hers?

That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.

Nick

I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.

But...

As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.

I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.

As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.

Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.
"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 #86 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.

But...

As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.

I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.

As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.

Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.

I'm close to two cases as well. In one the court gave the father 55% custody of the daughter, him being Mr. Employed-Suburbia, her being a living in trailer in squalar with registered child molester(who supplied drugs). (I really wish I were kidding, she had been a nice person until she started doing drugs) He still owed her $17 a month child support and was often come after by the county to repay benefits she had claimed while also claiming she had the child full time to get them. Showing the county things like court orders never brought the money back. (It would just suddenly disappear through a garnishment of tax refunds with no notification, etc.) He lucked out as she lost interest in being a mother at all and wandered off to do her drugs unheard from but maybe once or twice a year in a call.

The other I won't bore you with, but it was worse.

But I'm glad to hear that maybe in certain counties, in certain states you can get a fair shot.

Now as for the falling behind in the rights race, you wouldn't fall behind though if upon notification you could terminate your parental rights during the preganancy. That's what I have been advocating. I've seen you ask lots of questions around it but I don't know if you've actually stated your position on it. Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy? That is what would even up the falling behind of the rights.

As for the adoption question, I think we are in agreement there. The reality of the situation is much less clean cut though. It would be hard for a man to enforce his rights, especially if she intentionally names someone else as the father or doesn't name him as the father. If a woman screws with your head by intentionally telling you she screwed around, someone else must be the dad, etc. then it would be even harder for a man to commit to the resources (cash) to prove and then enforce his rights. I really don't see a way of writing a law to fix that sort of business though.

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 #87 of 382
Nick,
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.

I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.

However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.
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 #88 of 382
The constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law. One of those protections is against the loss of property without DUE process. Each persons body is considered property (Just as persons were considered property). Because each persons body is considered his or her own property certain rules are applied. One must have permission ( oral or written) in order to touch, walk on, someones property. In the case of the human body, touching it without permission is legal assault. All subparts of the human body are equally protected by property rights. regeardless as to where your body or parts of your body are located they are still your property until you explicitly turn over ownership ( Title) to someone else. Thus in the medical field it is neccessary for doctors to obtain permission to do any procesdures. Otherwise they would have tresspassed on the persons body (Property). This includes the removal of organs and other tissues. For example if you have your appendix removed, you may require the hospital to return it to you. It is yours and they have to do so. Or you may indicated ( which is often assumed) that you want to relinquish ownership of your apendix and let the hospital do whatr it wants with it. Similarly with organ donations. even when you are dead, you and your estate retain property rights over the organis in your body. A hospital must recieve permission from your estate or must have a affidavit that you had notarized stating that you allow "x" organs to be removed. Of course now a days we have bracelets and checkmarks on our drivers licences that allow for speedy determination of these property rights.
Now on to the point. A womans "eggs' and a mans 'sperm" are also covered under property rights. Just because sperm leaves a man's body does not mean that he does not retain property rights over them. The DNA contained in the man's sperm and the womans egg are also bound by property rights. When consensual intercourse occurs, both parties have agreed to the use of their property by the other person. But each retains property rights over their own bodies ( see Kobe Bryant case)

The problem is when the new property ( the baby) is created. Does this property have it's own rights equal to that of those individuals that created it? clearly it does not. it has limited rights. It's "right" to "life" may be terminated by the property decision of the mother. This is because under the law, the baby is a part of her property and therefore subject to her property rights (of course such laws that convict mothers for drinking or drugging while pregnant have blurred this recognition).

If the child is the property of the mother (as legally defined) then we can logically conclude then that the child is NOT the property of the father. The law implies that the father relinquished property rights to his DNA once the child was created in the womans property (body). If this is the case then, the father should not be liable for any property of the mother.
...continued...
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #89 of 382
however, the law claims that by testing the DNA of the child and matching the DNA of the father. That he has a financial and legal responsibilty for the child that was legally NOT his property. So the question is this " Is his DNA his property that was transfered legally to the woman?" or was only the act of intercourse covered under property law? That is, the right to touch the other person?

if baby making is a process that legally transfers property rights of sperm and it's DNA to the mother then the father should rightly have no say over what is done with the transferred property.

however if he retains property rights to his DNA then he should have property rights equal to that of the mother when it comes to the child.

The complication would be that, top get at the "new property" one must tresspass on the mothers property (her body). clearly then, no abortion can be had without securing permission of the mother to do "proceedures" on her property. This makes sense as, law enforecement cannot legally enter ones property ( house/ Apt/ vehicle) without a court order.
If the father retains property rights to his DNA and therefore 1/2 of the "new property" He should be legally able to transfer his property rights in the child to any person he wants. If however he retains property rights to 1/2 the new property ( child) then he should be required to put in for the upkeep of said property.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #90 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy?

At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
"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 #91 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.

The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.

 

“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 #92 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.

Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.

Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.

A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.

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 #93 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.

I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.

See, I'm less cynical than you this time around.

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 #94 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.

See, I'm less cynical than you this time around.

Nick

I never specified numbers. I just said that numbers for both exist. I doubt there are less than or equal deadbeats to guys being screwed by women stealing sperm.

 

“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 #95 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.

Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.

A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.

I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
"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 #96 of 382
how is abortion different from post birthing abandonment besides death of the fetus? In both cases, to the parents the child does not exist and they are not responisble for it.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #97 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.

A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.

A man should be able to do the same.

 

“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 #98 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.

A man should be able to do the same.

Wow, I actually agree with BR on something!

(pulls out "Things I Never Thought Would Happen" list)
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #99 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Nick,
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.

I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.

However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.

Agreed.

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 #100 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.

Sure she can by putting it up for adoption or I would fully support a statement declaring her intent to abandon the child when born as well.

The real issue after birth is she has the power to begin legally entangling the man if he cannot declare beforehand his intent not to parent. Then we have support issues, etc. It doesn't really change anything.

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 #101 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.

Can a woman do this if the man wants the child? No, only when the father is willing to let the child go up for adoption.
"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 #102 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
how is abortion different from post birthing abandonment besides death of the fetus? In both cases, to the parents the child does not exist and they are not responisble for it.

Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.
"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 #103 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Well in the abortion example, a child doesn't yet exist.

well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #104 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
well that's undergoing a legal challenge. But that wasn't the point. The point being, that the outcome for the parent isn't different. Either way the "parent" is no longer responsible for the "child."

Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.

As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.
"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 #105 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Ends don't justify the means in my mind. We can't look at the results of the actions and decide that because the results are equitable the actions themselves are then equitable.

As for the legal challenge you say, there currently is no legal challenge. I'm basing my statement off of the current laws. When they change so will the foundation of my argument and ultimately my opinion. In the meantime, it's not really debatable.

well that's nice, you hold an opinion ;-)

Actually the issue if up for debate. the argument over stem cell research has shown that there is a crop of legal questions over when a fetus is a "person" and has the resulting "property rights" i discussed earlier. Anyways. If you 're of the opinion that the process of relinquishing ones parental responsibilities is more important that the actual ending of parental responisbilities, then fine there is no debate then.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #106 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.

This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.

A few other pragmatic considerations:

The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.

Someone mentioned the (very real) pain of a father losing a child he wanted to an abortion. But if it was aborted, then it's likely that she didn't want it. The implication is that the man should be able to impose her will on the woman. I doubt that was what the poster meant; but if your position is for equality, this sort of scenario is inevitable. Both parents would have to want the child in order to avoid it.

The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).

The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. 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.

I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?

Quote:
As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?

Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. Right now I would say that any imbalance in the rights of women vs. the rights of men is merely an inadequate counterbalance to the behavior of women vs. the behavior of men in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, and also in the almost inevitable assignment of child care - by the court, or by happenstance - to the woman if the two parents don't stay together for whatever reason. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #107 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Can a woman do this if the man wants the child? No, only when the father is willing to let the child go up for adoption.

Yes, if the woman aborts or doesn't name the father on the birth certificate.

 

“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 #108 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Yes, if the woman aborts or doesn't name the father on the birth certificate.

We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.

If we keep track of our sperm then...
"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 #109 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.

If we keep track of our sperm then...

But even if he keeps track of it Bunge, he still has no rights if the mother doesn't name him. He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.

Nick

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #110 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
This last sentence is unfortunately the crux of the issue: They should assume abandonment, because that's what tends to happen.

The "sentencing" to 18 years of child support is nominal at best in practice. The majority of deadbeat dads don't pay, and get away with it. So, basically, men already can opt out, and they do in droves no matter what the woman wants, or what her circumstance is.

Well of course the majority of "deadbeat" dad's don't pay support. That is why we call them deadbeats. However of all father with support orders an overwhelming majority pay. Likewise of those who are deadbeats, most have paid to the best of their ability, but if you get behind even part of your support for even one month, they you are a "deadbeat."

Let me slap you upside the head with a few statistics, including that a much higher percentage of mothers with support orders against them are deadbeats than fathers.

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial father fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173). Additionally, of those NOT paying support, 66% are not doing so because they LACK THE FINANCILA RESOURCES to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial MOTHER DEFAULT on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).

Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).

Total amount of child support owed - $14,800,000,000. Total amount of child support received - $11,100,000,000. (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-23, No 173, 1998).

66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky -

* Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%

* Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Data obtained by asking custodial parents)

* All the following are for custodial parents-
Single mothers who work less than full time: 66.2%
Single fathers who work less than full time: 10.2%

* Single mothers who work more than 44 hours per week: 7.0%
Single fathers who work more than 44 hours per week: 24.5%

* Single mothers who receive public assistance: 46.2%
Single fathers who receive public assistance: 20.8%


If you will read and see the most overwhelming factor affecting support is whether the father gets to see the children. It's not hard to understand why a father might not want to send support of the mother is using it to move his children several hundred miles away from him where he cannot see his children for example. So I would call your "opting out in droves" to be no better than character assasination.

Quote:
The argument in favor of the right to "opt out" of parenthood post hoc assumes good faith on the part of the absconding parent; requiring it as a right that can be asserted over and against the will of the other parent assumes bad faith on the part of the other parent. Given that an alarming number of men opt out despite the laws against such and get away with it, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which men do what they do now, only leaving the woman with a child, full responsibility for it, and no recourse whatsoever. With freedom comes responsibility. As for the supposed impact on democracy, Jefferson famously observed that a democracy couldn't function without a sufficiently educated and participatory citizenry. Right now, education of men as equal participants in a family is coming along, but it's not there yet. When deadbeat dads are rare and exceptional creatures, we can revisit this (and in that case, I would say that the legal ability of a father to opt out would end with the mother's practical ability to opt out).

If the woman wants the child, it's her body and her choice. Same is true if she doesn't want it. By notifying him early in her pregnancy, she can get to the truth of the matter regarding the man and his desire to parent instead of possibly deluding herself and carrying the child to term. Claiming that a man shouldn't get the right because a few men don't pay support is the most superficial argument I've read. If anything it supports giving men equal rights because it shows how women can force a man into parenting when he cares not to do so. You then say we can revisit this when deadbeat dad's are rare. I've already shown you they are so I suggest you get busy visiting it instead of dismissing it with false claims. Likewise if men shouldn't get rights because of deadbeat dad's then women deserve fewer rights as well because they default on support at an even HIGHER RATE.

Quote:
The premise that fatherhood dooms a man to 18 years of hard labor is dubious, even leaving aside the statistical toothlessness of the current laws: Whether or not a man is ever a father (or for that matter, whether a woman is ever a mother) the odds are that they will be working. Right now, the odds that they'll be working two or more jobs, or for a total of significantly more than 40 hours a week, are very good. Whether he becomes a "mere paycheck" is up to him (unless he's such a freak that the mother doesn't want him anywhere near her, although, in that case the laws aren't much help either in practice). There is certainly no shortage of men who are not sole or principle supporters of children who work strenuous and hazardous jobs for whatever reason. 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.

The labor doesn't have to be hard. The real issue with the "toothless" laws is that a man can be held in contempt of court of he quits a high paying job and takes a lower paying job. Thus if he was working as an oil refinery worker and earned $100k a year and quit to become safe and work as a bus driver earning $50k a year, he could be thrown in jail by our "toothless" support laws. As for those toothless laws, they allow a court to determine when you can visit your own children. They can ruin your credit, garnish your wages and tax returns, take your drivers license, and lastly toss you in jail for support orders. You tell me which of those provisions are toothless in today's society.

To dismiss it saying he would be working anyway is to support slavery. Just because someone is working doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. As for what motherhood "dooms" a mother to do. That is why we have legal abortion, adoption and abandonment laws. So she can choose not to do that to herself. If she still chooses to do it, then it is her choice.

Quote:
I won't go into the problems pregnant women face in the workplace. It's better than it was, but the assumption that they're not serious or dedicated persists -- after all, they have a kid to take care of, and we know who does all that work, right?

Get out of the 19th century. You do know women can vote and even own property now right? The assumption that they are not "serious" and "dedicated" persists because most women are smart enough to see that your value to society and your family is not only determined by your job title or your paycheck. Men would like to move on to this understanding as well but they have this little problem called the courts which tells them when they can "visit" their own children and likewise that "parenting = paycheck."

Women opt (not are forced) to work part time at 5 times the rate of men. Quite simply put they have a different set of priorities. As for men being "serious" and "dedicated" well when your a$$ is going to jail over support orders it is amazing how "serious" and "dedicated" you can be about avoiding that. Why don't you pull up the news articles about all the women going to jail over child support orders for me?

Quote:
Anyone living in the world has to accept the idea that you do not always get what you want. If you're a father, well, guess what? You're a father. If men want more freedom, they can behave more responsibly.

So you don't always get what you want. So perhaps it is women who should come to the realization that giving a man 15 minutes of fun doesn't = 18 years of support. Perhaps when women become more responsible and get their expectations realistic they will stop filing for divorces at 200-300% the rate of men just because they are "emotionally unfulfilled." Maybe women will become responsible enough to see that with their sexual revolution and abortion rights comes the responsibility to pick a father that will help them raise children instead of defaulting to some guy that was fun for that night.

And lastly aside from your cartoonish attempts to portray men as bad for not being a paycheck, you've shown no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as women regarding the choice of parenting.

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 #111 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
He has to go to court and have them take almost two years to establish his parental rights.

Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.
"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 #112 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
They meet in a bar.

They start talking.

They go back to her place.

They start kissing.

They move to the bedroom.

They rip each others clothes off.

And then...

"Excuse me, could you read this and sign at the "x" please?"

Right.

At one crazy PC college you do have to do this.
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
post #113 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
We covered this earlier in the thread, but what I said was that men need to be responsible enough to keep track of their sperm. It's not the woman's job to do it, but our own.

If we keep track of our sperm then...

Give me a break. If our sperm is stolen and hijacked we should not be held responsible. Period.

 

“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 #114 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Then I think we've found a problem that needs to be fixed. Doing what you're suggesting doesn't address this problemed link in the chain, it's just adding another.

How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.

Nick

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #115 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
How could it possibly be fixed? The courts have shown that they will not decide on anything that forces a woman to be a parent or do something with her body at the expense of a man. It wouldn't just be changing a law. It would be changing an entire precident. Women name the fathers of the children. What sort of remedy would you recommend where fathers could "claim" their children without legal challenge and stop a woman from asserting her rights regarding giving up her body, time, money etc. instead of giving up her parenting rights.

Nick

What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.

I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...
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 #116 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Giaguara
What you want is to force the woman who HATES the parassite in her body to continue the pregnancy, and then fully support it for the next 18 years, only because you want it? I think the science should try to implant the fetus to the man's body if it's the MAN that wants the kid, and not the woman.

I'd run away fast seeign a single, expecting father ...

No one has said she has to continue the pregnancy, that is what abortion is for.

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 #117 of 382
[starts slow clapping for Trumptman's longer recent post above]

...and can Giaguara get anymore circular? Yes, yes, we get your point. No man will want to carry a baby till matriculation. It was a f*cking movie. You are fixated on it in some passive aggressive revenge mode. Get over it.

It seems a few people here are unable to grasp the notion that nobody here, nor is this topic title, suggesting that a woman should be forced to gestate and birth a baby if it is not her will to do so. If she doesn't want to have it, she doesn't want to have it- end of story (until science figures out how to do embryo and pre-embryo transplants into surrogate mothers, perhaps- a potentially more feasible technique than idle fantasies of men being converted to hermaphrodites and "rolling their own"). No sane or respectful man would dare to have this legal precedence fiddled with.

What this is really about is if men's rights should be brought further to parity or not with women's rights wrt legally opt-out motions. Basically, there are none for men, but half-a-dozen ways for women. Additionally, women can seemingly "opt-in" a man, any man, at literally any time of the pregnancy or even after the pregnancy. Just write in some man's name on the birth certificate. No proof required. Just boom- you're it (even if you weren't the sperm donor). The "mark" then has to pursue legal action to correct this matter. That's right- guilty until proven innocent. Doing the legal dance may take a few years to pan-out, as well, all the while you are responsible for the child support in the meantime.

Just live with a single mother for a few months, and you may become legally accountable for child support (for children you have NO blood relation to whatsoever). The laws in some states have reached ridiculous levels- don't turn your back for a second.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #118 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
If our sperm is stolen and hijacked we should not be held responsible.

In all seriousness, how can our sperm be stolen and hijacked?
"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 #119 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
How could it possibly be fixed?

Because the courts are slow, you don't mess something else up.

This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
"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 #120 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
In all seriousness, how can our sperm be stolen and hijacked?

There are cases where men have been declared responsible for supporting children where the woman impregnated herself with sperm taken from a used condom.

Of course that is no more outragous than the doctor order to pay child support to a woman for whom he had performed the procedure to make her infertile. Likewise there are men who have been ordered to pay support for children that are not theirs but they lived with them and supported them for a period of time while living with their mother. (not even married)

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
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..