I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.
We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
A few fundamental points:
women's rights do not equal men's rights.
women's right to choosedoes not imply an equivalent men's right.
men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.
Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.
I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.
We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
LEGALLY FORCED? Please.... she made the choice to have the sex. She made the choice not to abort. In all instances she does this by choice, not because she is legally compelled. The fact you would claim this when we have nation-wide legal abortion is comical.
As for what you have not proven, you call them "fundemental points." They aren't fundemental to me. They are just your assertions, unproven assertions.
Quote:
# women's rights do not equal men's rights.
# women's right to choose does not imply an equivalent men's right.
# men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.
First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights. You have given no reasoning at all besides assertions for your sexist belief that men should have fewer rights than women.
Second you claim a woman's right to choose is not equivalent to a men's right. They both concern whether or not to take on the parenting role. You have not shown in any manner why one should have a choice and the other should not. The fact that biology dictates that one exercise this right by signing a paper (man) and the other exercise it by signing a paper and having an out patient medical procedure has nothing to do with denying a man his rights.
Lastly, you claim that a woman really can't choose if a man has rights because her choice to parent is dependent on a man's ability to provide for her. (Think about how sexist that sounds.)
However abortion isn't about a man's ability to provide. It is about a woman choosing to parent. If she doesn't wish to use her body to produce a child to whom she must provide and parent, it is her choice not to do so. Likewise if a man must use his body to parent and provide, it should be his choice to do so.
You fail to touch on the following points.
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
Second, address head on why a man should be forced to parent against his will. You keep using association arguments, but you don't make a case. A woman currently would consider a man's ability to provide in deciding whether to abort or not. The fact that he has a choice does not change the considerations a woman makes when considering abortion. You have not addressed this. You must show, aside from normal considerations the woman would make regarding whether or not to have an abortion, why a man should be denied his rights.
In fact to deny individual rights, the considerations for state interest should be extraordinary. If the state shouldn't have an interest in why I have sex with a man, then why should it when I have sex with a woman? The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well. If she doesn't want them, then abort. Not caring to exercise her choice and taking the consequences of it is not grounds for denying a man his rights.
There are more but address these instead of ignoring them and I'll be happy to chime in with more.
I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
I can't imagine what tortured reasoning led you to the conclusion that now the woman is being FORCED to do something. No one is asking for a man's right to force her to HAVE a child. Women can abort with or without the say of the man.
The decision to deal with "harsh economic realities" will be entirely left to the discretion of the woman in these cases, who can choose to avoid the situation completely through abortion.
Legally forced single parent child raising is what "opting-out" creates. A man opts out of his parental responsibilities to his child or to his children; therefore, he creates a single-parent family situation for his children. Granted, a woman can then abscond her own parental rights to her children through adoption, or later become a two-parent family again through marriage (or...ahem..civil unions). But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out." Despite the existence of a capable man, a woman is legally forced to become a single parent trying to make up for the lost child-support payments that would assist her child.
Let's be honest here, trumptman, for a change.
Tell me what you consider the major negative aspects of "opting-out."
Every plan has to have flaws or disadvantages, and it seems like advocates have disregarded them all in the race to "equivalent rights." Remember, the burden of proof is on the proponents while the burden of refutation is on the opponents. And you cannot prove something without addressing a plan's disadvantages.
To me, both the welfare of "opted-out" children and the weakening of the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose present major, untenable disadvantages.
An explanation:
This view is apparently paranoid, chauvinistic, and advances dangerous notions about the (made up) verb form of the noun "poverty." Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children. Perhaps this is the reason that Groverat considers men who "opt-out" to be "worthless sacks of amoral garbage." A man who financially "opts-out" of his child's life virtually condemns his child or his children to more poverty-like situations. The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.
Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.
However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. A man could punish a woman for choosing to give birth to a child by "opting-out" of his parental responsibility his child. Men hold the upper hand now. In no other context could it be considered as anything but a punishment for a woman's right to choose. A man is neither entitled to a woman's body nor entitled to a choice beyond conception simply because he has no choice to make. Those are the terms.
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.
I don't.
And it's Argumentum ad Verecundiam, stupid-head. The translation is "Argument from respect (modesty)" (Latin). It's otherwise known as an appeal to authority, where Idea I is correct because authority A believes it is. And yes, a woman's right to choose is a woman's right; therefore, it is not a logical fallacy.
The guilt by association fallacy is concerned with discrediting ideas. George F. Will is a women's rights activist; therefore, women's rights is wrong.
But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out."
How exactly does that statement correlate with this one: "A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children".
Really what you are saying is that your argument is all about money, rather than principle. I guess we now need to legislate a minimum income and/or wealth level below which it is illegal to have sex?
"sovereignty of a woman's right to choose"
The woman's "right to choose" is the "right to have an abortion" (she could "have the child" well before Roe v Wade). Giving a man the option to opt out doesn't in any way prevent a woman from having an abortion. So how are her rights being infringed?
EDIT: I'm not saying anything about good or bad in my post, just following the logic of "rights". In a situation where a child is being born and one or more parents don't want it, and may actively resent it, the possibility of a "good" outcome is limited under any circumstance. Basically, the situation being described is one where ALL of the outcomes are bad.
This has been quite an interesting thread to read through. I think there are some underlying assumptions that need to be addressed though.
I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty.
A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.
The act that invokes this 'Duty of Care' is called sex (for want of a better term. This act, in and of itself, signals an acceptance of the possible (both for protected and unprotected sex) arisance of a 'Duty of Care' to a created child.
In general this is understood, accepted and works. It is the basis for the foundational building block of society, the family.
To be effective, a system of law must do two things. It must firstly promote the proper procedures as the primary and preffered arrangement (in this instance, the conception of children within the bounds of a marriage until death). It must also be able to deal with exceptions to this case, and render them as closely as possible to the desired outcome.
To my mind there are three basic situations that act as exceptions to this basic situation:
Sex outside of marriage
One or both parents unable or unwilling to care for the child
Sex without consent
These can be combined or separate, and cover most situations as far as I can see.
The first issue is the easiest to resolve. Any difficulties in resolving this usually have to do with one of the other two exceptions.
The third issue is probably the most difficult, and includes situations such as rape and 'sperm theft'. In all situations, the benefit of the child must be considered first. It is likely that in many of these cases adoption would be the best solution.
Adoption is the transferrance of 'Duty of Care' from one couple to another.
The second case I skipped because it has the most permutations.
The simplest case is where both parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child. Again, adoption provides a solution. In the case where this is because the parents are unable to provide, the state should cover the costs involved to the point where adoption takes place. In the case where the parents are unwilling to take care of the child, they should remain liable for the costs involved until the adoption takes place. Alternatively, if the inabilty is merely finanical, support can be provided from the state to enable a child to remain with parents otherwise unable to provide for their child (child support allowance).
The cases where one parent is unable or unwilling to provide can be treated in essentially the same way, but applying to each individually.
As a final point, I would suggest that the only situation in which this 'Duty of Care' to the child may be terminated at any point by the premeditated causing of the death of the child is where the continued life of one of the parents will be extiguished by the continued existance of the child and there is no other avaiable option to save the parent..
I'm glad you showed up to help, James808. It gets tiring responding to those who won't respond to reason.
Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.
If he did understand that all of this pertains to before birth and still made the comments that he did, then I'm afraid he is utterly beyond reach of reason for coming up with the notion that a woman could be "forced" into a single-parent family role. It's like saying I am being "forced" to drive an old, barely-running car because I can't use the law to force someone else to pay for a new car for me.
I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty ... A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.
Naturally, I completely disagree with that statement
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights.
Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well.
This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.
You do realize that any operation, even legal abortions, can be dangerous, don't you?
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.
You have a peculiar thinking process. What does your comment have to do with my post that you quoted?
Where was I arguing that abortion is some care-free, lickety-split procedure? I know it is painful for the mother, too. What's your point? Nevertheless, people go through with it. Doctors perform the procedure. Life goes on. (imagines all the "witty" pun remarks that will now ensue from the bleeding hearts)
I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.
Perchance it's because your "reasoning" there has utterly no merit, except to yourself? You've already been told how ludicrous this notion was. It has been ignored thereon because it is, well, ludicrous and not worth discussing further. Your persistence upon bringing it up again and again, claiming that no one can counter you on it, won't bring it any more credibility than the first time you did so.
Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.
However they can have a right not to choose to parent which is what abortion is about. I quoted from Planned Parenthood to support my point. I do believe we can all agree they authoritative in understanding what the abortion procedure is about.
Quote:
You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.
Incorrect. I am comparing a fetus to a fetus. You've already had this explained to you. What it becomes later is of no concern. The rights of the present individual always prevail over future citizens. Thus abortion is legal and so is opting out. There is no right to a two parent family, nor a right to financial support of a certain level provided by two parents. Show me that right in the constitution. The fetus becomes a child and a child has rights. Two parents don't happen to be one of those rights.
Quote:
This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
A woman does have 100% control in case you hadn't noticed. She alone will determine if the child will live, be born and become human with rights. Likewise her parental rights are automatically granted while that is not the case for the father. You are correct that it is not right, but that is the way it is both from biology and from the law. If you care to suggest an alternative that also gives the father some say, I am more than happy to listen to alternatives.
As for the second part, as I mentioned earlier, the Constitution does not guarantee a baby two caring, loving parents nor even a certain level of financial support provided by a man.
Those factors, financial support, involvement, desire to share responsibility and parent, should be and are part of what a woman considers when she decides whether to parent or abort.
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
Second, address head on why a man should be forced to parent against his will. You keep using association arguments, but you don't make a case. A woman currently would consider a man's ability to provide in deciding whether to abort or not. The fact that he has a choice does not change the considerations a woman makes when considering abortion. You have not addressed this. You must show, aside from normal considerations the woman would make regarding whether or not to have an abortion, why a man should be denied his rights.
I'm looking...looking... no he ignores them and repeats himself again. Oh the agony!! I guess it's on to your assertions again...
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn
Legally forced single parent child raising is what "opting-out" creates. A man opts out of his parental responsibilities to his child or to his children; therefore, he creates a single-parent family situation for his children. Granted, a woman can then abscond her own parental rights to her children through adoption, or later become a two-parent family again through marriage (or...ahem..civil unions). But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out." Despite the existence of a capable man, a woman is legally forced to become a single parent trying to make up for the lost child-support payments that would assist her child.
How is she LEGALLY FORCED to become a single parent, when she is legally allowed not to become a parent at all? You confuse the right to do with her body, with the right to live in a certain lifestyle. We guarantee (for now) one of those, but not the other.
The right to abortion is allowed under the right of privacy to with her body as she wishes. How do you read in there "right to have someone else's body provide for her body for the next 18 years?" Two parent families and financial support have nothing to do with her private right to an abortion.
You find for me in the Constitution where she has a right to a man, his money, a husband, or anything of that nature.
Likewise find for me in the Constitution where a child is even guaranteed two parents or even one.
Quote:
Let's be honest here, trumptman, for a change.
Tell me what you consider the major negative aspects of "opting-out."
Every plan has to have flaws or disadvantages, and it seems like advocates have disregarded them all in the race to "equivalent rights." Remember, the burden of proof is on the proponents while the burden of refutation is on the opponents. And you cannot prove something without addressing a plan's disadvantages.
To me, both the welfare of "opted-out" children and the weakening of the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose present major, untenable disadvantages.
Honest for a change? Do you spend the majority of your time being dishonest Shawn?
I'll gladly go into the negatives. It is called the slippery slope and it is dragged out just about everytime a right is granted. So we will likely have some fathers believe they should be able to opt out during divorces, if a mother moves away with the children, if they are married and do not want the child, etc.
However just because one right is given in one instance doesn't guarantee it in others. That is why it is called a slippery slope. I have no doubt that some will try to press this though and I would consider it a flaw of the plan.
And again the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose concerns her body and her parenting choice. It does not concern having a man provide anything for her, nor does it even guarantee a certain level of comfort regarding parenting. It is a right to privacy to do with her body what she wishes to exercise her choice to parent. That is as far as it reaches. No appeal to the fact a right may be used more often is going to cause anyone to grant additional rights.
Quote:
Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children
That is perhaps the saddest, most sexist thing I have ever read in my life. It is beyond misguided and shows how little you care about men, children, or even really women.
Illegitimacy is the single clearest factor that is likely to predict dropping out, drug abuse, prison, etc. It is precisely because of the misguided notion that someone can parent by proxy or paycheck that we have the problems and issues we do now. If I suggested to you that a child would be psychologically okay without the love and care of a mother because we gave her a few hundred dollars a month, you would find that callousness cruel and harmful. The reverse is true as well.
As a father I can tell you that boys and girls need fathers. The boys need fathers to learn how to use strength without using violence, to temper the physical power they often possess with care and compassion for others. Girls need fathers to see how a man truly treats a woman when he cares for her. Here's a hint it isn't by sending a check. When a girls want to marry a man like dear old dad, it should conjure notions of caring, dependibleness, of love exibited through action. Not of a check arriving in the mail.
As for it again, presenting a harmful effect to the woman's right to choose.. (repeat after me) they are not the same issue. This is why I said you are using association (not appeal to authority) You constantly associate the after birth care with abortion. You claim the after birth care causes the woman not to be able to get an abortion (or limits her right to choose against abortion). That is guilt by association, which is what you have done. She has the right to an abortion, not to a certain lifestyle of parenting is chosen. The (repeat again) fact that she or we cannot guarantee a certain lifestyle after parenting is taken on is why she has the right not to do it and have an abortion.
Quote:
The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.
So has no-fault divorce, illegitimacy, WIC and other welfare assistance to single mothers, free day care, etc. On ecould even argue that abortion has contributed to that as well since illegitimacy has exploded since it was legallized. I suppose you would like that gone as well.
I suppose that we should end all those because each time we have offered something to someone who has a child out of wedlock or is a single mom, we seem to get more of them. Perhaps we should stop rewarding someone for going it alone. Then they will choose (via abortion) to stop doing so.
Quote:
Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.
It may figure into her choice, but we don't have to guarantee certain variables in order to assure that if she chooses parenting. She has the right to choose to parent or not. Society and the Constitution does not guarntee that her choose will be a good one, an easy one, a fulfilling one, etc. It just gives her the choice. How it pans out is up to her. Otherwise with what you claim we could justify a police state and likewise your reasoning falls very close to eugenics. (very scary) The Constitution does not guarantee a man for every woman. It guarantees that she can get an abortion if she chooses.
Quote:
However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. A man could punish a woman for choosing to give birth to a child by "opting-out" of his parental responsibility his child. Men hold the upper hand now. In no other context could it be considered as anything but a punishment for a woman's right to choose. A man is neither entitled to a woman's body nor entitled to a choice beyond conception simply because he has no choice to make. Those are the terms.
Do we see the repetition yet?!? The same logical fallacy. (I'm telling you guilt by association) You repeatedly claim that harder parenting = harmed right to abortion. That is the guilt by association. Parenting hardships has nothing to do with whether you can get an abortion. It is a pure and simple fallacy. Opting out make a woman less likely to choose to parenting, therefore opting out is wrong because it limits a woman's abortion rights.
Only abortion is the right to choose NOT to parent.
Quote:
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.
Comments
Nick
I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.
We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
A few fundamental points:
- women's rights do not equal men's rights.
- women's right to choose does not imply an equivalent men's right.
- men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.
Currently, motherhood "dooms" a woman to 18 years of labor in addition to 9 months of pregnancy if she wants the child; if she has no father, it becomes extremely hard labor with an unsatisfactory end result: Children don't do well with single working parents.-Amorph
Originally posted by Shawn
[B]I'll say this once.
I will spend no time responding to allegations in the name of the evolution of the thread. If you feel a salient point has not yet been addressed, then name it.
We've established that we disagree over fundamental aspects of the proposed "opt-out" clause concerning fathers' parental responsibility to their children. The biological disparity between men and women has been noted as has a woman's fundamental right to choose. Also, the "unfairness" resulting from that biological disparity has been noted and sympathized with almost universally. However, where we digress concerns matters of law and notions of "equality." I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
LEGALLY FORCED? Please.... she made the choice to have the sex. She made the choice not to abort. In all instances she does this by choice, not because she is legally compelled. The fact you would claim this when we have nation-wide legal abortion is comical.
As for what you have not proven, you call them "fundemental points." They aren't fundemental to me. They are just your assertions, unproven assertions.
# women's rights do not equal men's rights.
# women's right to choose does not imply an equivalent men's right.
# men's right to choose via "opting-out" has significant negative repercussions concerning the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose and concerning the economic and subsequently general well-being of a man's "opted-out" children.
First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights. You have given no reasoning at all besides assertions for your sexist belief that men should have fewer rights than women.
Second you claim a woman's right to choose is not equivalent to a men's right. They both concern whether or not to take on the parenting role. You have not shown in any manner why one should have a choice and the other should not. The fact that biology dictates that one exercise this right by signing a paper (man) and the other exercise it by signing a paper and having an out patient medical procedure has nothing to do with denying a man his rights.
Lastly, you claim that a woman really can't choose if a man has rights because her choice to parent is dependent on a man's ability to provide for her. (Think about how sexist that sounds.)
However abortion isn't about a man's ability to provide. It is about a woman choosing to parent. If she doesn't wish to use her body to produce a child to whom she must provide and parent, it is her choice not to do so. Likewise if a man must use his body to parent and provide, it should be his choice to do so.
You fail to touch on the following points.
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
Second, address head on why a man should be forced to parent against his will. You keep using association arguments, but you don't make a case. A woman currently would consider a man's ability to provide in deciding whether to abort or not. The fact that he has a choice does not change the considerations a woman makes when considering abortion. You have not addressed this. You must show, aside from normal considerations the woman would make regarding whether or not to have an abortion, why a man should be denied his rights.
In fact to deny individual rights, the considerations for state interest should be extraordinary. If the state shouldn't have an interest in why I have sex with a man, then why should it when I have sex with a woman? The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well. If she doesn't want them, then abort. Not caring to exercise her choice and taking the consequences of it is not grounds for denying a man his rights.
There are more but address these instead of ignoring them and I'll be happy to chime in with more.
Nick
Originally posted by Shawn
I believe advocates must acknowledge the damage or the harms that an "opt-out" clause would have on the father's child or children including the harsh economic realities of legally forced single-parent child raising.
I can't imagine what tortured reasoning led you to the conclusion that now the woman is being FORCED to do something. No one is asking for a man's right to force her to HAVE a child. Women can abort with or without the say of the man.
The decision to deal with "harsh economic realities" will be entirely left to the discretion of the woman in these cases, who can choose to avoid the situation completely through abortion.
Let's be honest here, trumptman, for a change.
Tell me what you consider the major negative aspects of "opting-out."
Every plan has to have flaws or disadvantages, and it seems like advocates have disregarded them all in the race to "equivalent rights." Remember, the burden of proof is on the proponents while the burden of refutation is on the opponents. And you cannot prove something without addressing a plan's disadvantages.
To me, both the welfare of "opted-out" children and the weakening of the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose present major, untenable disadvantages.
An explanation:
This view is apparently paranoid, chauvinistic, and advances dangerous notions about the (made up) verb form of the noun "poverty." Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children. Perhaps this is the reason that Groverat considers men who "opt-out" to be "worthless sacks of amoral garbage." A man who financially "opts-out" of his child's life virtually condemns his child or his children to more poverty-like situations. The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.
Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.
However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. A man could punish a woman for choosing to give birth to a child by "opting-out" of his parental responsibility his child. Men hold the upper hand now. In no other context could it be considered as anything but a punishment for a woman's right to choose. A man is neither entitled to a woman's body nor entitled to a choice beyond conception simply because he has no choice to make. Those are the terms.
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.
I don't.
And it's Argumentum ad Verecundiam, stupid-head.
The guilt by association fallacy is concerned with discrediting ideas. George F. Will is a women's rights activist; therefore, women's rights is wrong.
Originally posted by Shawn
But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out."
How exactly does that statement correlate with this one: "A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children".
Really what you are saying is that your argument is all about money, rather than principle. I guess we now need to legislate a minimum income and/or wealth level below which it is illegal to have sex?
"sovereignty of a woman's right to choose"
The woman's "right to choose" is the "right to have an abortion" (she could "have the child" well before Roe v Wade). Giving a man the option to opt out doesn't in any way prevent a woman from having an abortion. So how are her rights being infringed?
EDIT: I'm not saying anything about good or bad in my post, just following the logic of "rights". In a situation where a child is being born and one or more parents don't want it, and may actively resent it, the possibility of a "good" outcome is limited under any circumstance. Basically, the situation being described is one where ALL of the outcomes are bad.
I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty.
A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.
The act that invokes this 'Duty of Care' is called sex (for want of a better term. This act, in and of itself, signals an acceptance of the possible (both for protected and unprotected sex) arisance of a 'Duty of Care' to a created child.
In general this is understood, accepted and works. It is the basis for the foundational building block of society, the family.
To be effective, a system of law must do two things. It must firstly promote the proper procedures as the primary and preffered arrangement (in this instance, the conception of children within the bounds of a marriage until death). It must also be able to deal with exceptions to this case, and render them as closely as possible to the desired outcome.
To my mind there are three basic situations that act as exceptions to this basic situation:
- Sex outside of marriage
- One or both parents unable or unwilling to care for the child
- Sex without consent
These can be combined or separate, and cover most situations as far as I can see.The first issue is the easiest to resolve. Any difficulties in resolving this usually have to do with one of the other two exceptions.
The third issue is probably the most difficult, and includes situations such as rape and 'sperm theft'. In all situations, the benefit of the child must be considered first. It is likely that in many of these cases adoption would be the best solution.
Adoption is the transferrance of 'Duty of Care' from one couple to another.
The second case I skipped because it has the most permutations.
The simplest case is where both parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child. Again, adoption provides a solution. In the case where this is because the parents are unable to provide, the state should cover the costs involved to the point where adoption takes place. In the case where the parents are unwilling to take care of the child, they should remain liable for the costs involved until the adoption takes place. Alternatively, if the inabilty is merely finanical, support can be provided from the state to enable a child to remain with parents otherwise unable to provide for their child (child support allowance).
The cases where one parent is unable or unwilling to provide can be treated in essentially the same way, but applying to each individually.
As a final point, I would suggest that the only situation in which this 'Duty of Care' to the child may be terminated at any point by the premeditated causing of the death of the child is where the continued life of one of the parents will be extiguished by the continued existance of the child and there is no other avaiable option to save the parent..
Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.
If he did understand that all of this pertains to before birth and still made the comments that he did, then I'm afraid he is utterly beyond reach of reason for coming up with the notion that a woman could be "forced" into a single-parent family role. It's like saying I am being "forced" to drive an old, barely-running car because I can't use the law to force someone else to pay for a new car for me.
Originally posted by Stecs
I think that the whole basis on which the argument is based is somewhat faulty ... A child should be considered to be created with a inherant 'Duty of Care' placed upon both of its parents for the period from conception through to the point where they are able to provide for themselves. This 'Duty of Care' involves both an emotional and a material component.
Naturally, I completely disagree with that statement
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
Originally posted by trumptman
First you have not proven that men should ever have fewer rights.
Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.
Originally posted by trumptman
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.
Originally posted by trumptman
The choice to keep the child is a woman's alone. Thus the responsibilities should be as well.
This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Just to recap, I hope Shawn realizes that when we suggest "opt-out", this is only accessible through a specific grace period existing prior to birth of the child and assuming reasonable measures have been taken to inform the "father" of impending child. No one is suggesting that a father be able to opt-out at just any time whatsoever after the child is born. That is the only way I can see his points making any sense.
You do realize that any operation, even legal abortions, can be dangerous, don't you?
Originally posted by james808
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.
They are not equivalent in the least.
Where was I arguing that abortion is some care-free, lickety-split procedure? I know it is painful for the mother, too. What's your point? Nevertheless, people go through with it. Doctors perform the procedure. Life goes on. (imagines all the "witty" pun remarks that will now ensue from the bleeding hearts)
Originally posted by bunge
I've addressed this many times but haven't seen an adequate response yet. An abortion effects the zygote/fetus. Opt-out effects a child.
Perchance it's because your "reasoning" there has utterly no merit, except to yourself? You've already been told how ludicrous this notion was. It has been ignored thereon because it is, well, ludicrous and not worth discussing further. Your persistence upon bringing it up again and again, claiming that no one can counter you on it, won't bring it any more credibility than the first time you did so.
Originally posted by bunge
Men can't have a baby so they can't have the right to an abortion.
However they can have a right not to choose to parent which is what abortion is about. I quoted from Planned Parenthood to support my point. I do believe we can all agree they authoritative in understanding what the abortion procedure is about.
You're comparing a fetus to a child and that's irrelevant. How the courts view a fetus has nothing to do with how a court views a child. They're two different entities.
Incorrect. I am comparing a fetus to a fetus. You've already had this explained to you. What it becomes later is of no concern. The rights of the present individual always prevail over future citizens. Thus abortion is legal and so is opting out. There is no right to a two parent family, nor a right to financial support of a certain level provided by two parents. Show me that right in the constitution. The fetus becomes a child and a child has rights. Two parents don't happen to be one of those rights.
This line of reasoning leads us to say that a woman should always have 100% custody and control. That's not right.
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
A woman does have 100% control in case you hadn't noticed. She alone will determine if the child will live, be born and become human with rights. Likewise her parental rights are automatically granted while that is not the case for the father. You are correct that it is not right, but that is the way it is both from biology and from the law. If you care to suggest an alternative that also gives the father some say, I am more than happy to listen to alternatives.
As for the second part, as I mentioned earlier, the Constitution does not guarantee a baby two caring, loving parents nor even a certain level of financial support provided by a man.
Those factors, financial support, involvement, desire to share responsibility and parent, should be and are part of what a woman considers when she decides whether to parent or abort.
Nick
If a man has made no commitment to a woman, either legally or financially, why should he be responsible for an "accident" that obliges his body via work for over 18 years when the law will not force a woman to do something she does not wish with her body for 40 weeks.
Second, address head on why a man should be forced to parent against his will. You keep using association arguments, but you don't make a case. A woman currently would consider a man's ability to provide in deciding whether to abort or not. The fact that he has a choice does not change the considerations a woman makes when considering abortion. You have not addressed this. You must show, aside from normal considerations the woman would make regarding whether or not to have an abortion, why a man should be denied his rights.
I'm looking...looking... no he ignores them and repeats himself again. Oh the agony!! I guess it's on to your assertions again...
Originally posted by Shawn
Legally forced single parent child raising is what "opting-out" creates. A man opts out of his parental responsibilities to his child or to his children; therefore, he creates a single-parent family situation for his children. Granted, a woman can then abscond her own parental rights to her children through adoption, or later become a two-parent family again through marriage (or...ahem..civil unions). But what opting out directly creates is a single parent family. That point is so impossibly ridiculous to deny that tortured reasoning is only on the part of those who cannot see anything bad from giving men the right to "opt-out." Despite the existence of a capable man, a woman is legally forced to become a single parent trying to make up for the lost child-support payments that would assist her child.
How is she LEGALLY FORCED to become a single parent, when she is legally allowed not to become a parent at all? You confuse the right to do with her body, with the right to live in a certain lifestyle. We guarantee (for now) one of those, but not the other.
The right to abortion is allowed under the right of privacy to with her body as she wishes. How do you read in there "right to have someone else's body provide for her body for the next 18 years?" Two parent families and financial support have nothing to do with her private right to an abortion.
You find for me in the Constitution where she has a right to a man, his money, a husband, or anything of that nature.
Likewise find for me in the Constitution where a child is even guaranteed two parents or even one.
Let's be honest here, trumptman, for a change.
Tell me what you consider the major negative aspects of "opting-out."
Every plan has to have flaws or disadvantages, and it seems like advocates have disregarded them all in the race to "equivalent rights." Remember, the burden of proof is on the proponents while the burden of refutation is on the opponents. And you cannot prove something without addressing a plan's disadvantages.
To me, both the welfare of "opted-out" children and the weakening of the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose present major, untenable disadvantages.
Honest for a change? Do you spend the majority of your time being dishonest Shawn?
I'll gladly go into the negatives. It is called the slippery slope and it is dragged out just about everytime a right is granted. So we will likely have some fathers believe they should be able to opt out during divorces, if a mother moves away with the children, if they are married and do not want the child, etc.
However just because one right is given in one instance doesn't guarantee it in others. That is why it is called a slippery slope. I have no doubt that some will try to press this though and I would consider it a flaw of the plan.
And again the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose concerns her body and her parenting choice. It does not concern having a man provide anything for her, nor does it even guarantee a certain level of comfort regarding parenting. It is a right to privacy to do with her body what she wishes to exercise her choice to parent. That is as far as it reaches. No appeal to the fact a right may be used more often is going to cause anyone to grant additional rights.
Regardless, the power of the paycheck of either a two-parent or child-support paying parent family is crucial for the support and success of children. Such families significantly raise the the income and the economic condition of the family. A father figure is not necessary, but a portion of his income is necessary to ensure the well-being of his child or children
That is perhaps the saddest, most sexist thing I have ever read in my life. It is beyond misguided and shows how little you care about men, children, or even really women.
Illegitimacy is the single clearest factor that is likely to predict dropping out, drug abuse, prison, etc. It is precisely because of the misguided notion that someone can parent by proxy or paycheck that we have the problems and issues we do now. If I suggested to you that a child would be psychologically okay without the love and care of a mother because we gave her a few hundred dollars a month, you would find that callousness cruel and harmful. The reverse is true as well.
As a father I can tell you that boys and girls need fathers. The boys need fathers to learn how to use strength without using violence, to temper the physical power they often possess with care and compassion for others. Girls need fathers to see how a man truly treats a woman when he cares for her. Here's a hint it isn't by sending a check. When a girls want to marry a man like dear old dad, it should conjure notions of caring, dependibleness, of love exibited through action. Not of a check arriving in the mail.
As for it again, presenting a harmful effect to the woman's right to choose.. (repeat after me) they are not the same issue. This is why I said you are using association (not appeal to authority) You constantly associate the after birth care with abortion. You claim the after birth care causes the woman not to be able to get an abortion (or limits her right to choose against abortion). That is guilt by association, which is what you have done. She has the right to an abortion, not to a certain lifestyle of parenting is chosen. The (repeat again) fact that she or we cannot guarantee a certain lifestyle after parenting is taken on is why she has the right not to do it and have an abortion.
The statistics on children living in single-parent homes already compare them to children living in poverty. A right to "opt-out" would only magnify the problem.
So has no-fault divorce, illegitimacy, WIC and other welfare assistance to single mothers, free day care, etc. On ecould even argue that abortion has contributed to that as well since illegitimacy has exploded since it was legallized. I suppose you would like that gone as well.
I suppose that we should end all those because each time we have offered something to someone who has a child out of wedlock or is a single mom, we seem to get more of them. Perhaps we should stop rewarding someone for going it alone. Then they will choose (via abortion) to stop doing so.
Questions regarding a family's ability to support a child will always figure into a woman's reproductive decision. Gradations within a two-parent or child support paying parent family will occur (a janitor will make less than a lawyer), and the job status of both biological parents would ordinarily figure into a woman's choice.
It may figure into her choice, but we don't have to guarantee certain variables in order to assure that if she chooses parenting. She has the right to choose to parent or not. Society and the Constitution does not guarntee that her choose will be a good one, an easy one, a fulfilling one, etc. It just gives her the choice. How it pans out is up to her. Otherwise with what you claim we could justify a police state and likewise your reasoning falls very close to eugenics. (very scary) The Constitution does not guarantee a man for every woman. It guarantees that she can get an abortion if she chooses.
However, the existence of a man's right to abdicate personal responsibility upon his child's or children's birth would severely jeopardize the sovereignty of a woman's right to choose (in addition to the child or the children who are most directly affected). If enacted, her decision would now depend on whether the biological father will accept legal responsibility for his child. This isn't like other factors a woman must consider. This is specifically in spite of a woman's own right to choose. A man could punish a woman for choosing to give birth to a child by "opting-out" of his parental responsibility his child. Men hold the upper hand now. In no other context could it be considered as anything but a punishment for a woman's right to choose. A man is neither entitled to a woman's body nor entitled to a choice beyond conception simply because he has no choice to make. Those are the terms.
Do we see the repetition yet?!?
Only abortion is the right to choose NOT to parent.
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose.
I don't.
It doesn't.
Nick