|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @06:30PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
A huge thanks to Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson for speaking up against injustices that men face, despite huge social pressure to be quiet and bow down. You offer a shining example to everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @07:00PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Heed my words you radical feminist you have sowed the wind, but you will reap the whirlwind. There’s a storm of righteous law a commin’ on your evil laws and it can’t come too soon. May God bless this end himself, and may good men and women everywhere join together to see it through.
ANONYMOUS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let the women decide whether or not to have abortions, and let the men decide whether or not to pay child support. It allows both to retain their sovereignty. It is sad that a man will not be able to block an abortion of a child he wants, but this is the lesser of two evils in that it will prevent either side from having too much power. It will also force women to think well on whether or not they should keep the baby, rather than aborting or putting up for adoption. The choice of whether or not to ensnare the father should not rest solely in the hands of the mother. He should have every bit as much right to be free as she does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ampersand,
A well-written disagreement. Of course, I find much to disagree with. :) I would like very much to produce a full point-by-point reply but I am unlikely to have the time. (I'm an agonizingly slow writer.)
Instead, I'll address the biggest thing to jump out at me: The argument that the unfairness to men is inevitable due to biology and the needs of a child.
If we are talking simply about abortion, then yes, that appears to be so. When I heard about this particular case, I considered it to be non-starter.
But Sacks and Thompson did raise the more general issue of the choice to be a parent. You address this, and quite appropriately bring in the rights of the child to financial support from both parents. But you left out one legal reality:
You wrote:
"For instance, they propose giving fathers a right to cut and run - but they don't propose giving mothers the same right."
Sacks and Thompson wrote:
"A woman who doesn't want her child can terminate the pregnancy against the father's wishes, or put their child up for adoption, sometimes without the father's permission. In some states, she can even return the baby to the hospital within a week of birth. More than 1 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year."
They are proposing giving to fathers the same rights to "cut and run" that mothers currently have. In my state, Michigan, a woman now has 30 days from the birth of a child to drop it off at any hospital, church or police station, no questions asked. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that both adoption and legal abandonment relieve the mother of any further financial obligation.
You wrote:
"Children have an unambiguous right to the material support of two parents. Under Sacks and Thompson's theory, parents have the ability to sign away their children's rights before the child is ever born - but that's not the way the law works. Once the child is to be born, it has rights, regardless of what it's parents signed before it was born. A parent can't sign away a future child's right to support, for the same reason that a parent can't sign a contract selling his future child's liver. The future child's rights aren't the parent's to sign away."
Nice as that sounds, it is innaccurate. The law works one way for men and another way for women. Mothers often do have the right to sign away a child's future right to support, both before and after birth. There are fairly obvious reasons for that. What is not obvious is why anyone would think those same reasons don't apply to fathers.
P.S.- If you decide to continue the conversation and don't want to log-in as a member, it would be most helpful if you "signed" your posts with a handle. All the "Anonymous's" get confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @09:09PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Beware of Amperscum. He will appear to be polite and able to debate, but then he will smear you on other forums. Not a nice guy. And a feminazi to boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He will appear to be polite and able to debate, but then he will smear you on other forums."
Foolish mortal,
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
-Tao Te Ching, Verse 20
Larry (AKA "That Which Knows")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @03:36AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zhuh?
Just a failed attempt at humor. Call me cocky, but I find it hard to work up any trepidation over the prospect of being bad-mouthed in forums I don't participate in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @05:12PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Just a failed attempt at humor. Call me cocky, but I find it hard to work up any trepidation over the prospect of being bad-mouthed in forums I don't participate in.
You haven't seen what this guy does. Wait until he gets on the Ms. forums and starts bad-mouthing you. Then he'll make sure your name is smeared in Internet search engines.
Better make DAMN sure he doesn't find out your actual identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better make DAMN sure he doesn't find out your actual identity.
I will keep that in mind. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Larry. Thanks for your response - I appreciate the time you took. I've responded in turn on my website, at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/ .
As for the accusations made against me, I ask that folks judge me based on what I do, not on unsubstantiated accusations.
To my anonymous friend: I challenge you to back up your accusation with documentation. Put up or shut up, please.
Amp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @04:07PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Larry. Thanks for your response - I appreciate the time you took. I've responded in turn on my website, at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/ .
You see? Rather than responding to you here, he took your response as an opportunity to smear you and mensactivism.org on his own blog, which, no doubt is seen by hundreds of feminazis every day.
Get ready for some real trolls, MANN. Amperscum always brings them with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @09:32PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Get ready for some real trolls, MANN. Amperscum always brings them with him.
Yeah. I heard he was the reason SheThinks.org got overrun by man hating bigot feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amp,
Good reply and I'm not feeling misrepresented or smeared at all. You're right, I didn't read the act. I relied on media reports. Foolish, I know.
However, having a conversation with a blog is too strange a mode of communication for me. I'll stick to engaging with you on what you post here. (or maybe get my own blog.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's fine, Larry - sorry my replying format bugged you. If you do start your own blog, let me know if you need any help. For what it's worth, I've found blogger (www.blogger.com) to be not too difficult to set up, and damned easy to use once the set-up was done.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
