|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @03:49PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
By saying the woman is "wholly responsible" for the child being born, aren't we making it sound like the child's birth is an undesirable act? I'm not making an argument for forced parenthood, but I don't want to see children penalized for the circumstances of their birth. No child should be told that it's their mother's fault that they were born, and that the right thing to do would have been to have an abortion, therefore the undesirable child never existing.
Keep in mind that most pregnancies are unplanned, and not all of them are the results of lying mothers. Sometimes birth control just fails. Lots of us have fathers who were forced into parenthood, and who would have chose not to be our fathers if C4M was available. It is right that we feel sorry for our fathers, and maybe even try to repay them in some way if we can, but should we feel bad about existing?
There must be a way to protect the rights of men without making it sound as though if a child is the result of an unplanned pregnancy, the child didn't deserve to be born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There must be a way to protect the rights of men without making it sound as though if a child is the result of an unplanned pregnancy, the child didn't deserve to be born.
That's a spurious conclusion. The doctrine mentioned admits no such interpretation. It says that the last person capable of preventing an act is ultimately the one responsible; the word "fault" is an additional spin on "responsibility" that goes beyond the intended legal meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @04:12PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not think I am arguing for forced fatherhood, because I am not. I am in full support of C4M for both married and unmarried fathers.
The way "responsibility" was used in that wording, fault was implied. Also, people generally aren't expected to prevent acts that are desirable. By saying that the mother should have been expected to prevent the pregnancy from coming to term, I just get the impression that we're saying the child being born is an undesirable thing.
I reiterate. There must be a way to protect the rights of men without making it sound as though children of unplanned pregnancies didn't deserve to be born, especially since most pregnancies are unplanned. Lying isn't the only way they happen. Sometimes a married couple will stop using birth control because the woman is 40, they both think it's safe but an accident happens. Should the husband have to be a father to the child? NO!!! but we shouldn't imply that the child is a lesser person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @04:15PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
That should have read married and unmarried men. I am in full support of C4M for married and unmarried men. Men shouldn't be called fathers unless they choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am in full support of C4M for married and unmarried men. Men shouldn't be called fathers unless they choose to be.
This is a retreading of the old Bastard Laws, and extending them to married men too. Basically you are advocating creating a legal classification for the child which legally strips him of 1/2 of his parentage, which is the same thing as Bastard Laws did in centuries passed.
Also, in your example of the married couple and the contraceptives failing and/or they mutually agree not to use contraceptives, you are making the woman 100% responsible for the consequences of a mutual act. This in effect makes men have ZERO obligations to help prevent conception, since under C4M he has ZERO obligations under any scenario to be responsible for his portion of the biological conseqences of sex.
C4M proposals punish women who DON'T abort and punish children for being born, in some kind of twisted parity scheme for women who do abort.
Also, we had thousands of years with men having the unilateral right to denounce paternity (outside marriage). This was just as disastrous for children as the unilateral rights of abortion. Now we are proposing a scheme where children would once again victimized after they are born.
I addition your scenario where the man never has any ultimate responsibility under any circumstances basically penalizing women for their physiological contribution to procreation, their being the venue for procreation to progress. This is effect would be a pregnancy completion penalty (separate from what the ramifications to the child).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @08:46PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know anything about "Bastard Laws", but whether they were good or bad in the Middle Ages doesn't have a lot of relevance to choice for men today. Bastard Laws had little to do with sexual freedom in the Middle Ages. For most persons living in the Middle Ages, sexual freedom would be a totally incomprehensible idea.
It's not the Middle Ages any more. The values (and incomes) of high income Western societies support sexual freedom for individuals. Today women have sexual freedom. Men don't. That makes men second class citizens.
C4M proposals punish women who DON'T abort and punish children for being born, in some kind of twisted parity scheme for women who do abort.
Wow. The government monetizes and criminalizes male sexuality. Some women think that monetizing and criminalizing male sexuality benefits women and children (I don't think that's at all the case). But even if it did, stopping it hardly counts as penalizing women and children.
Was ending slavery a penalty imposed on slave owners in the south for being born in a slave owning society? It looks that way only if you're incredibly narrow-minded.
I addition your scenario where the man never has any ultimate responsibility under any circumstances basically penalizing women for their physiological contribution to procreation, their being the venue for procreation to progress. This is effect would be a pregnancy completion penalty (separate from what the ramifications to the child).
News flash: women differ from men. Pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, etc. are not "penalities" imposed on women. They are part of the physical meaning of being a woman. Everyone should celebrate all that women are. Being a women should not be interpreted as some kind of punishment.
The monetization and criminalization of male sexuality is not an intrinsic part of being male. Quite the contrary. Treating men under law as sources of sperm and money denies most of what men really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News flash: women differ from men. Pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, etc. are not "penalities" imposed on women. They are part of the physical meaning of being a woman. Everyone should celebrate all that women are. Being a women should not be interpreted as some kind of punishment.
Newflash: Strawman argument. I did not say or imply that women are punished by nature. However, legal laws are NOT nature. They are abstract and arbitrary constructs. And declaring that men do not have to be obligated to support and parent his offspring is an arbitrarily imposed penalty on women and children and directly punishes women for completing there natural biological role (as well as penalizes children for being born).
The C4M proposal would penalize women for completing a natural process by making women soley responsible for allowing a natural process to continue on its natural course to its natural outcome! Therefore they are arbitrarily punishing women based on a PORTION of natural biological processes (and ignoring the portion called conception which men are equally involved in).
Men and women DO NOT differ in one area, conception, which is where the whole ball gets rolling. Start there. Both men and women contribute equally to conception and conception cannot take place without a man and woman participating. Therefore, without artificial interruption (abortion), it logically follows that the natural consequences of conception are shared as well.
Male sexuality is not being criminalized. I don't see where you get that. However, under C4M women's natural sexual role would be penalized (as well as the new individual for being born).
I do agree that abortion IS unfair to men as it unfairly terminates a child that is by biology, 1/2 his progeny. However, C4M proposals do not address or rectify this unfairness, this inequity! Why does a men's organization not care about men's children? It does NOTHING and to adress this issue and ignores it entirely? Which men are they representing?
The only thing their proposal would do (if law) is allow men an equal opportunity to victimize children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @12:57AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently the word fuck originates from 'Fornicating Under Consent of the King'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newflash: Strawman argument. I did not say or imply that women are punished by nature. However, legal laws are NOT nature. They are abstract and arbitrary constructs. And declaring that men do not have to be obligated to support and parent his offspring is an arbitrarily imposed penalty on women and children and directly punishes women for completing there natural biological role (as well as penalizes children for being born).
Fine. Then should women be obligated to carry to term and support their children on an equal, 50/50 basis?
The C4M proposal would penalize women for completing a natural process by making women soley responsible for allowing a natural process to continue on its natural course to its natural outcome! Therefore they are arbitrarily punishing women based on a PORTION of natural biological processes (and ignoring the portion called conception which men are equally involved in).
No indeed. It levelks the playing field, and removes the ability of irresponsible women to have sex without consequences, and forces them to think with their brain and not their clitoris when some studly ne'er do well gets their panties all damp.
Responsible women will suddenly have to choose responsible and stable men, and deal with them as equals. I don't see where that is a problem except to irresponsible women, or those who can't stand to not interact with men except from a position of female privilege.
You are a responsible woman who has no problem dealing with a man as an equal, aren't you?
Men and women DO NOT differ in one area, conception, which is where the whole ball gets rolling. Start there. Both men and women contribute equally to conception and conception cannot take place without a man and woman participating. Therefore, without artificial interruption (abortion), it logically follows that the natural consequences of conception are shared as well.
In what way? In a perfect world that would be so. This world isn't, and the reality of law now is that the woman has every choice and the man bears all the responsibility. Sometimes even when he is not responsible for the pregnancy.
So where is it now that these "consequences" are shared, let alone born in part, by women, except as they choose to bear them, on their terms?
Male sexuality is not being criminalized. I don't see where you get that. However, under C4M women's natural sexual role would be penalized (as well as the new individual for being born).
No woman who truly sought out a stable, responsible, good provider would suffer any penalties. Such men would stick around. Those who choose liars, cheaters, drunks and the like would suffer, and cruel as it sounds, they would deserve it. They would be Bad Mothers (Caps intended) and would eventually get heaped such scorn and perhaps legal sanctions as they would serve as an example to those who thought to reward Bad Men with sex.
Bad Men, Bad Fathers, would as well recieve well deserved scorn and shame, and would have to shape up, or learn to live with the meager embrace of Rosy Palms and her five sisters as no decent women would live with them.
And the children of the remaining bad folks would be truly innocent victims where society could punish those who victimized them, female or male, without much debate at all.
I do agree that abortion IS unfair to men as it unfairly terminates a child that is by biology, 1/2 his progeny. However, C4M proposals do not address or rectify this unfairness, this inequity! Why does a men's organization not care about men's children? It does NOTHING and to adress this issue and ignores it entirely? Which men are they representing?
Actually, L, if the logical consequence of the absolute freedom of abortion is absolute responsibilty for the choice, it will become much less of the feminist sacrament that it is. If I read between the lines of your posts correctly, you as a pro-lifer should embrace that. If you see abortion as a social evil, having the logical consequences of it become apparent will do much for curbing it, will it not?
The only thing their proposal would do (if law) is allow men an equal opportunity to victimize children.
Check me here, me mates - did Lorianne just say that women have a greater opportunity (And thus logically inferring incidence) of the victimization of children?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine. Then should women be obligated to carry to term and support their children on an equal, 50/50 basis?
The C4M proposal would penalize women for completing a natural process by making women soley responsible for allowing a natural process to continue on its natural course to its natural outcome! Therefore they are arbitrarily punishing women based on a PORTION of natural biological processes (and ignoring the portion called conception which men are equally involved in).
No indeed. It levelks the playing field, and removes the ability of irresponsible women to have sex without consequences, and forces them to think with their brain and not their clitoris when some studly ne'er do well gets their panties all damp.
Responsible women will suddenly have to choose responsible and stable men, and deal with them as equals. I don't see where that is a problem except to irresponsible women, or those who can't stand to not interact with men except from a position of female privilege.
You are a responsible woman who has no problem dealing with a man as an equal, aren't you?
Men and women DO NOT differ in one area, conception, which is where the whole ball gets rolling. Start there. Both men and women contribute equally to conception and conception cannot take place without a man and woman participating. Therefore, without artificial interruption (abortion), it logically follows that the natural consequences of conception are shared as well.
In what way? In a perfect world that would be so. This world isn't, and the reality of law now is that the woman has every choice and the man bears all the responsibility. Sometimes even when he is not responsible for the pregnancy.
So where is it now that these "consequences" are shared, let alone born in part, by women, except as they choose to bear them, on their terms?
Male sexuality is not being criminalized. I don't see where you get that. However, under C4M women's natural sexual role would be penalized (as well as the new individual for being born).
No woman who truly sought out a stable, responsible, good provider would suffer any penalties. Such men would stick around. Those who choose liars, cheaters, drunks and the like would suffer, and cruel as it sounds, they would deserve it. They would be Bad Mothers (Caps intended) and would eventually get heaped such scorn and perhaps legal sanctions as they would serve as an example to those who thought to reward Bad Men with sex.
Bad Men, Bad Fathers, would as well recieve well deserved scorn and shame, and would have to shape up, or learn to live with the meager embrace of Rosy Palms and her five sisters as no decent women would live with them.
And the children of the remaining bad folks would be truly innocent victims where society could punish those who victimized them, female or male, without much debate at all.
I do agree that abortion IS unfair to men as it unfairly terminates a child that is by biology, 1/2 his progeny. However, C4M proposals do not address or rectify this unfairness, this inequity! Why does a men's organization not care about men's children? It does NOTHING and to adress this issue and ignores it entirely? Which men are they representing?
Actually, L, if the logical consequence of the absolute freedom of abortion is absolute responsibilty for the choice, it will become much less of the feminist sacrament that it is. If I read between the lines of your posts correctly, you as a pro-lifer should embrace that. If you see
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine. Then should women be obligated to carry to term and support their children on an equal, 50/50 basis?
Yes. Or the two parents could mutually decide place the child up for adoption.
The C4M proposal would penalize women for
No indeed. It [C4M] levelks the playing field, and removes the ability of irresponsible women to have sex without consequences, and forces them to think with their brain and not their clitoris when some studly ne'er do well gets their panties all damp.
And what of irresponsible men? It does not level the playing field for them with respect to women who do not abort (and have a moral/ethical objection to abortion).
Responsible women will suddenly have to choose responsible and stable men, and deal with them as equals. I don't see where that is a problem except to irresponsible women, or those who can't stand to not interact with men except from a position of female privilege. You are a responsible woman who has no problem dealing with a man as an equal, aren't you?
I have no problem with expecting responsible behavior as long as it is an expectation placed on BOTH sexes equally. I do not consider women to be the moral police for everyone. Women and men make mistakes. Deciding to have sex is not always a rational, well though out decision. (Our own legal system recognizes this concept with under the heading of "crimes of passion"). While I do think we should have standards the we expect people to meet, I don't think those standards should be arbitrarily or unequally applied to one sex.
In what way? In a perfect world that would be so. This world isn't, and the reality of law now is that the woman has every choice and the man bears all the responsibility. Sometimes even when he is not responsible for the pregnancy.
This is not entirely true. Men have choices as well. He can abstain or use contraceptives. They both are equal BEFORE conception takes place. After conception takes place, the woman has more "choices" in an abstract legal sense. However, once again, not all women have the moral/ethical option to choose abortion. This is the lie in "choice" which would be more appropriately titled "choose abortion or else".
Also, men and women are always equally responsible for conception. Always. Every time for gazillions of conceptions from when time began. It is an irrefutable biological fact.
So where is it now that these "consequences" are shared, let alone born in part, by women, except as they choose to bear them, on their terms?
I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.
No woman who truly sought out a stable, responsible, good provider would suffer any penalties. Such men would stick around. Those who choose liars, cheaters, drunks and the like would suffer, and cruel as it sounds, they would deserve it. They would be Bad Mothers (Caps intended) and would eventually get heaped such scorn and perhaps legal sanctions as they would serve as an example to those who thought to reward Bad Men with sex.
I reject this. Both partners should seek stable responsible partners. That's a given. But one should not be more liable than the other for choosing poorly. Under this logic, a man who is wronged by a woman would be legally liable because he chose irresponsibly or poorly.
Bad Men, Bad Fathers, would as well recieve well deserved scorn and shame, and would have to shape up, or learn to live with the meager embrace of Rosy Palms and her five sisters as no decent women would live with them.
Well, at least you acknowledge some consequences, though "shame and scorn" and no dates seems inequitable compared having to support and care for a child alone and the child being denied the support and care of one of his parents. Also, one would be legally imposed and the other just societally imposed.
And the children of the remaining bad folks would be truly innocent victims where society could punish those who victimized them, female or male, without much debate at all.
What would such punishment be?
Actually, L, if the logical consequence of the absolute freedom of abortion is absolute responsibilty for the choice, it will become much less of the feminist sacrament that it is. If I read between the lines of your posts correctly, you as a pro-lifer should embrace that.
I don't see that happening and history does not support that. Injustice breeds injustice and the most vulnerable are the weakest, which would be children. What C4M is really advocating is an equal right to victimize children. But it does not address those men who do not want that right, just as Roe v Wade does not address people who do not wish to abort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine. Then should women be obligated to carry to term and support their children on an equal, 50/50 basis?
Yes. Or the two parents could mutually decide place the child up for adoption.
So your daughter gets pregnat. Doesn't want an abortion, morally. Doesn't want to give up her college to support or raise a child. The father does. Should she be forced to pay support?
That is a very specific, yes or no question, BTW.
And if not, why should the boy when it's HER choice to keep the baby?
No indeed. It [C4M] levelks the playing field, and removes the ability of irresponsible women to have sex without consequences, and forces them to think with their brain and not their clitoris when some studly ne'er do well gets their panties all damp.
And what of irresponsible men? It does not level the playing field for them with respect to women who do not abort (and have a moral/ethical objection to abortion).
Is it ultimately a "woman's choice" or not? Yes or no?
Tell you what - you get to veto my C4M if I get to veto your abortion, fair enough?
I have no problem with expecting responsible behavior as long as it is an expectation placed on BOTH sexes equally. I do not consider women to be the moral police for everyone. Women and men make mistakes. Deciding to have sex is not always a rational, well though out decision. (Our own legal system recognizes this concept with under the heading of "crimes of passion"). While I do think we should have standards the we expect people to meet, I don't think those standards should be arbitrarily or unequally applied to one sex.
Sex has real consequences. Logical consequences. Excusing irrational behavior IS the problem.
Ultimately, women get pregnant. Logically, they should ultimately prevent it. I don't suggest that wome become responsibel for my jock itch, for my prostate - why should we be responsible for your uterus?
This is not entirely true. Men have choices as well. He can abstain or use contraceptives. They both are equal BEFORE conception takes place. After conception takes place, the woman has more "choices" in an abstract legal sense. However, once again, not all women have the moral/ethical option to choose abortion. This is the lie in "choice" which would be more appropriately titled "choose abortion or else".
Let';s rverse some of this:
This is not entirely true. Women have choices as well. She can abstain or use contraceptives.
Sauce for the goose, Lorianne. Your words.
Oh, and as for "After conception takes place, the woman has more "choices" in an abstract legal sense." True. And thus greater responsibilities for those choices. Your choices. Your problem. Unfortunately, you can't increase mine without reducing yours. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to surrender female privilige?
Also, men and women are always equally responsible for conception. Always. Every time for gazillions of conceptions from when time began. It is an irrefutable biological fact.
Balderdash. Women who didn't want to get pregnant, made the slightest effort to prevent it, and wound up that way are damn few and damn far between. That's medical fact.
So where is it now that these "consequences" are shared, let alone born in part, by women, except as they choose to bear them, on their terms?
I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.
What is not to understand? You want to share consequences. You get pregnant and decide to be a "single mother" you have none. AFDC. Oprah will cry for you. Rikki Lake will parade "him" as scum. You don't have to consult with "him" on the slightest aspect - school, medical, religion, et al. The prosecutor's office is at your beck and call, for free. Social services can't wait to give you subsidized housing, pay your utilities, underwrite your master's degree while you stay home and enjoy raising Junior. You get a check from him for your pin money, no taxes, no accountability - FREE MONEY! Day care is underwritten and subsidized, or an allowance made for it. Food stamps. All you have to do is be willing to sit on your ass, complain about being a victim, and hey - they'll even direct deposit for you.
He gets a job, and writes you a check. And if he gets disabled, and can't make as much, he pays anyway under the imputed income doctrine. Or they deduct it. And if he can't live, or support a new family, so what?
So what consequences ARE youy talking about?
I reject this. Both partners should seek stable responsible partners. That's a given. But one should not be more liable than the other for choosing poorly. Under this logic, a man who is wronged by a woman would be legally liable because he chose irresponsibly or poorly.
Exactly. Under a level playing field he'd have nobody to blame but himself. Why is this a problem?
Well, at least you acknowledge some consequences, though "shame and scorn" and no dates seems inequitable compared having to support and care for a child alone and the child being denied the support and care of one of his parents. Also, one would be legally imposed and the other just societally imposed.
Oh please. You still have the choice of adoption, and if you don't, you knew that job was dangerous when you took it. It's also be perfectly fair if a mother chose not to be a mother, the father took the baby on his own, and did it on his own too without a penny of support from her. You assume, in a sexist fashion, that it is a foregone conclusion that men don't want children and women do. And since our laws work against this, and statistics (Lies, damned lies, and statistics) to the contrary are horribly skewed coming out of the gate.
Fact is, before the "modern era" many men raised children alone as single parents, and did a damn fine job of it, without complaining, as women had this habit of dying in childbirth before we had medical advances. Or maybe that's what some women are afraid of.
And the children of the remaining bad folks would be truly innocent victims where society could punish those who victimized them, female or male, without much debate at all.
What would such punishment be?
Except for that pesky "cruel and unusual clause" I'd suggest the stocks and flogging. Failing that, I suppose we're left with imprisonment and fines. Imprisionment into the general populace, too.
I don't see that happening and history does not support that. Injustice breeds injustice and the most vulnerable are the weakest, which would be children. What C4M is really advocating is an equal right to victimize children. But it does not address those men who do not want that right, just as Roe v Wade does not address people who do not wish to abort.
Well, if that is your dogma, little can be said to shake your faith probably; from where I sit, back in the day of the much maligned Beaver Cleaver days these problems were less because bad choices carried bad consequences and bad karma; thus, people were scared to make them. It's when people wanted to escape the responsibility of living with their bad choices that all this crap started.
Once upon a time you didn't enter into, let alone walk away from a marriage without thought. Casual sex was for bohemians. Divorce needed a reason, a real reason. Shame on you if you were found at fault. You lost jobs, family, friends because you, Mr. Smith, are a philandering Cad. You lost your children, Mrs. Smith, because you chose to leave your husband and take up with the gardener. Better move away, and hang your head in shame. Family would even turn from you.
I don't think you ever lived in the day when shame was a powerful weapon. That's why some groups worked so hard to remove it. And society is the poorer for it. You really underestimate its power.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @11:14AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
No woman who truly sought out a stable, responsible, good provider would suffer any penalties. Such men would stick around. Those who choose liars, cheaters, drunks and the like would suffer, and cruel as it sounds, they would deserve it.
I have a couple of problems with this. First is the assumption that "good" men are "good providers." Why should the man have to be the provider? Why can't they both work and split the costs of the child 50-50?
Second is the assumption that only a bad man would opt out of fatherhood when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. I'm thinking of the situation at the beginning of this thread, a married couple that stops using birth control because the woman is 40, they think it's safe and an accident happens. If the woman wants to keep the child and her husband doesn't, why is he bad if he signs away his rights to the child? Why should his life be interrupted because she won't have an abortion? What if he was planning to retire early, and now this unwanted pregnancy is about to ruin his plans?
Unwanted pregnancies happen in marriages all the time, and the mother lying isn't always the reason. Still, married women are allowed to have abortions without their husbands' consent, and without filing for divorce. Married men should be allowed to legally disown unwanted children without their wives' consent, and without filing for divorce. If the wife wants the baby and the husband doesn't, she can take care of it herself.
It's the same situation as if she wanted a dog and her husband didn't, and she decided to buy the dog anyway and take care of it herself. She walks it, she feeds it, she takes it to the vet. The husband doesn't harm the dog, but he doesn't have to take off time from work to take it to the vet when it's sick. C4M within marriage would be a similar situation. He doesn't divorce his wife, but she has full responsibility for the child. She pays for it, she takes care of it, she buys medical insurance for it. If he was planning early retirement, he could still take it, because the child is not his responsibility.
I disagree with your strong embrace of shame. Shame doesn't hurt the mothers, only their children, and C4M isn't supposed to be about shame, but about choice. Men who choose not to be parents are not bad or irresponsible men, just men who don't want children, or don't want them at that particular time, like women who have abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @11:42AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
You are deliberately missing the point to erect and knock down straw men, Troll.
I have a couple of problems with this. First is the assumption that "good" men are "good providers." Why should the man have to be the provider? Why can't they both work and split the costs of the child 50-50?
This statement, that I have read in context, contrary to your snips, was an attempt to look at things from the viewpoint of a woman who is searching for a partner. Your comment is irrelevant.
Second is the assumption that only a bad man would opt out of fatherhood when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
The original poster framed this in such a way to indicate irresponsible men in particular. Again, try addressing the statement in context.
And your analysis of shame is wrong. Shame would hurt if we illegitimized children, and the CONTEXT clearly advocate illegitimizing parents.
Not even clever, Troll.
**The Anti-Troll
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @11:54AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Once more, not even clever, Troll. You have raised missing the point to an art form.
So your daughter gets pregnat. Doesn't want an abortion, morally. Doesn't want to give up her college to support or raise a child. The father does. Should she be forced to pay support?
I don't quite understand this question. You said she doesn't want to have an abortion, but does she want to put the child up for adoption?
It's only unclear to the deliberately obtuse. Little Suzie gets knocked up. Little Suzie doesn't wan't an abortion, for whatever reason.
Little Suzie doesn't want a baby, she has *her* life to lead, so she wants an adoption. Little Sammy, AKA El Daddio, does want the baby.
Under current law, Suzie is Scot-Free. However were the tables reversed, Sammy would be on the hook for twenty one or twenty two years.
So the question is, if Mama has the baby, and Daddy adopts (How repugnant, having to adopt your own child) Should Suzie be as liable as Sammy is.
It's crystal clear, Troll.
You didn't make that clear.
It's clear as a mountain stream, you just don't like the question, Troll.
If she wants to choose adoption and the father does not, she should not be able to adopt out the child without his permission. I am against adoptions done against the wishes of the father. I am also against legal baby dumping because that too violates the rights of the father. Legal baby dumping is abhorrent.
*clap, clap, clap* Congratulations, Troll, you are for a Utopian World. Talk is cheap.
Now, since the real world operates in a diametric and polar opposite, have anything that might be, oh what is the word...., RELEVANT?
As to should she pay support, that depends on the arrangement between her and the father. If she wants to continue to be part of the child's life, then yes, she must pay support. If not, then her parental rights should be terminated. The father takes the child but she has no right to ever see it again. I see this as the flip side of C4M.
That wasn't the question. That is not how it IS. WHat if they can't reach an "arrangement?" If Sammy can be forced to be a parent aainst his will, is it thus okay to make Suzie be a parent against her will? Or is it "Different" for women?
That should clear it up, eh, Troll?
**The Anti-Troll
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @12:11PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
So according to you, it's okay for little Suzie the Whore, who should have kept her crusted panties up in the first place, to put the child up for adoption against the father's wishes? And it is also okay for her to dump the baby at a hospital against his wishes, and without ever even telling him?
Nowhere did I propose that things be different for women. If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, he is off the hook. If he wants the baby and she doesn't, she is off the hook.
So the question is, if Mama has the baby, and Daddy adopts (How repugnant, having to adopt your own child) Should Suzie be as liable as Sammy is.
Under current laws, yes. If C4M were a reality, NO. Can't get much clearer than that, you pheminist fag.
The original question was completely unclear. Your problem is that I disagree with you. I think fathers should actually have rights in adoption situations. You think whores should be able to dump babies off at hospitals without the father's permission.
You want shame? Shame should be within the family. Parents should disown little whores who lie down with their boyfriends and get pregnant. Maybe you would feel sorry for a daughter who whored around and got herself pregnant. I wouldn't. Any daughter of mine who gets herself pregnant out of wedlock is my daughter no longer. She would never be welcome in my house again. It would be as if she were never born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @01:00PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Trolls posting as "anti-trolls." Amazing, isn't it? Now I've seen EVERYthing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @01:01PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
The original poster said that responsible men would stick around. Just because a man doesn't want to stick around a raise a child he does not want does not make him irresponsible. If you think it does, I hardly see how that could be pro-male and pro-male choice.
Yup. I am in complete agreement.
Little Bo Peep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After conception takes place, the woman has more "choices" in an abstract legal sense. However, once again, not all women have the moral/ethical option to choose abortion. This is the lie in "choice" which would be more appropriately titled "choose abortion or else".
While the woman may have more choices, the U.S. Supreme Court has wisely determined that women bear an unequal burden in the biological and psychological process of birth that simply never impacts men.
Men who argue in favor of C4M, make it a habit of overlooking the burdens and risks of pregnancy born only by the woman. This fact is the primary reason they get to their flawed arguments that result in their wanting to harm women, damage children, or control the woman's womb for their own selfish ends. There is no reasonable C4M argument that works except for the expansion of birth control options. Men have a choice. They can push for more options in birth control or they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
That's why the men's movement is fighting a futile cause in this matter that will never see any success in passing legislation or getting a law passed via case law.
The masses and reasonable people will always see C4M as little more than an argument for men to be control freaks and exercise power over the woman's body. Again, that is because women have an unequal burden in the process of bearing a child.
But what can I say. Some men will stick their finger in an electrical socket even they know it's a stupid thing to do. Then after they get burned, they'll do it again because they forget/ignore the pain. Such men are stupid. It isn’t worth the time debating them on the matter.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:25PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Men who argue in favor of C4M, make it a habit of overlooking the burdens and risks of pregnancy born only by the woman. This fact is the primary reason they get to their flawed arguments that result in their wanting to harm women, damage children, or control the woman's womb for their own selfish ends. There is no reasonable C4M argument that works except for the expansion of birth control options. Men have a choice. They can push for more options in birth control or they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
You do not understand what C4M is. It has nothing to do with abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your daughter gets pregnat. Doesn't want an abortion, morally. Doesn't want to give up her college to support or raise a child. The father does. Should she be forced to pay support?
Yes. They were equally responsible for creating the child.
Is it ultimately a "woman's choice" or not? Yes or no?
No. A choice cannot be imposed on one ex parte. This is what Roe v. Wade did.
A law could be passed tomorrow saying it is legal for me to kill my 5 year old, but not legal for her father to kill her. Then, under C4M logic, if I don't kill her, I've suddenly made a "choice" adn should be liable for penalties for choosing nto to kill her. Furthermore, the father would be legally allowed to strip her of one of her parents because I had the "choice" to kill her, and "chose" not to kill her. He could also say that since he was not allowed legally to kill her, he should not have to pay for her support.
C4M is coercive. It usese the mere exisitence of an abstract legal "choice" to coercively assign penalties to persons making (in the father's opinion) the wrong choice.
Also, it does not "level the playing field" for men who do not want their child aborted and do not want to avoid parenting obligations. C4M ignores these men, so it is not "leveling" anything.
Tell you what - you get to veto my C4M if I get to veto your abortion, fair enough?
Yes, that would be fair. However, I'd rather there be no abortion so my answer is rather misleading in that it implies that I approve.
Ultimately, women get pregnant. Logically, they should ultimately prevent it. I don't suggest that wome become responsibel for my jock itch, for my prostate - why should we be responsible for your uterus?
This is penalizing women for her role in procreation and is entirely arbitrary. We could set the line of responsibility anywhere we wanted, at conception say, and unilaterally say, logically conception could not occur without the man, therefore he is ultimately responsible for preventing it. Entirely arbitrary, and equally unfair with your statement.
A more fair and logical approach is to conclude that both parties are equally complicit in conception. Conception could not take place without both parties participating.
Let';s rverse some of this: This is not entirely true. Women have choices as well. She can abstain or use contraceptives.
This is true. Your point is? Either party has an equal opportunity to abstain. Either party can use contraceptives independent from the other party. Before conception, they are both equal in terms of preventing conception.
Oh, and as for "After conception takes place, the woman has more "choices" in an abstract legal sense." True. And thus greater responsibilities for those choices. Your choices. Your problem. Unfortunately, you can't increase mine without reducing yours. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to surrender female privilige?
Yes. I'm opposed to abortion on many levels, not all of them having to do with the fetus.
Balderdash. Women who didn't want to get pregnant, made the slightest effort to prevent it, and wound up that way are damn few and damn far between. That's medical fact.
This is totally untrue. There is always a risk of conception, even with sterilization. Therefore, the risk is equally shared by both parties, since biologically we know that both parties are complicit in conception. Conception cannot take place without one of the parties. Since contraception is not 100% failsafe, conception does not prove intent.
What is not to understand? You want to share consequences. You get pregnant and decide to be a "single mother" you have none. AFDC. Oprah will cry for you. Rikki Lake will parade "him" as scum. You don't have to consult with "him" on the slightest aspect - school, medical, religion, et al. The prosecutor's office is at your beck and call, for free.......
I see no point in being condescending. Procreation is a natural act. Arresting it is an unnatural act. You clearly have a preference for abortion as a "solution" to something that you consider a problem or a liability. This is the entire problem. However, even with this kind of thinking, it is beyond me why you (and others) don't consider prevention the paramount issue, rather than focussing on after the fact measures which are barbaric, inhumane and outright mean and and to which you can quickly dispatch with a "not my problem" response.
In short the C4M response is wholly retributive and regressive, rather than trying to find honest solutions for an entire set of thorny social problems. Abortion itself was predicated on the same faulty premis as C4M, that two wrong make a right, (and ignores they both ignore the same group of people).
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." ___ Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men who argue in favor of C4M, make it a habit of overlooking the burdens and risks of pregnancy born only by the woman. This fact is the primary reason they get to their flawed arguments that result in their wanting to harm women, damage children, or control the woman's womb for their own selfish ends. There is no reasonable C4M argument that works except for the expansion of birth control options. Men have a choice. They can push for more options in birth control or they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
That's why the men's movement is fighting a futile cause in this matter that will never see any success in passing legislation or getting a law passed via case law.
I agree with Warble here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not understand what C4M is. It has nothing to do with abortion.
Oh I understand the argument fully and completely, and it is in fact one that is about men having control over choices that women make. It is an argument that is designed to justify harming children by giving men the option of abandoning a child that a mother has born. I reject all arguments in all its forms that favor C4M. Choice for men is about control freaks wanting to get out of accepting responsibility for their risks and actions.
This idea is one of the great and major failures of the men's movement. It the one and only argument that holds the movement back and impedes it's progress. I’ve listened to this argument for over 20 years and it never gets any better. Men must be responsible for where they insert their penis and the outcomes of their choice. C4M is the choice to exercise birth control or keep it in their pants.
When people argue C4M that are trying to take an argument of choice that applies only to women - because of their unique biology - and apply it to men. The argument fails because men have no womb. That cannot have the same choice as women because it's physically impossible. It’s called biology, and at the moment biology is more powerful the men.
Men and women can try to argue C4M after a child is born all they want. But the fact of the matter is the argument fails because there is a child, the child is human, and the child has natural God given and legal rights to survival. As men those laws bind us.
Don't like the laws? Then go find a legislator that will write new law. Of course it's already been tried and struck down as unconstitutional and idiotic by reasonable people.
I completely, wholly, and emphatically reject the argument of C4M as bogus, based on bad logic that is ill considered and only has the appearance of rationality when selfish men fail to consider the welfare of the child and that fact that a mother must bear the unique biological responsibility to bear a child to birth.
Nevertheless, like I always say, present facts that prove different and I’ll change my mind. In 20 years that just hasn’t happened.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the woman may have more choices, the U.S. Supreme Court has wisely determined that women bear an unequal burden in the biological and psychological process of birth that simply never impacts men.
Men who argue in favor of C4M, make it a habit of overlooking the burdens and risks of pregnancy born only by the woman.
Is this sole risk and sole choice is what makes pregnancy, and the prevention thereof, the sole responsibility of women. Absent a binding understanding beforehand, you play, you pay.
I'm not about to ask a female to be responsible for my prostate; by the same token what happens to their womb is their business. If they don't want to be pregnant, well, biology ain't fair. Life sux. Become a lesbian. Unless that pregnancy is forced on you from rape, you knew that job was dangerous when you took it, and if the man doesn't meet a woman's standards of "responsible" enough, she should think with her brain, not her twat, and shouldn't be shagging him.
This fact is the primary reason they get to their flawed arguments that result in their wanting to harm women, damage children, or control the woman's womb for their own selfish ends. There is no reasonable C4M argument that works except for the expansion of birth control options. Men have a choice. They can push for more options in birth control or they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
Not a single man can be promiscuous without promiscuous women
This "control of a womb" is hogwah. Women HAVE the wombs. Women can thus control the wombs. Ultimately, people are going to have to be in charge of their own bodies, and since only women ghet preganant, they should be able to do as they please. And with such unilateral control, comes equally onbe sided acceptance of the consequences.
If they don';t like it, they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @02:14AM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the woman may have more choices, the U.S. Supreme Court has wisely determined that women bear an unequal burden in the biological and psychological process of birth that simply never impacts men.
Men who argue in favor of C4M, make it a habit of overlooking the burdens and risks of pregnancy born only by the woman. This fact is the primary reason they get to their flawed arguments that result in their wanting to harm women, damage children, or control the woman's womb for their own selfish ends. There is no reasonable C4M argument that works except for the expansion of birth control options. Men have a choice. They can push for more options in birth control or they can sterilize themselves if they want to be promiscuous.
Resective burden here is not relevant, since it's her sole and voluntary free choice, and therefore she has no right to force a man, who has no input to that choice, to be responsible for the consequences of that choice.
As for men's "choice" of birth control or sterilization, women have the same choices in this regard; in any event, however, there is no denying that women will always have the LAST clear chance under current law in whether or not a pregnancy comes to term; THAT is the sole relevant factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Tell you what - you get to veto my C4M if I get to veto your abortion, fair enough?
Yes, that would be fair. However, I'd rather there be no abortion so my answer is rather misleading in that it implies that I approve. "
Conclusion: abortion is a double-edged sword, in that a choice always carries corresponding responsibilities which many women wish to shirk so they can have it both ways at men's expense-- kinda like women having equal rights while only men are brutalized into society's "warrior caste."
That's the misandristic mentality which this board was created to abolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men must be responsible for where they insert their penis and the outcomes of their choice.
When pregnancy necessarily equals childbirth, then an outcome of pregnancy will necessarily equal responsibility for the outcome of childbirth. However, one cannot be "pro-choice" and still claim that abortion is NOT a choice if one doesn't want it; it's a blatant contradiction.
Women simply want it both ways, and don't care if it's fair or not-- but it's not logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion: abortion is a double-edged sword, in that a choice always carries corresponding responsibilities which many women wish to shirk so they can have it both ways at men's expense
I cannot think of a way this could have been said better.
Whether or not a human being with that XX chromosome combo cares for the choices they have, they have them nonetheless, precisely because part of the rationalization for abortion is so that women are not slaves to biology.
Holding someone responsible for that choice, and obligating them for the outcome is wrong. Period. Wrong.
But what about the chi...NO. What about it? Two wrongs make a right, as someone else here is fond of quoting?
It's wrong, period, end of story.
I've been told time and again that since only women get pregnant, abortion is a women's issue that men should butt out of. I'm jiggy wid' it. Here's your consequences for your choice, and ability to have it. Ladies, go tend to your own house. Let us know what your decision is.
Far as I am concerned, though, so long as abortion is unrestrictted and upon demand, any woman who professes support for coerced parenthood, or files for it, is the moral equivalent of the Al Quaeda. They're sexual terrorists and extortionists, plain, simple, unvarnished, and no excuses.
People can argue morality all they want, but morality and legality have absol;utely nothing to do with each other. Ask any lawyer. And if he doesn't laugh in your face at the notion, he should be disbarred.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women" do not all think alike. Many women are do not consider abortion a choice. In fact, if you took a poll the world over, the overwhelming majority of women would not consider abortion, or abandoning their child a "choice".
I've seen women who can barely walk from hunger, still try to care for their children. You cannot tell me these women believe in "choice" to kill their children. They could have killed them many times with no one the wiser, to try to save themselves, and they did not. "Choice" is not imposed top down in the form of legal abstractions. True choice (not the legal abstractin called "choice") implies free will, and free will comes from an inner compass and integrity. The State passing a law doesn't stand in the stead of one of one's free will.
What both Roe v. Wade C4M proposals (if they were to become law) do is pronounce a government absolution onto persons of free will so that they don't have to be responsible to themselves. This is why you so often hear the slogan: Abortion, It's the Law (meaning the government made my decision, it's legal, so I don't have to justify it to anyone, not even myself).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Male sexuality is not being criminalized. I don't see where you get that. However, under C4M women's natural sexual role would be penalized (as well as the new individual for being born). "
http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/commons/1493/
An excerpt from that web site.
What is Sexual Assault?
Sexual Assault is any unwanted act of a sexual nature imposed by one person upon another.
Forced or coerced intercourse, grabbing, touching or kissing can be defined as sexual assault.
Sexual assault is an act of violence, control and domination.
1 out of 4 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 7 boys will be sexually assaulted before they reach the age of 18.
85% of assailants are known to the victim. The assailant could be a date, a partner, a sibling, a parent, a caregiver or anyone in the community.
60% of sexual assaults occur in the home. Another common location is the attacker's car. "
IT kind of looks like they are criminalizing male behavior to me. They are focusing on what happens to women, they are turning a blind eye to what women do and how they coerce for sex and how they use it as leverage etc... "Another common location is the attacker's car." guess who they are talking about Lori? Basically your date, a guy who kissed you in his car. Guess what, I have a funny feeling those stats are based on double barrelled questions amongst a few other tricks fembots use to bolster their stats. I bet large money those girls interviewed did not know they were attack, that in fact it was decided for them that they were.
And now that people are figuring out how that bullshit questionaire works, fembots are now spreading propaganda stating that "most women dont even know they were", what a bunch of feeble shit . The Charter of Rights is a rag best used for toilet paper than it is for "equal protection under the law".
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @02:36AM EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
((("The Charter of Rights is a rag best used for toilet paper than it is for "equal protection under the law."")))
Send it My way, Dan.
I'm all out of Charmin.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Lorriane, 'tis very simple, to wit:
Firstly, women have full choice whether or not to even carry to term and give birth.
Secondly, women have full choice to identify a father or not.
Thirdly, women have full choice whether or not to give the baby up for adoption.
Men have ... (at present) to live with whatever the mother decides, or pay large legal bills to challenge it with the deck stacked against them.
Dress it up with whatever rationalizations you want. And you can say I have a "vote" but if my vote isn't counted, it's purely mental masturbation, and ultimately no vote at all.
So we have full choice, full choice, full choice up against no choice at all, and that, L, is slavery plain and simple. It seems to me that so long as women have full choice, they must accept full responsibility.
Of course, surrender some of that choice and privilege to men, and that position can be modified, but it has to be a real vote, and a real veto, and a real voice; not another one of these "You get to flap your mouth with an opinion then we do what we want anyway" thing.
N'cest pas?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4M proposals punish women who DON'T abort and punish children for being born, in some kind of twisted parity scheme for women who do abort.
Very good argument Lorianne. I happen to agree with your assessment of C4M. Men must be held responsible for their role in the reproductive process without punishing children or the mother. It's simply a matter of biology and human laws cannot change that without causing serious consequence to the child and possibly the mother where there are a few men that want to poisen a mother with RU486 to enjoy their supposed right of choice.
C4M is one aspect of the men's movement that I do not support in it's current form. There just isn't any reasonable argument that has been put forward.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:04PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the sentiment, but do you think it's beneficial for a child to have a reluctant parent around? I'm not saying that a man forced into fatherhood would physically hurt the child, but he might always feel deep resentment because of the things he had to give up to be a parent. Parenthood requires a lot of sacrifices, and not just financial ones. People who voluntarily embrace parenthood are happy to make those sacrifices, but people who feel they were forced into it are bitter and angry. The child will pick up on this.
Sometimes I think it's better for the child that the man be allowed to walk away, and the child can be told that daddy is a good man, but he just wasn't ready to be a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the sentiment, but do you think it's beneficial for a child to have a reluctant parent around? I'm not saying that a man forced into fatherhood would physically hurt the child, but he might always feel deep resentment because of the things he had to give up to be a parent.
First, forced fatherhood can only take place if the sperm stolen, the man is raped, or if there was a commission of some sort of paternity fraud. In my opinion, the man willingly made a choice to take a risk and implicitly accepted the consequences even if the birth control failed or the woman lied. Nor can the man claim ignorance of his choices or the possibility of the mother telling a lie.
Now if there were law that would prohibit the mother from telling a lie in birth control matters, that would be a different issue other than C4M. It would be holding the mother responsible for another form of paternity fraud, and I believe that should be criminalized and prosecuted where it can be proven. I would like to see some sort of contract law developed for the scenario where a woman lies to a man about birth control.
Next, I agree that there might understandably be a period of resentment that a man will need to learn to deal with if a child accidentally results. Nevertheless, accidents do happen and result in children. That doesn’t justify harming children by denying them the right to the full access of their father. Again, that man made a choice and will either learn to accept the consequences or will be compelled by law to accept the consequences.
Everybody makes choices that they deeply resent. Some choices are more severe than others in their consequences. Part of being mature is recognizing and accepting responsibility for ones own mistakes. Sadly, many want to blame others and harm others to mitigate the consequences of their own personal choices. In my opinion, C4M is about men being angry for a perceived wrong and wanting to transfer the harm to the child or the mother. That is uncalled for under all circumstances that have thus been argued.
The fact of the matter is that part of being a man is accepting outcomes of bad choices. That is not always going to be easy. Especially where there is a child involved. This is one of the rare instances where I do believe a man should suck it up and prove his manhood.
People who voluntarily embrace parenthood are happy to make those sacrifices, but people who feel they were forced into it are bitter and angry.
This is a bad assumption. Many people have a romanticized view of what parenthood involves. They are sorely disappointed to learn the sacrifices required by having children. Others are terrified of parenthood and are happy to learn of how wrong their misconceptions were. So in my opinion this statement just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @10:37AM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Although we don't see eye-to-eye, I understand where you are coming from. I also understand where Lorianne is coming from. Although I consider myself to be in favor of C4M, some of the arguments made by its more radical proponents trouble me. They make it sound as though C4M is supposed to be about punishment for women and unplanned children, and I don't see it that way.
We all have the same goal, which is fewer unplanned, unwanted children. It's a shame the opposing sides can't do what you and I just did, which was suspend the yelling long enough to have a discussion of the actual issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @03:26PM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
"punishment" for women?
I don't even see why ANYBODY'S conserned about that as a possibility.
I mean, look, We can't even use the law to make women RESPONSIBLE.
Why would anyone think we could use it to "punish" them?
Like MOST folks on this site I am NOT looking to "punish" women. simply to make them RESPONSIBLE for their acts and\or actions. in the exact same way MEN are!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...in your example of the married couple and the contraceptives failing and/or they mutually agree not to use contraceptives, you are making the woman 100% responsible for the consequences of a mutual act. This in effect makes men have ZERO obligations to help prevent conception, since under C4M he has ZERO obligations under any scenario to be responsible for his portion of the biological conseqences of sex."
This is playing fast and loose with the facts;
when you say "biological consequences of sex," you are combining both pregnancy and childbirth, as if the option of abortion does not exist.
The man has ZERO CHOICE with what a woman does with the pregnancy, so how can he NOT have zero obligations?
A woman who chooses to carry a pregnancy to term, despite a man's objections, is thus choosing to forego her legal choice of abortion, and thus being wholly responsible by act of omission since the choice to abort or not is solely the woman's; the man has no choice in this matter.
Likewise, when a man has sex with a woman,
If a man refuses to take responsibility for contraception, there's a simple solution: don't have sex with him! If he FORCED you to have sex, it would be RAPE and quite illegal, however that's exactly the same type of thing we're doing to men who don't want to be parents.
Forced parenthood is rape!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The way "responsibility" was used in that wording, fault was implied. Also, people generally aren't expected to prevent acts that are desirable. By saying that the mother should have been expected to prevent the pregnancy from coming to term, I just get the impression that we're saying the child being born is an undesirable thing."
Why would women get abortions if the childbirth wasn't desireable?
"Desirable" is a subjective term; childbirth is desirable to those who desire it, and undesirable to those who don't. Period!
Likewise, the term "responsibility," as used here is in no to be construed to imply "fault;" furthermore this is irrelevant, since the very purpose of the "Last Chance Doctrine" is to render the issue of "fault" to be entirely MOOT compared to the question of CHOICE.
In other words, since the woman had the final choice, or say, in whether the child be born-- the man's wishes notwithstanding-- then
It's like the following: A car stops at in intersection but its brake-lights aren't working. You see the car stop, and have time to stop, but, seeing that he'd be at "fault" for having non-working brake-lights, you plow into him anyway for whatever reason, then claim it's "his fault for not having working brake-lights."
The court would throw out your claim on the basis of the Last Clear Chance" doctrine, since you had the last clear chance to prevent the accident.
This is the same situation; women are deliberately using the law to force men to pay for THEIR decisions when they had every chance to prevent it; that's not proper use of the law, which should be a shield for the innocent and not a sword for the guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @11:24AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has gotten sidetracked. I am interested in hearing input on my original question, which is how can we protect the rights of men without creating a situation where unwanted children are shamed and made to feel as though they didn't deserve to be born?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give my opinion even though I'm sure to get flamed.
The only way I can see to make things "equal" is to eliminate abortion as a choice. Without that the "should have never been born" logic will always prevail.
Second best, is allowing men the legal right to veto an abortion (but not compel one). And requirig both parties to equally support and raise the child. This would be closest to evening the playing field short of eliminating abortion. Also, every child born would know that both his parents definitely did not believe he "shold not have been born" even if he is subsequently placed for adoption.
Basically, both parties would have to legally sign off on abortion for it to occur legally (I would propose the same bilateral agreement for adoptions).
Furthermore, I think this option or one like it has a realistic chance of becoming law, particularly if men's groups take the high ground and push for such action (like the recent Pennsylvania man who tried to fight for his child).
I appreciate your question as framed. I see it as a positive sign that perhaps one day we will look at issues more wholistically rather than as who gets to trump who.
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." ___Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second best, is allowing men the legal right to veto an abortion (but not compel one). And requirig both parties to equally support and raise the child. This would be closest to evening the playing field short of eliminating abortion. Also, every child born would know that both his parents definitely did not believe he "shold not have been born" even if he is subsequently placed for adoption.
I don't see how you'd engineer this if abortion is based on the principle of bodily autonomy.
How about allowing men the same right as women have, i.e. simple absolution from the consequences of another person's choices.
While abortion law stands, there is simply no more case for paternity suits, than for there is for suing donut-shops for obesity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well thats not logical. A child is a direct result of conception which is a direct result fo the co-actions of a man and a woman. So, logically, a child is a responsibiity of BOTH parents. The fact that we currently allow one person to terminate the child before birth does not change the logical scientific facts of cause and effect. We could allow that termination to happen at any point. It is completely arbitrary that we only allow it in the womb and for a certain duration.
What you are in fact argueing is for a declaration counter to biology, that men are not bioligally complicit in the natural human process of procreatin ... simply by declaring it so.
And again, abortion is not a "choice" in the biological sense. Choice in this case is an arbitrary legal construct. You cannot logically declare someone has made a choice he/she hasn't made, because choice implies using free will. You cannot direct the free will of others ex parte, as if they were puppets. For example, if I don't abort, it is not because I am making a choie in the legal sense, because I don't recognize more than one option. Choice implies two or more options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well thats not logical. A child is a direct result of conception which is a direct result fo the co-actions of a man and a woman. So, logically, a child is a responsibiity of BOTH parents. The fact that we currently allow one person to terminate the child before birth does not change the logical scientific facts of cause and effect.
EXCEPT that, under current law, it's not a "child" until at least beyond the time abortion is allowed under current law, thus requiring that, in order for there to be a child, a woman must first CHOOSE for it to become a child (albeit by act of omission).
Therefore as long as a woman has the final RIGHT to choose, which the man does NOT have, then she likewise has a corresponding responsibility attached to this right,
Hence, under the Last Clear Chance doctrine, as the person with the final say, the woman is the person ultimately responsible, the man's earlier complicity notwithstanding.
These objections are simply flexible semantics, in which women pick and choose definitions which suit their convenience with no mind to fairness or logical consistency.
if I don't abort, it is not because I am making a chocie in the legal sense, because I don't recognize more than one option. Choice implies two or more options.
It doesn't matter; the LAW recognizes two options, and so as long as you enjoy the rights protected by the law, you must likewise accept the correspondent responsibilities as well-- your personal or religious preferences notwithstanding. NO ONE is above the law!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you miss the larger point and one that IMO should scare the pants off people. That is that government, the State, is setting the parameters of how people can be coerced into punitive situations for simple natural biological acts.
Under your logic, the State could give you the legal "option" to leave the country and renounce your citizenship or be forced to fight in an army or go to prison. Your "choice". I do believe there is currently a conceitious objector status at present for this situation, for people who don't believe in taking human life as a solution to resolve problems. However, if there weren't your "choices" would be rather coercive and punitive don't you think? I hear people saying that this is coerced "choice" for men.
Yet, C4M uses the same logic. Kill or be subjected to punitive damages (sole responsibility for a child you co-created with someone else). Your "choice". However, C4M takes it one step further and penalizes a 3rd party when that 3rd party clearly was not given a "choice" , coerced or otherwise.
So this would be analgous to the conscription example above, only if the person declined to joint the army, not only would he face punitive damages, but the State could impose penalties on his child (or brother, or mother, or cousin) as well. A 3rd party with no ability to influence the course of events would punished along with the the concientious objector who refused to join the army and kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you miss the larger point and one that IMO should scare the pants off people. That is that government, the State, is setting the parameters of how people can be coerced into punitive situations for simple natural biological acts.
Nobody is being coerced into any punitive situation. Coerced and punitive are semantic scare words you have brought into this, and are not facts proven by evidence.
In a strictly legal sense, a father is unnecessary, and is arguably undesirable, especially by our watchdogs of the "Good of the Child" by whatever name you call "Children's Services" in your neck of the woods.
Of a day, if a child was concieved and only the mother was around to raise it, there was automatic review of whether she was fit to raise it. Once upon a time, if you couldn't support a child, you "did the right thing" and gave it up.
But we heard all the crap about the "bond of motherhood." What drivel. There is no more "mystical union" automatically between a mother and child than between me and whatever I empty out of my bowels. If that is your article of faith, don't go shoving your religion down my throat. Your popping a baby out is a biological function, nothing more, and is not all that unique.
Abortion is legal. Don't believe in it? Don't get one. Don't go shoving your religion down my throat. Don't like it? Change it. It's like the vote, though - you have that right, and if you choose not to exercise it, you still have made a choice to let other people decide for you.
This isn't about protecting children. If it was, the fitness of a mother would have to be proven along with that of a father. You have a child with someone, then they should have even money chances of gaining custody over you if they can provide better. No. Scratch that. If they can provide better, you should be "visiting" and returning your child like a rented video, and writing that check every week. Scare you? It should.
This CS law, as it stands, is about a meal ticket for women, at men's expense. It's not about "The Child," that's a rationalization. There is no accountability, no enforced rights of fatherhood, nothing that obligates the woman to do jack. You want to move thousands of miles away? By Jimmy, you'll get that check, but is a woman forced to take the interests and rights of "the child" to ready access to its father into account? No. Not just no, but hell no. But "daddy" has to keep sending that check - to you. Not the child.
It's real easy for YOU to say, Lorianne, because you have never walked a mile in a man's moccasions, and the real scary thing here is that you are afraid to, because you realize what power and control it gives you.
You sit here with pious intonations about how reasonable women should do this, and you would never do that, and so on and so forth. Fine. But they're just words and hot air. Make one mention of changing the law so unreasonable women couldn't, and you're up in arms. Begs the question of "Why?" Or "Why not?"
(Of course, you'll pretend not to understand the question, but what else is new here?)
A reasonable woman SHOULD negotiate with a father in good faith. Hell, a reasonable woiman, should, from the get go, declare whether an encounter is a friendly piece of tail, and she'll take care of any situations that might arise (And bear the legal burden), or she should make it clear she expects some commitment. But you want it both ways. You want women to have the freedom to slut about, and be able to trick men into being their sperm donor if they hear the biological clock ticking, so they can come back and say, "Well, I own a third of you for the next twenty years." Quite a lucrative business, this "Walking Womb, Incorporated" franchise women have arranged for themselves.
The law allows this to occur, condones it, and encourages it; and your support of the law as it stands shows your true feelings here. You don't give diddly about the "Good of the child." Just GOD FORBID anything should happen to diminish female power to control men.
There's the real "scary part" to you.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all you have no authority to say what I think, feel or believe. None. Much less rant and rave about it for a full page.
Secondly, you go on and on about not walking a "mile in men's shoes" but then have no problem stating what "all women think" and that the mother and child union is no more serious than a bowel movement, all without having been a mother yourself I might add. Highly hypocritcal.
Finally, any person who equates a child with a bowel movement is not a "reasonable" person in my view. However, I do appreciate your having that point of view, because it will only make your C4M stance all the the more extreme and unpalatable.
Therefore, I must Thank You.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 19, @05:37PM EST (#131)
|
|
|
|
|
First of all you have no authority to say what I think, feel or believe. None. Much less rant and rave about it for a full page.
First of all, anyone here has as much right, at any time, to infer the beliefs and opinions of others based upon their writings, and interpret them. Telling someone they have no right or authority is feminist fascism. Sieg Heil! You dizagree wid me, und you muzzt be ZILENCED!
Typical feminist tactic of trying to use shame rather than facts to support a position.
Man one, feminist hag zero.
Secondly, you go on and on about not walking a "mile in men's shoes" but then have no problem stating what "all women think" and that the mother and child union is no more serious than a bowel movement, all without having been a mother yourself I might add. Highly hypocritcal.
I am an atheist. Your mystical bond claim to me is nothing more than a load of crap. I agree with the man here. You have consistantly time and time again rubricized men, and get all hypersensitive when it is done to you
Highly hypocritical. And I will demonstrate to you when you demonstrate first. You made the assertation first.
Demonstrate for me this bond. Show it to me. Quantatatively define it for me. Prove it. You can't. You claim, but it's an article of faith for you and has no place in a concrete discussion of facts.
I second the motion. Your mother and child bond, were it a fact, would exist all over the place. The fact that there are many women who exhibit actions contrary to this alleged mystical piece of twaddle proves that it exists only as an artificial construct of your mind.
All shame, no facts. Man: 2. Feminist Hag: 0.
Finally, any person who equates a child with a bowel movement is not a "reasonable" person in my view. However, I do appreciate your having that point of view, because it will only make your C4M stance all the the more extreme and unpalatable.
Did you ever hear the argument that any man can father a child but it takes a special man to be a father? Upon what basis do you think it is any different just because you are female?
Provided the plumbing is working, any female of any species can get pregnant, and that in isolation in itself is nothing special. What The was equated here, as is plain as day you feminist hag, was not the equating of a child with a bowel movement, but a mother with someone having a bowel movement. A world of difference, and dead on target. It happens every day; to humans, dogs, monkeys, pigs. It grants no innate virtue, and it is a mere biological function, just like taking a dump. The analogy is correct.
It's also very telling that you resort to a glee that you can present an argument contrary to your stance in a bad light of "unpalatable" as opposed to demonstrating the illogic of the position, and rationalize your adherence to in in the face of facts by emotional tugs. It's vacuous. But typical female illogic, and most entertaining in it's own way.
Man: 3; Feminist Hag: 0.
Therefore, I must Thank You.
To resort to an argument like this, shows the vacuity of your position. Obviously, you cannot refute it with facts, so you must resort baseless emotionalism, which is typical double-x chromosome illogic.
Man: 4, Feminist Hag: 0.
If you can't take the heat, chicky-poo, I suggest you get out of the kitchen. This is not a feminist board, your crocodile tears and phony hurt feelings don't impress anyone, and your movement outside of an adressing of the facts makes you a laughingstock, I sit here right now reading your response back to a room of men and get nothing but snorts of derision. And I guarantee that there is more than likely a load of men on this board who may not agree with you, but enjoy watching a feminist cry after all the tears women have inflicted on them.
Gow back to your NOW meeting and support group so you can talk about what bastards men are; since that seems to be your conclusion regardless of anything else and will not be persuaded otherwise, you're a waste of electrons. Or try to leaven your commentary to facts.
BTW and FYI, it's an ad hominem argument if I say you're wrong because your a feminist hag; if I say you're wrong and you're a feminist hag, it's just because I like watching you cry.
Man 5, Feminist hag 0; Game, set, and match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're getting hysterical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're getting hysterical.
The guy is more like doing and O.D. on drugs.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all you have no authority to say what I think, feel or believe. None. Much less rant and rave about it for a full page.
Every right in the world, honey-chile. Don't wanne be analyzed? Lurk. Get your panties outta da wad you got em all bunched up in. LOL
Secondly, you go on and on about not walking a "mile in men's shoes" but then have no problem stating what "all women think" and that the mother and child union is no more serious than a bowel movement, all without having been a mother yourself I might add. Highly hypocritcal.
Ah, the old "It's a woman thing and you mere mortal - er, men - could never understand" card. How very quaint. Haven't seen that one in a couple years. ;-)
Finally, any person who equates a child with a bowel movement is not a "reasonable" person in my view. However, I do appreciate your having that point of view, because it will only make your C4M stance all the the more extreme and unpalatable.
I stick by it, even if misquoted. Your ability to bear a child is no more biologically significant than anyone's ability to have a bowel movement. Cork the sphincters of the human race and watch us die in a week. Rip out every uterus - oh, well, we've got artificial ones all designed up now, don't we?
I take that back. A good BM is much more essential. Haw haw! Sux to be you, Madame Dunsel! LOL
(FFE: A dunsel is an engineering term for a part which serves no useful purpose)
Therefore, I must Thank You.
Of course, the pleasure is all yours.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 23, @02:21AM EST (#140)
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes!
That's it, I'm outta here!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a legal person. However, you are excluding the rights of the 3rd party, the child from the equation. Such a loophole would not recongnize the rights of the child, who is a full citizen at birth. We would create legal ramifications for the child, who was not a party to any legal transactions between the primary parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I can guess where this'll go:
Lori: "fortune teller, what is my future?"
Fortune Teller: "I predict you will be flamed to a well done crisp"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are excluding the rights of the 3rd party, the child from the equation. Such a loophole would not recongnize the rights of the child, who is a full citizen at birth. We would create legal ramifications for the child, who was not a party to any legal transactions between the primary parties.
Not at all; the child has a claim upon the person responsible for its creation, i.e. the mother, who, under the "Last Clear Chance" doctrine, is wholly responsible, while the man cannot be held no responsible if he made his intentions clear from the outset. The child did not have any rights before this: it was the woman's actions that GAVE the child these rights, and therefore the woman is likewise obliged to fulfill them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And under this logic a man in theory never has any obligations whatsoever for the consequences of his actions, includind in responsibility to preven conception.
One party in sex asking for a net total of ZERO risks of consequences for his actions is a reasonable request.
From the point of view of the child, he is being denied 1/2 of his parents obligations to him, for a circumstance that he did not set in motion. He is basically being punished for being born.
Also, the C4M response does nothing to advance the rights of men who want to father their kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And under this logic a man in theory never has any obligations whatsoever for the consequences of his actions, includind in responsibility to preven conception.
One party in sex asking for a net total of ZERO risks of consequences for his actions is a reasonable request.
From the point of view of the child, he is being denied 1/2 of his parents obligations to him, for a circumstance that he did not set in motion. He is basically being punished for being born.
Also, the C4M response does nothing to advance the rights of men who want to father their kids.
It's WOMEN who claim the "right" to abortion under grounds of the right to control their bodies, therefore what the woman does with the embryo is her responsibility.
Likewise, a man cannot logically be held responsible when the WOMAN is responsible for making the FINAL decision as to whether or not to create the child (remember it's not legally a "child" while it can be aborted).
Finally, the single-parent child is no more "punished" by the biological father than if the woman had gone to a sperm bank; if the woman wants to bind the man legally, she only needs to get a written agreement from him to support any children he has with her, and if he doesn't sign, then don't take the risk.
However this again would be exercising responsibility, which women don't seem to want assume as the natural price of their rights, like spoiled brats who want everything for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the "natural price" for "rights" you don't recognize as rights and options you don't recognize as options?
Also, for the child, what is the appopriate "price" for being born?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fascinating little quagmire isn’t it? It leaves me with a couple of questions.
1. In 2002 is it fair to believe that every time you have sex it should be assumed that a child could be the end result? With the advent of the “Pill” and our “Our Bodies Our Selves” where women took back the rights to their own physiology including reproduction, and the courts backing women up when it comes to reproductive choices what is the message men are getting about sex and their responsibility? When a women wants to have sex but not have a baby she is in the position, legally and morally, to do so. No one can force parenthood on the mother. This can certainly not be said for men.
Men don’t have a pill. Men can’t get an abortion. Men can’t leave their parental responsibilities at an adoption agency or the local police or hospital. When women decide that motherhood is not for them their giving up of their child is viewed as “best for the child”. There are counselors available for the woman no mater what her choice is. Can the same be said for the man? When a father does not want to have a baby his choice is not to have sex. Condoms, the male version of birth control, are not just disliked by men but women also. Imagine the conversation between a couple that has been seeing each other for months and one day the man decides that he doesn’t want to take any chances and starts to use a condom again. Do you think that the women would not be suspicious when for the last few weeks, because she is on the pill and they are in a monogamous relationship, he has not been using one? What is the man’s response to her question of why? “Dear I just don’t want to have a baby and of course I trust you when you say that you don’t want one too. No dear, I am not cheating on you and trying to protect you from STDs, I just don’t want to be a father.” Do you think that she will admire him for taking control of his reproductive rights?
2. Why is it when a man wants to not be a father he is evil? Why is it that we insult his masculinity by telling him that a real man faces his responsibilities? On the flip side, when a man wants to father his child there are all sorts of laws and practices to prevent him from fathering the way he wants?
Can you imagine telling a woman that she is not a real woman if she aborts or gives up her child? Can you imagine telling a woman that she has to financially support a child that she doesn’t want, let alone one that is not hers?
I wonder if in some basic sort of way part of the problem is we still believe that when a women has sex with a man she is “giving herself to him” like a precious gift. At that point men use her body. Men “get” women pregnant, as if women had no choice in it.
3. Do people really believe the joy of parenting feels the same for the person living with and loving the baby and the one who is just paying for the care and comfort of the child and not experiencing the baby’s first step or first words?
Why must men embrace something that women have lobbied hard to avoid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if in some basic sort of way part of the problem is we still believe that when a women has sex with a man she is “giving herself to him” like a precious gift. At that point men use her body. Men “get” women pregnant, as if women had no choice in it.
Yes, many people see it that way. One wonders where on earth the woman was at the moment of conception.
Right now they have it both ways; they give themselves, but then the gift is immediately withdrawn as far as the decision to abort is concerned. OK, I'm not lobbying against abortion. What I take issue with (philosophically!) is the assumption that C4M immediately means that men will be "off the hook"; getting men on the hook, which sounds like revenge more than justice, apears to be the agenda of opponents of C4M (I'm agnostic at this point--I find the problems vexing; my apologies if I disappoint less moderate folk; perhaps my immoderate views on circumcision will satisfy them).
The assumption that women would get stuck having to support "bastard" children assumes that society would be organized more or less the way it is; society might be different. The state might foot the bill-I say this for the sake of philosophical argument, not because I consider it politically realistic in any way whatsoever.
Equalizing reproductive rights and responsibilities for all genders is a difficult ethical and legal problem. It's probably very wise to take on the problem piecemeal, as NCFM is doing, and address the problem of paternity fraud, where it's clearer that the pendulum has moved in the direction of injustice (incidentally, the idea that the pendulum has to move the oposite way smacks of revenge, not justice).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, many people see it that way. One wonders where on earth the woman was at the moment of conception. "
I think even Warren Ferral put the 'pill' for men at the top of his list as far as interests that men should have. I agree. Its a simple step and it frees men of many things, and its exactly where women have started 50 or so years ago.
Secondly, I think thats almost brilliant if it could be made into an arguement. The fact that no women were named as potential fathers or the father in paternity fraud cases. I know its completely absurd but I wonder if there is a distracting arguement to be made out of it. Hence if its in the best interest to discrimanate against men why not make it also in the best interest to discriminate against women, argue that its non constitutional to pick one over the other simply based on sex when no proof of fathership is offered as evidence, just 'her'word. It gets whackeir but make it leagal for a woman to accuse another woman of fathering the child. Honestly this is how feminists will show their true colours when it comes to fraud. Just wondering.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're collectivizing women into ALL women do this or do that.
This is the big LIE in "choice". The fact is that to many women (and men) aboriton is not a "choice". Roe v. Wade created a legal abstraction called "choice" but this is illogical. One cannot be made to make a "choice" ex parte. To be a "choice" one has to be considering two or more options. I cannot tell you out of the blue that you did 'chose' not to kill you grandmother yesterday, when in fact you were never considering it, and do not even consider killing your grandmother an option, regardless whether it was legal or not.
So, rhetorically, you have collectivied all women as pro-Choice, when in fact studies and polls have shown that roughly 40-50% of women are not pro-Choice (as are the same percentage of men). The fact is that large segments of our society have real moral/ethical objections to abortion, and would never consider one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're collectivizing women into ALL women do this or do that.
To whom does the pronoun "You" refer to? I'm not "collectivising" anyone. Anyway, we're referring to the legal recourse to abortion available to all women; I haven't seen anyone prescribe what all women do, or any statement that women actively make choices that they are opposed to on moral or religious grounds, or that simply because someone has the legal resource they automatically have the means to pursue it; those are entirely different matters; I assumed all of that was evident from the context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, we're referring to the legal recourse to abortion available to all women;
The legal option (?) was imposed on all women as were the consequences of such imposition.
What some of you are saying is that because ALL women have legal option, then others can impose conditions on women based on which "option" they choose even if they never wanted to excercise that option, never requested an option, have no use for an option.
It is basically coercement with penalties to exact an outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What some of you are saying is that because ALL women have legal option, then others can impose conditions on women based on which "option" they choose even if they never wanted to excercise that option, never requested an option, have no use for an option.
It is basically coercement with penalties to exact an outcome.
What others are you referring to? What conditions? How do these conditions (whatever they are) vary with a woman's choice? I have many legal rights that I don't exercise; in what sense would these be considered some sort of imposition? This is very vague; I'm not following your argument at all. Are you saying that many women have no use for abortion, and now that the legal recourse is available, that's some kind of imposition? I hope that's not what you're saying; I'm not a therapist, so I'm unable to help others with the business of coping with adult life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, since I've been reading through other threads with you (Lorriane) and Warble, I tend to agree that there hasn't been a satisfactory C4M proposal (as far as I'm aware), especially given the biological (and to a lesser extent political) reality that women bear the entire burden and risk of pregnancy.
I see now that you were arguing that if C4M (in some form were implemented, and a woman's religious or moral beliefs prevented her from terminating a pregnancy if the father wished to "terminate" his role as a father under C4M, then the woman would be penalized; let me add that I have not advocated C4M, I have participated in this discussion in order to form an opinion, so I am not imposing any penalty, but I understand the irresistible tendency to want to view me as a bad guy (I'm not a nice guy, even in real life--I'm much too exciting); also, let me attempt to fill in the missing parts of the argument that I've gleaned from reading other parts of the thread: the sense in which a woman in this situation would be penalized includes, at the very least, the risk and burden of becoming pregnant, which men obviously don't assume; in addition, there may be additional burdens, such as the time and expense of supporting a child (if the state doesn't intervene), and possibly other burdens. So at the very least, C4M does not address the additional biological fact that women and not men assume the risk of pregnancy; all such proposals seem not to account for the medical risk the woman assumes, and in the case of a woman who will not exercise her choice for moral or religious reasons, the lack of consideration is unfair. Now that I've stated wht I think your position is in terms I understand (doh!) I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...C4M does not address the additional biological fact that women and not men assume the risk of pregnancy; all such proposals seem not to account for the medical risk the woman assumes, and in the case of a woman who will not exercise her choice for moral or religious reasons, the lack of consideration is unfair.
I cannot wait till we are able to clone an artificial womb or create one mechanically. That is what I see as the real C4M solution. Then men gain biological equality and we have a rational argument if C4M.
When that happens, we can preserve our seman, get sterilized, and have all the sex we want (yea!) with no risk of undesirable consequences. Now that will be real C4M.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cannot wait till we are able to clone an artificial womb or create one mechanically. That is what I see as the real C4M solution. Then men gain biological equality and we have a rational argument if C4M.
When that happens, we can preserve our seman, get sterilized, and have all the sex we want (yea!) with no risk of undesirable consequences. Now that will be real C4M.
I agree that advances in science will be needed to address the current biological imbalance. I'm interested if there are any C4M proposals that go beyond asserting that the current assymmetry with reproductive control isn't "fair" (because only the woman has the legal option to abort, whether or not some woman actually does is beside the point for proponents of C4M; they assert that a corresponding legal right ought to exist for men) and that also addresses the burden and risk of pregnancy that women uniquely assume. Without changing the reproductive process itself, I don't see how C4M addresses this; it seems to me the argument proceed as if the burden and risk isn't a consideration; in that case, an argument has to be made why not.
Well, I can still be a raving immoderate on routine infant circumcision (I'm opposed on the grounds of "my body, my choice"). ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One flaw in your scheme is that sterization is still not 100% failsafe. Not yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @05:13PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, government has waaaaaay too much controll over, not just our children but our reproductive "rights" as well.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am CERTAINLY not willing to give it TOATAL controll over these things.
...I have enough aggrevation...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yet you have collectivised all men as not wanting to share parental roles, Lori.
So what if 40 or 50% of women are not into abortion than why is it law?
Two things , take away that law and obligate both parents to full custody.
Or remain as we are but give men the choice to abort or to not abort. In the end the woman still has the trump card as to whether or not she brings the child to full term.
The father decides he doesn't want the child in his life thats his choice its his form of adoption or abortion.
This in no way penalizes the child and any arguement to it is refuted by feminist rhetorics galore. Feminists who only want daddy to give money. Thats what its really about then isn't it. Whats happening is the money is being taken away from the plate and the male is no longer obligated to pay out for a woman's choice.
If the woman decides to keep the baby and raise it herself that is *her* choice, she will have to live with the responsibility of that choice.
Feminists have been systematically weeding men out from their child's lives for years, but feminists will have to get jobs and live up to their responsibilities for their own actions.
You can't have it both ways. What will happen and this is the thing fembots hate as they have been actively trying to destroy this for a centurey now, is that women will depend on men for the success of their progeny, thats right 'marriage'. Women will have to negociatete with men again.
I will never pay for a child I don't want and I will never be trapped into a relationship I don't want. Its joint custody and equal parenting ability or nothing. It is our Right to have that choice in equal partisan, and until they take those rights away from women to make the base equal than men should have an equal standing in law and choice. NO more having your cake and eating it too.
To say this penalized the child is a complete strawman arguement. I would think abortion is a stiffer penalization of a capital nature, but hey Im just one guy. I wonder if fembots actually read what they write when they start talking the 'best interest of the child' because for some reason it always ends on whats good for the woman, rarely the man. I means seriously when is it not in the best interest of the child to know who his/her real parents are, at what time?
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yet you have collectivised all men as not wanting to share parental roles, Lori.
No, I haven't. But C4M does by default of adressing the concerns of men who either don't want their child aborted, or don't want it aborted AND want to parent the child. Estimates of pro-Life men are statistically very similar to pro-Life women, in some polls more men are oppposed to abortion on moral/ethical grounds than are women. In any case, it's a sizeable percentage of men, which C4M totally ignores.
So what if 40 or 50% of women are not into abortion than why is it law?
That is a very good question. It obviously could not be the law based only on women's votes now could it? (Furthermore, at the time Roe v. Wade was decreed, women's political clout was far less than it is today).
Two things , take away that law and obligate both parents to full custody.
I would be agreeable to that.
Or remain as we are but give men the choice to abort or to not abort. In the end the woman still has the trump card as to whether or not she brings the child to full term.
I obviously disagee with this proposal. I would agree that men should have the legal right to veto an abortion, or failing that have legal redress if the woman aborted against his veto. Since I am opposed to abortion, I can't in good faith say I advocate additional people being allowed to compel an abortion.
The father decides he doesn't want the child in his life thats his choice its his form of adoption or abortion. This in no way penalizes the child and any arguement to it is refuted by feminist rhetorics galore.
I disagee. And on this very site you have men who advocate for fathers to have more involvement in their children's lives, particularly their son's lives. So obviously, a sizeable group of people think fathers are important to children. The stats of problems of fatherless children are trotted out time and again in debates on custody. It seems to me either fathers are important to children or they are not. Logically, I can't see how it can be both ways at once.
Feminists who only want daddy to give money. Thats what its really about then isn't it. Whats happening is the money is being taken away from the plate and the male is no longer obligated to pay out for a woman's choice.
No, I don't think that is what it is about. See above. Also, all women are not feminists and neither are all women pro-abortion.
If the woman decides to keep the baby and raise it herself that is *her* choice, she will have to live with the responsibility of that choice.
For many people, it is not a "choice" to NOT kill your child. For many people NOT killing your child is the natural un-choice. It simply is not an option to kill one's own offspring. Also, philosophically, you cannot force someone to have made a "choice" (which implies free will and intent) ex post facto and ex parte.
Feminists have been systematically weeding men out from their child's lives for years, but feminists will have to get jobs and live up to their responsibilities for their own actions.
Once again, if this is true, and men want to be back in the lives of their children, that should be the focus. Once again, all women are not "feminists" or pro- abortion, or intending to weed men out from their children's lives.
You can't have it both ways.
Nor can you. What of the men who want to be parents and don't want their offspring aborted. Who is standing up for these men?
What will happen and this is the thing fembots hate as they have been actively trying to destroy this for a centurey now, is that women will depend on men for the success of their progeny, thats right 'marriage'. Women will have to negociatete with men again.
You say that as if all women do not marry or "negotiate" with men. Many do and there are many successful families. There are even successful divorced families where the children are still well cared for by both parents. This should be the ideal, the goal, shouldn't it?
I will never pay for a child I don't want and I will never be trapped into a relationship I don't want. Its joint custody and equal parenting ability or nothing.
Again, this is fair. Joint custody and equal parenting should be where the bar is set, not lower. The fact is that there are always inequities that need to be righted. But righting them should not include simply reversing the inequities, or increasing them.
Should black people ask for an equal time period in which to hold white people as slaves? Should whites suffer discrimination in order to atone for past discrimination against them? This is the whole argument used against affirmative action, that two wrongs don't make a right.
Yet the same people who oppose affirmative action, seem to support it in the abortion/child support debate, the C4M position.
To say this penalized the child is a complete strawman arguement. I would think abortion is a stiffer penalization of a capital nature, but hey Im just one guy.
Of course you are right. It is a stiffer penalty. That is obvious. However, this is a smokescreen, it is like the slave owner saying it is ok for me to mistreat my slaves as long as I don't kill them outright. Both are wrong by an order of degree.
I wonder if fembots actually read what they write when they start talking the 'best interest of the child' because for some reason it always ends on whats good for the woman, rarely the man.
But that is my whole point. Why make it a competition, a either/or situation. It seems to me the "best interst of the child" would be two parents working together in that direction. I can't think of why the child has to be in competition with adults either, which is the main premise behind abortion (a premise which I reject). It seems to me the crux is that some people do not want to be parents. Fine. But it seems to me that that could be settled in ways that do not harm or penalize the child, if that were set as the criteria (we arbitrarily set the criteria). It also seems that adults should accept some inconvenience until such time as the arrangements for the child could be settled satisfactorily. It seems there is LOTS of ground to find compromises that we have yet to explore by relentless sticking to win/lose either/or propositions.
I means seriously when is it not in the best interest of the child to know who his/her real parents are, at what time?
I agee with this rhetorical question. When indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but thats the situation now isnt' it Lori. Its just a better bargaining chip for men in their feilds of rights not the reverse. There is no way in hell they are going to stop abortions.
But they can look at the answer that men can also make the choice to be a parent or not. This is the road to resolution for men.
And again you did say men have the obligation and should be forced into it, so your arguement is circular. We do have commonalities though. If women have the choice then men should have the choice as well. It does force for better negotiation towards family.
And seriously Lori, the arguement about should whites be slaves or whatever is total crap. We could look into the Shiambo's in Africa who enslaved the Pigmies for centuries, did more horrible things than whites did to blacks and enslaved them for longer. The issue is the abuse of Power, and men are being forced to do things that are not expected of women. So I don't see where you were going with the statement but it is uncomparable. Personally I think that a woman should be able to lable you the "father" and force 'you' to pay child support for a child that is clearly not yours, but the laws have curtailed it to basically 'her word'. Now tell me if you think that is fair, because its in the best interest of the child under your perceptions , is it not?
'
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not miss the money, Dan, but I am middle-aged now and I still feel great sorrow over not having someone I can call "Dad." "
Then you should be subbmitting your testimony to fight for men's automatic right to joint custody.
Which in reality is what we are more so fighting for. Along with the right to have freedom of choice in an equal manner to what women decide.
I for one am not big on children outside of wedlock and I do not believe in divorce. But I see those presented arguements as a means to an end, in fact for the interest of the child. You are forcing men to be something, but giving the women all the power to choose. She can simply say 'get out of my life' then get a bogus restraining order that forces the man to pay and yet not see his kids, which has ultimately hurt you by not seeing your father for whatever reason.
I've seen it hundreds of times where the mother pushed the father out of the house and yet blamed him for 'abondoment'.
I believe men walk away from it all the time. My father choose to spend his time getting drunk or sleeping off hangovers. He is not what I would call an upright man in this area. Im going to try and be different, but Im not going to be blackmailed or bullied or threatened with jail and in the end have no say. The child is half mine and the courts can not take that away from me no matter how immorrall and corrupt they have become.
.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @12:51AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Lorianne. I think you're an intelegent person who gives a bit of "spice" to the forums and I DO respect your oppinions.
But I've gotta go with 'cwfreeman' on this one.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @09:15PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that there is a viable loophole in paternity law...a woman obviously has the last clear chance to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term ... she is wholly responsible for the outcome
Based on my years of experience as the Reproductive Rights Chairman for the National Center for Men, I agree. Here's the big but.
But, courts don't. They routinely ignore "fault" in paternity proceedings. (Sorry.)
For example, in Weinberg v. Omar E., 106 App. Div.2d 448, 448, 482 N.Y.S.2d 540 (1984), the court held:
"[T]he mother's alleged fault or wrongful conduct is irrelevant"
Courts even ignore fault and force men into parenthood in ugly, ugly cases where men have been raped! Judges simply tell men to shut up, shovel the gravel and pay child support.
I'm not making this up.
Time, and time again, I've seen paternity suit defendants underestimate the DISCRIMINATION they'll face in court, and lose. This area of law is devilishly tricky. It looks easy, but it's hard, hard, hard.
The good news is that, to the best of my knowledge, only lower state courts have discriminated against men. Federal courts, which take Constitutional rights like equal protection more seriously, haven't considered only protecting women from forced parenthood... yet....
I and others think it's worth trying in federal court. My standard advice is to assemble a dream team of legal, media and reproductive rights experts and head for FEDERAL COURT! Details are here.
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My standard advice is to assemble a dream team of legal, media and reproductive rights experts and head for FEDERAL COURT!
Yeah. But Uncle "Benito" Sam Courts don't accept jurisdiction on cases like these either!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @01:00AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, courts don't. They routinely ignore "fault" in paternity proceedingsCourts even ignore fault and force men into parenthood in ugly, ugly cases where men have been raped! Judges simply tell men to shut up, shovel the gravel and pay child support.
I'm not arguing that; however this is grounds for appeal on the basis of "abuse of discretion," i.e. an administrative or judicial decision so based on whim or caprice, or against logic, that it amounts to a denial of justice.
In such cases, I can't think of a better example of "abuse of discretion" than when a judge ignores both the letter and the spirit of the law in favor of his own prejudices, i.e. good ol' "legislation from the bench."
If abortion is a viable choice for the woman (i.e. it's legal and presents no risk greater than continued childbirth), then this her decision to forego abortion in favor of childbirth-- particularly when the man clearly communicated his desire NOT to be a parent-- is entirely her own decision, especially outside a marriage.
Anything else is a double-standard, holding men resopnsible for women's choices but not allowing the reverse.
That's logic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Courts even ignore fault and force men into parenthood in ugly, ugly cases where men have been raped! Judges simply tell men to shut up, shovel the gravel and pay child support.
I'm not making this up.
Time, and time again, I've seen paternity suit defendants underestimate the DISCRIMINATION they'll face in court, and lose. This area of law is devilishly tricky. It looks easy, but it's hard, hard, hard.
Now this is the kind of stuff where I believe we should be looking a writing new law and getting it through the legislatures. We need to start with the rape of adolescent boys, their burdens, and work up from there. Nobody can argue against having a law that protects children from abuse. It is definitely one of the angles that I want to follow next year in CA.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's strange that this item has come up just now, because it's an issue that's been on my mind during the last week or so.
What most strikes me about the issues of paternity and child support are the almost complete lack of any conception of female responsibility. Whatever the woman decides to do, everyone else is expected to shape themselves around it. So, if the woman chooses to have an abortion it's just tough shit for the father, and if the woman decides to have the child it's also tough shit for the father. But why? Lorianne raises the point about how everything begins at conception, so men and women have equal responsibility. Oh really? Well, what happens to the woman's responsibility after conception? She has none. Oh, she has responsibility to herself - it is, so we're always being told, her body - but she has no responsibility to the man. The man, on the other hand, has responsbilities to her and the child. She makes the decisions, he is expected to make those decisions work - usually by providing money.
It isn't really good enough to say that the woman may not want to have an abortion. What makes her think she is entitled to have a child she cannot support? If she - and society at large - actually appreciated the efforts and sacrifices that men make to support their families, perhaps a case could be made for child support. However, in the current climate the father is not appreciated. Instead he is seen as some kind of criminal who has made the woman pregnant and must now pay for what he has done. The father is, therefore, not part of the family, but mearly the cause of it.
Women are not children, so why do we absolve them of all responsibility? Why do we need a male pill to prevent women from having children they can't support? The pill for women was supposed to give them sexual freedom, but it also gave them responsibilty, and responsibility doesn't sit well in the minds of those who want to see themselves as victims. Look at sexual harrassment law and domestic violence law and see how women are absolved of responsibility every step of the way. Feel 'uncomfortable' at work? Sure, we'll suspend some guy or sack him, and don't you worry your pretty head about such triffling matters as cause and reason. You beat your husband? Hell, he probably deserves it. Hey, let's say that he's in control of the situation and that therefore your violence is retaliation. You can hit him all you like, and if he complains we'll arrest him and charge him with domestic violence. Sheesh!
Sometime soon we're going to have to tackle this problem. Women should not be raised to think that they can just la-de-da their way through life. They're going to have to take on responsibility not just to themselves but to others - and by 'others' I mean men. I suspect this is a completely alien concept to women raised on a diet of feminism, but that's just too bad. The current attitude, by which men and women's 'equal' responsibility for conception is translated into the man's responsibility and the woman's rights, had to end. It is not men's task to make women's lives work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne I have just reread my post and I don’t seem to find anywhere in it a statement that ALL WOMEN choose abortion. In fact I don’t see any reference to ALL WOMEN aligning with any position. The crux of my post was that women have CHOICES when it comes to sex and parenting and men have NO CHOICES comparable to women’s.
It just seems to me that when an issue is presented that effects the life and well being of women as a society we are asked to only take the women into consideration i.e. with the abortion issue you don’t hear about the needs of the children or the fathers. Women’s needs seem to be viewed in a vacuum. When it comes to Men’s needs we must look at the children, society, and women.
I just think that it may be some sort of antiquated agrarian mind-set that equates woman to the role of the likes of barren fields that men must toil in to make productive, to benefit society. Once he works it with his plow and sows it with his seed, he is responsible to care for the crop to safe keep societies needs. Not to do so would be lazy, negatively impact those that depend on him and not man like. It’s not surprising that once he has worked the land with his plow society viewed him as the owner of it.
The Women's Movement has worked hard to change the concept of women as possessions and rightly so. With the invention of the Pill women have freed themselves from the agrarian role model. They are now in control of reproduction. With abortion they are now in control of harvest. With adoption or the ability to leave a child at the hospital or police station they are in control of distribution. In none of these choices does the man have to be involved because the man does not own the woman. Thus the man has no legal claim on the products of their union. That is unless the woman decides to keep the child for her own needs, even if the needs are for moral reasons. With that one choice to keep the product of their union for her own desire she forces the man back into the agrarian model, that is at least partially. He still has no ownership of the women or the child he just must pay for the use of the field and for the safekeeping of the produce.
I stand by the belief that women are not possessions, and take it further that neither are men. I also believe that children are the responsibility of their parents. I believe that the Women’s Movement didn’t fully think through the consequences of their social engineering when they lobbied for change. What I want to see is these changes become truly equal or at least some dialogue take place on the changes they have forced to be enacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To add to that the simple facts are that women currently have all the rights when it comes to children. Men are assumed non-parents and for all intensive purposes a means of financial support for a mother and/or child.
The basic problem right now is that women currently have the LEGAL right to an abortion.
Women have the LEGAL right to put a child up for adoption.
Men have to accept what ever a woman chooses and the consequences that go with her decision.
Regardless if you believe abortion should be legal or not currently it is and in all reality will always be legal. So we must deal with reality as it currently exists.
As to the argument that it would punish children. That is avoidance of the issue and a typical response (but not unexpected response) from a society that values women and children's lives over that of men. This notion of "women and children first" is the same idealogical rhetoric that requires men to register for the draft and keeps men's health issues from being taken seriously by society. If one takes this argument to the extreme then we could turn the draft into a random father draftboard system where single mothers (ie children) are assigned a "father" to pay for all necessary bills to prevent the needless suffering of children.
What about the men that are in jail because they have failed to pay support for a child that is not biologically thiers? What about the men who are working two jobs to pay for a child that is not biologically thiers? Why do women get to determine if a man is going to be a parent reguardless of his wishes? An equitable trade would be to allow men the same rights of aborting the fetus in the same time period that women have. Unless of course the male is not informed which brings up a host of other legal problems.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:19PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
This notion of "women and children first" is the same idealogical rhetoric that requires men to register for the draft and keeps men's health issues from being taken seriously by society.
I support not putting women before men, but I do think children should be the first ones on the lifeboats, and I don't think they should be subject to military service. I don't believe in the draft at all. I think it's murder, but if we're going to have one, we should draft only adult men and women, not boys and girls.
If a child is orphaned temporarily or permanently because both his parents are at war or have been killed in battle, the government has the responsibility to take care of that child until he turns 18, even if that means housing him in an orphanage should all his other relatives be dead too. If the government murders the child's parents, it owes him at least that much.
I know that means I'm not an "equalitarian." So be it.
I do not think pointing out C4M's effects on children is avoiding the issue. In fact, this is something that needs to be addressed, as the child is a separate being from the mother. I realize that feminists lump "women and children" together, but we should not do the same thing.
BTW my response is that the child is better off with no father than with one who doesn't want to be around, because he never wanted the child to begin with. Read my post "Q for Warble" on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused. Are you for abortion or not? If you are and there is not a need for a father's consent then how can the male in the situation avoid becoming a parent when the mother easily can do so by giving the baby up for adoption or having an abortion.
If your not for abortion then at least your consistant. the problem still is abortion is legal and will always be legal. So the question remains how to equalize the playing field where women can carry a fetus to term and FORCE by law the father to pay for the child.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @05:48PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're misunderstanding each other. =)
I am for abortion and for C4M. A mother should be able to abort without the father's consent, but then the father should have the right to terminate his rights and responsibilties to the child. We are on the same page on this issue.
What I am against is legal baby dumping and *adoption* without the father's consent. I see adoption as entirely different than abortion. Once the child is here, the father should have every right to accept or reject parenthood. A woman should not be able to adopt out a child without the father's consent. I feel that violates the rights of the father, who may want to adopt the child himself, and should be given that opportunity before the child is given to a stranger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:26PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I am strongly against legal baby dumping, as well as adoptions performed against the wishes of the father. Abortion is one thing, that's a medical procedure, and the two shouldn't be lumped together.
No woman should be allowed to adopt out a child who is wanted by his father. Baby dumping should be illegal for a number of reasons. It violates the right of the father. It violates the right of the child to know who his biological parents are. It provides no safeguards as to whether the woman dumping off the baby is even his mother. I can't wait until some spiteful relative dumps off a baby that isn't hers, and the real mother (and hopefully the father) sue the hospital, the government and whoever else they can.
It is fully possible to be for C4M and against the abhorrent practices of adoption without the father's consent and baby dumping, especially baby dumping. C4M would provide an orderly, legal process wherein fathers would terminate their parental rights, something quite different from baby dumping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4M would provide an orderly, legal process wherein fathers would terminate their parental rights, something quite different from baby dumping.
You mean rights and responsibilities, don't you? There is a legal means through which a father can terminate his parental rights (but not responsibilities): he can get divorced, and pay child support to children he'll never see again.
There is a sense in which the father is getting off "scott free": the mother assumes the sole biological and psychological risk of pregnancy. Is there any C4M proposal that acknowledges this and somehow (if it's possible) has the father compensate the mother in some way for risks fathers do not assume? If that seems far-fetched, one could argue that at present, the father does compensate the mother for the unique biological burden of pregnancy once a child is born: he has to share the cost of supporting the child. From that point of view, advocates of C4M are asserting that the burden and risk to the mother has been vastly over-estimated; in that case, by how much? The entire cost is unreasonable if the father decides he doesn't want to assume it? I'd appreciate some help disentangling the issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a sense in which the father is getting off "scott free": the mother assumes the sole biological and psychological risk of pregnancy. Is there any C4M proposal that acknowledges this and somehow (if it's possible) has the father compensate the mother in some way for risks fathers do not assume?
It's not necessary to do this, Mars.
The primary reason for unsupported children is easy once you get past the pheminist propaganda: Stupid women are out boffing men who don't give a tinker's damn about them because they are not thinking with their brain, but instead doing exactly what they accuse men of doing.
There is one thing that is right as rain in some of these arguments here - women are the onmly ones who get pregnant and have babies. The whole trouble is, most of those who point it out are unwilling to accept the fact that a woman is responsible for her body and the choices she makes with it. If that includes shagging some guy just because he's got these cute buns and a get-your-panties-all-sweaty package, even though he's never demonstrated any indication of attachment and/or commitment to her. Instead, free sex, no consequences, because some man will make it allright, or put the thumbscrews to the guy to pony up what the woman thinks she deserves.
It's paternalism and one-sided chivalry with a new twist. It's arguable to me that anyone who reaches sexual maturity without knowing what causes babies should either be sterilized on the grounds that their DNA is unfit to pollute the gene pool, or their legal guardians horsewhipped in the public square. Yet somehow, though a woman can do this that and the other thing because it is her body and she should control it, an exception is made for being a slut. Yes, I said slut. It's high time that word got used again, with a vengeance. All of a sudden, even though she knew that she was engaging in behavior that has predictable results, it's now someone else's responsibility for the choices she makes, choices made in the face of reason, and choices made where the faintest hint that someone should even have an opinion on them - let alone input - are met with howls of "Fascist!" And it's utter hogwash.
I get a prostate exam, because I'm a man, I have a prostate, and it's my body, my responsibility. I hold a 5th degree black belt in Isshun-ryu Karate, yet I don't go doing katas in the mall, because if I hit someone, and hurt them, it's my body, and what comes out of it is my responsibility.
When it comes to pregnancy, though, this seems to go out the window. This is done by irresponsible pheminists who want to remove all consequence from women, and they do this by blaming a man.
A woman lies, commits paternity fraud, and somehow it's the responsibility of that man who she defrauded to keep supporting her "For the good of the child." It's the man's fault. There is weeping, and tears, and quivering lips. Phbbfht! Chances are, in a case like that, visitation will be then cut off and child support maintained, if not increased, at her instigation, and it will be the man's fault then, too, for finding out the truth and destroying "the child's" relationship with "the only father he's ever known." What contemptible drivel. The fault lies squarely with one person, and one person alone - the slutty and/or adulterous, lying, decietful witch whose actions alone are the sole cause of the whole situation.
This whole child suypport crap is a half-way measure in a perfect world scenario. In a perfect world, everyone, male and female, would be upfront, honest, and accept the burden in whatever they did. This whole thing forces a man to live in that perfect world, but leaves it wide open for the woman to skip merrily through life without the faintest hint of responsibility touching her. It allows paternity fraud by not tying it to a genetic test, and on the woman's dime to boot. It allows a woman to lie and "oops" so as to trap a man and gain a meal ticket. It turns fatherhood into strictly a cash transaction. The litany is endless, but the upshot is, it once again allows a woman to make a man responsible for the choices she makes, knowing full well the risks beforehand.
Abortion has freed a woman from being a slave to her biology, but it has made men slaves to her biology, and women are happy with this. Relationship disintegrating? No problem. Drop that lil' pill in the toilet, get the blonde look, and say "Ooops!" well, do what I want, or I get to make your life hell and legally and emotionally blackmail you for the rest of your life.
Need a free lunch? Ooops! Well, I get a check, and welfare, and aid here, and daycare, and this, and this, and this - for the good of .... um ... The CHILD! Yeah, that's the ticket.... (It's curious how any suggestion of requiring an accounting of this meal ticket is met with cries of "Fascist!" ain't it?)
Question her right to open up "Broodmare, Inc." and what do we get? The same tired litany. Trying to control her. Trying to control her body. Misogynist. Child-hater. **yawn** Be a man. Suck it up. Subsidize feminine stupidity, or worse, feminine malicious scheming to get a free ride.
Whenever I hear someone mention "The Child" I want to puke. Ever see "The Dead Zone" MArs? In the last scene, the evil politician grabs a baby and holds it up in front of him as a shield, and when this happens I get the same feeling of disgust. Want to know why that child is hungry, is dressed in rags, and livin g in poverty and squalor? Because his mother is a stupid woman, who decided long ago that long term consequences be damned, she needed her itch scratched now. And predictably, someone will object to this statement with some variation of the "a male forced her into this situation" theme in one way or another, because as we all know, women are victims and men the victimizers, don't we?
It came incrementally. First we removed the stigma from being an unwed mother. After all, she made a mistake and did the right thing in giving the baby up.
Then we asked "why shouldn't she keep it?" We shouldn't tar her with stigma and shame; and eventually she was lionized as "courageous." That's where it went downhill. A man is an unspeakable so-and-so for leaving a fatherless child - and once this was so because he had made a promise in marriage to be there. The age of free sex and free love was only for women, though. Men need not apply. We never removed that stigma of unwed fatherhood, and that was deliberate and calculated by the pheminist Illuminati behind all that crap. Let the mpother off. But keep excoriating the father.
That's when we became whipping boys. Woman cocks up, beat the man. It's his fault.
If you want to let people off, let them all off. If you want to make them bear responsibility make them do so. But do it across the board. I don't mind a man being chained to the galley, so long as the woman is chained next to him. But the minute you let her out of the seat, I will be damned if I am going to beat him to pull so she can ride for free. If a man has to pay "child support" then a woman should have to get a freaking job and submit the same amount, and present accountability for that total upon demand - or vice versa, and it should be evidence of unfitness for custody if she can't - and if neither can, the child - for its good, after all - should be taken and given to people who can.
And further, if a pre-set amount of child support and her efforts can't lift them out of poverty, then if it really is about the good of the child instead oif the woman, it's high time she turn that child over to dad if he can, rather than expect him to fund her.
Of course, your pheminista trolls will object there. What a shock. Because it's not about the good of the child to them, it's about the good of the woman and retaining feminine control over men via economic terrorism. If it were really about the good of the child, a man having primary would be no problem. Q.E.D.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is drifting away from what I consider to be the most pertinent issue; I'll have to come back at some later time are comment on your remarks point by point; for now I'll say that it's unnecessary, as far as I can tell, to disparage the agents acting out their reproductive roles.
It seems to me that getting pregnant is not a choice; it's a random event that has some probability of occurring if two people engage in sexual activity, with or without consent, or else through artificial insemination. The choice, if there is one, is to terminate a pregnancy if it occurs; that will have the effect of terminating any parental obligations, since these are assigned if and when a child is born.
So I disagree that a woman who aborts is terminating her parental obligations: she doesn't have any because her child hasn;t been born.
A certain pre-condition for social transactions has to be understood before people engage in acts that could result in the birth of the child; to that extent, I agree with the C4Mers that the understanding is part of the social contract. The understanding is, or might be, that anyone who engages in activity could wind up being the biological father or mother of a child. I distiguish the notion of biological father or mother from that of "parent" since that term already implies responsibilities, and these don't exist in the state of nature; nature has seen to it that we have certain protective instincts, or else the human race would not exist. Nevertheless, instincts aren;t "responsibilities"; these are assigned later under some social contract, and enforced by the state.
Now the social understanding is that not only can sexual activity result in the birth of a child, but can also result in the assignment of parental responsibilities. There is the question of the fair assignment of such responsibilities--it's always legitimate to ask this question. It seems to have been argued (I tend to agree) that the unilateral burden and risk of pregnancy that females have through biology ought to be a consideration in the assignment of those responsibilities.
Now it seems to me that the right to an abortion is the right to terminate a life, and prevent a birth from occurring; in view of the unilateral burden and medical risk of pregnancy, this termination not only pre-empts any possible parental obligations, it also serves to reduce the medical risks of pregnancy. I daon;t have time to finish this line of argument--I don't say that the risks and burdens of pregnancy necessarily imply anything about parental obligations, but I think they deserve serious consideration...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that getting pregnant is not a choice; it's a random event that has some probability of occurring if two people engage in sexual activity, with or without consent, or else through artificial insemination. The choice, if there is one, is to terminate a pregnancy if it occurs; that will have the effect of terminating any parental obligations, since these are assigned if and when a child is born.
I should be more precise. Initially, there is some some choice (by one or mor partners) to engage in sexual activity; there is some probability that the activity will result in a pregnancy, and some further probability that the pregnancy will result in a child. The choice to engage in sexual activity, is prior to and disctinct from any choice to abort a fetus, obviously. What rights and responsibilities ought to be assigned for making a given choice is a matter of conventional agreement--these don't exist in nature, as far as I can tell. I used to believe in the independent existence of inalienable rights, but as far as I know they've never been observed and no hypothetical entity corresponding to a right has been shown to enforce itself against its violation; this means for me, how the rights and responsibilities are assigned is a matter of convention. There may be some intuitive notion of fairness one could appeal to; I don't know what that is.
What I would like is for a C4Mer to spell out for me what the rights and responsibilities of each agent are at each of these stages, prior to sexual activity, and afterwards, if there is conception. It would be great if the agents could be referred to as if they were worthy enough (no name calling; it's distracting to consider the moral situation of two miserable agents named "Slut" and "Jerk").
Currently a man has to trust a woman that she will do what she says she'll do if they get her pregnant; on the other hand, currently, a woman need not trust a man one way or the other if she decides to terminate her pregnancy. The element of trust though is somewhat beside the point if the prior understanding is that the choice to engage in sexual activity already entails certain responsibilities, depending on what thoe resonsibilities are, and whether or not "Jerk" and "Slut" trust each other (pardon me, I couldn't resist a jibe at the Gonzo Kid).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I disagree that a woman who aborts is terminating her parental obligations: she doesn't have any because her child hasn’t been born.
Interesting point. However, the state has found that it has the legal right to protect an unborn child from a drug-abusing mother when there is no abortion.
So clearly, the mother has some level of pre-parental obligation to care for the fetus. This has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and a matter of case law.
Note, that at this point the man still hasn't incurred any significant obligations or risks while the mother is legally liable, medically at risk, and can be held liable of drugging the fetus.
In CA, if the fetus is born with a controlled substance in the blood stream, the child is permanently removed and put up for adoption. It is grounds for termination of all parental rights by the mother.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the state has found that it has the legal right to protect an unborn child from a drug-abusing mother when there is no abortion.
Also, although a woman can legally abort, if someone assaults the woman and the fetus is destroyed, the assaulter can be charged with murder.
Now that's a double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I disagree that a woman who aborts is terminating her parental obligations: she doesn't have any because her child hasn’t been born.
Interesting point. However, the state has found that it has the legal right to protect an unborn child from a drug-abusing mother when there is no abortion.
So clearly, the mother has some level of pre-parental obligation to care for the fetus. This has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and a matter of case law.
This is unclear: how does the state protect the unborn child of a drug abusing mother until it's born? Unless the state forces the mother to undergo medical treatment before the birth of her child, it's hard to say that the unborn child is being protected in the present sense.
You might say that at the time of birth, the state determines the mother to be unfit, and at that time the child is removed from its mother; or else that after abortion is no longer legal, then the mother's parental obligations begin...
Really the important right that C4M advocates want is the right for men to forego any parental rights and responsibilities to a child that is born. It wouldn't matter if men had the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility to unborn children during the second trimester only, for example, only to become responsible if the child is born. So perhaps C4M advocates are really saying, "we don't interfere with and have no interest in the mother's right to control reproduction, as long as she is carrying her baby. We agree that's her right, and we have nothing to say about that. What we want, at parity with women, is the right to relinquish any parental rights and responsibilities within some time after the birth of the child." Now that addresses the assignment of parental rights and responsibilities, without directly interfering with the right of a woman to control her own body. Now it could be said that the granting of such a right to men would be effectively coercive, because the mother would get "stuck" (strictly speaking, the word "stuck" is an emotional term that should be avoided in favor of some hypothetical circumstance--no one really knows precisely what "stuck" means, even if we kind of sort of know). Maybe, maybe not--not if the state were to provide for "the best interests of the child" itself. This is still without any consideration for the risk that women bear for their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really the important right that C4M advocates want is the right for men to forego any parental rights and responsibilities to a child that is born. It wouldn't matter if men had the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility to unborn children during the second trimester only, for example, only to become responsible if the child is born.
I'll go further: in fact, since assignment of parental rights and responsibilities happens no earlier than the second trimester (I'm really assuming for all practical purposes they are assigned at birth), men and women have exactly the same parental rights and responsibilites as parents during the first semester: precisely none, because the state has to recognize the child (or fetus) as an independent locus of rights for any parental responsibilities to be assigned. So the argument for C4M couldn't possibly be a response to any unfairness that women have control over reproduction; what's at issue is the right to "give up" the role of a parent at the time parental rights and responsibilities are assigned, which, for all practical purposes, is the time that a child is actually born (otherwise there aren't any), or if you prefer, some time after the first trimester.
I have no argument with the right to one's body: I agree with it, otherwise, among other things, I couldn't argue that routine infant circumcision violates that right, and my argument that, accordingly, anyone who authorizes the involuntary circumcision of an infant would be violating that right, men and women included, and, so I insist, this is a blatant example of not just a few, but millions of men's rights being violated, not only by other men, but by women. This is (or should be recognized as) a really devastating counterargument to the notion that only women are "oppressed" and that only men are the "oppressors". ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @01:32PM EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean rights and responsibilities, don't you?
Yes, of course. I have a female friend who was once faced with an unplanned pregnancy. She had the child, but her daughter's father had no interest in being a parent. My friend had him sign a document terminating his parental rights and absolving him of any responsibilities. She keeps track of where he is in case the daughter wants to contact her bio father one day, but there is no child support and there never will be. The daughter was adopted by the man my friend eventually married. He is her legal father.
There is a sense in which the father is getting off "scott free": the mother assumes the sole biological and psychological risk of pregnancy.
It is true that the mother assumes all the risk of the pregnancy, but the man isn't getting off "scot free." When he is absolved of his responsibilities, all rights to the child are permanently terminated. If in 10 or 20 years he feels bad about having walked away from the kid, he has no legal right to force a relationship. He can certainly contact the child and ask, but it cannot be forced. If the child tells him he or she wants no contact, that's it. He has no more rights to the child than a stranger on the street.
Contrary to what some C4M proponents say, some men do later regret walking away from an unplanned pregnancy. Imagine that you're living in the same town with the mother. You've signed your C4M papers and not spoken to her in six years. One day while grocery shopping, you run into her. She is holding the hand of a small boy who is the spitting image of you at that age. There are many men who will feel regret at that point.
But, the right of the child to a stable life is more important than his regrets. He shouldn't be able to force his way into the child's life 10 years later. Whether he will eventually regret his decision to terminate his rights and responsibilities is something he must seriously consider. That is his burden. Anyone who thinks C4M is a scot free solution is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to what some C4M proponents say, some men do later regret walking away from an unplanned pregnancy.
Exactly. That is another key reason the C4M argument falls flat on its face. The proponents presume that men will not ever love an unwanted/unplanned child. That is literally an absurd argument.
In this way they sell many men short while continuing to mistakenly claim the welfare of the child has no consideration in the argument, they try to assert that the unique biology of the woman is not to be considered and can be excluded, or they mistakenly claim it is in the best interest of the child to simply let the biological child's father walk away if he doesn't want the child. In addition, having a prison population where 79% of the males had no father blows away the argument that children are fine without a father. Children need a father.
There are of course exceptions like where there is another adoptive father who will care for the child. But that isn't sufficient to justify allowing C4M which is really just men arguing that they should be able to walk away at will and have no paternal responsibilities for an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
Which gives me the idea that perhaps a good comprimise solution to the C4M dilemma would be to permit the father a 90 day window to walk away if another father could be found to adopt the child as his own.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a sense in which the father is getting off "scott free": the mother assumes the sole biological and psychological risk of pregnancy.
It is true that the mother assumes all the risk of the pregnancy, but the man isn't getting off "scot free." When he is absolved of his responsibilities, all rights to the child are permanently terminated. If in 10 or 20 years he feels bad about having walked away from the kid, he has no legal right to force a relationship. He can certainly contact the child and ask, but it cannot be forced. If the child tells him he or she wants no contact, that's it. He has no more rights to the child than a stranger on the street.
Ok, understood; see my remarks concerning factoring (or not factoring) in the extra medical burden of pregancy. I agree that it does not follow logically, a priori, by consideration of definitions alone, that the risk necessarily implies anything about the social contract; however, it might be taken into account.
The father, by terminating his parental rights and responsibilities, is not really at parity with a women who aborts her child for the following reasons: the woman is not only pre-empting any possible future parental rights and obligations that would result if the child were born, she is undertaking some medical risk (by having an abortion) and also relieving herself of further medical risk (by terminating the pregnancy), other things being equal. The male, on the other hand, is not necessarily undergoing any medical procedure, and has not assumed the risks and burden that the mother has.
I don't see abortion per-se as only a renouncing of future parental responsibilities; it also serves to remove the condition of pregancy; that is, it may be seen as a means of relief from a certain condition (or not, depending on your perspective); the fact is the condition of pregnancy is ended, and some of the attendant medical risks may be allieviated (or not, if the woman has estrogen sensitive breast cancer, and the surge of hormones during the period of pregnancy triggers an occurrence).
To the extent that C4M views the right to control reproduction, on the part o a woman's termination of her pregnancy, as exclusively and only a renunciation of the rghts and obligations of parenthood, then C4M is factually mistaken, because the termination of pregnancy also involves a medical procedure, which has the effect, on the average, of reducing the risk of pregancy, if not eliminating it altogether.
Now it can be argued, and it has been argued, that those risks were inherent in biology and shouldn't be a consideration, because that's "unfair"; that all depends on the social contract, which is implicit.
That has to be spelled out: what's necessary, what's a biological fact, what is the context in which the agents act. None of this has been spelled out in that level of detail, with any clarity, as far as I can tell.
Just what ethical and symmetry appeals are being made? The Gonzo Kid's remarks sounded (alomost) like revenge; without wishing to appear to want to control the discourse and how answers ought to be framed (I could be barking up the wrong tree), it's a lot of work for me to sort out the ethical issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @04:30PM EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
Just what ethical and symmetry appeals are being made? The Gonzo Kid's remarks sounded (alomost) like revenge; without wishing to appear to want to control the discourse and how answers ought to be framed (I could be barking up the wrong tree), it's a lot of work for me to sort out the ethical issues.
What I read into this is that since women are the half of the sex that gets pregnant, they the control of that reproductive process belongs to them; this is what I see yourself, TGK, and Warble all agreeing on.
While presented in his usual, in your face and screw you if you can't handle it, style GK does hit on a valid point. When one controls something, one controls the terms of it.
In the modern age AF (After Feminism) women have claimed their right to be free of certain things like marriage that they felt chained them down. They wanted to be free to without shame engage in promiscuous sex with whatever partners they chose. This is certainly their right.
The other side of this coin is that in doing so they lose the protections marriage gave them. However, women do not like this. They want their cake and eat it to. Here is where I am in lockstep with the position TGK takes, that it is the responsibility of women to take charge of the reproductive process they control along with their freedom to choose.
In such a fashion, women should dictate the terms of sexual encounters, and the human race got along for millenia with women controlling access to sex; I do not see this as a problem, and in fact, any man who is so weak minded as to agree to a one-sided sexual contract deserves whatever chains gets placed upon his neck. This does not mean though that the default is that there is an obligation to a woman by virtue of a man having access to sex. In fact, just the opposite.
If a woman expects a man to stand by her, she needs to make that clear, up front, and absent such a binding agreement it is her responsibility to insure that an unwanted pregnancy does not occur. She may dictate birth control, no vaginal penetration, and so on, and any such violation of her terms is a crime and a sexual assault.
The one thing she may not do, however, is to define a sexual encounter as casual, as a friendly piece of tail, and then change her mind about it later. Once the offer has been made, accepted, and consummated in that framework, the man owes nothing to the woman unless they also included part of the deal as being a fifty on the nightstand in the morning.
This is fair, and this is equitable. By this same token, though, a man who does not also enforce his rights to fatherhood in the same wise has not a legal leg to stand on insofar as to whether the child is aborted or not, whether the child is adopted or not, or any manner in which that child is raised. If the child is killed, he has no claim for loss. He has no right to visit. This too, is fair and equitable.
C4M should be the default. Yes, it would hurt for a generation, but it would do more good in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I read into this is that since women are the half of the sex that gets pregnant, they the control of that reproductive process belongs to them; this is what I see yourself, TGK, and Warble all agreeing on.
That's an over-interpretation of my words: I say that the biological facts, strictly speaking, don't necessarily imply anything about responsibilities one way or the other; one has to make some kind of appeal to ethical considerations, and the question of the unilateral burden of pregnancy that the woman bears may or may not be taken into consideration. I'd like to see the arguments from first principles, meaning, what is the conventional understanding that people who engage in sexual activity have or are supposed to have, what rights and responsibilities follow. I'd like something more than a characterization of my views; I've tended to side with Warble because I haven't formulated a convincing rejoinder.
Also, one has to state what the conventional agreement--implicit or otherwise--is between people who engage in sexual activity. Is it done with the understanding that a child may result? If so, how do you assign rights and responsibilities if a child is born? Rights and responsibilities simply don't exist outside of the state; they have to be agreed upon; the question is which assignments are fair, and how are they arrived at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just think that it may be some sort of antiquated agrarian mind-set that equates woman to the role of the likes of barren fields that men must toil in to make productive, to benefit society. Once he works it with his plow and sows it with his seed, he is responsible to care for the crop to safe keep societies needs. Not to do so would be lazy, negatively impact those that depend on him and not man like. It’s not surprising that once he has worked the land with his plow society viewed him as the owner of it.
Actually this is the very meaning of the term "husband," which is actually a verb in any other sense; likewise, the notorious "F" word comes from a verb meaning "to plow" or "to sew seeds."
In other words, it was a man's role to number his wife with his other commercial assets in order to produce.
This began to change in the Romantic era, when individuality arose and came to be valued, and a couple's relationship came to be valued as more than simply practical; however the basic sentiments of pragmatism still pervade unrecognized, and men are viewed as the great providers for their offspring, even when severed of choice, just as men are likewise seen as the great defenders of society despite no real benefit being attached to being subjected to this mandatory requirement, i.e. men are still required to register for selective service to be elegible for various benefits which women receieve despite no such registration, while like double-standards apply to draft requirements in the event of such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =1107&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
last clear chance:
n. a rule of law in determining responsibility for damages caused by negligence, which provides that if the plaintiff (the party suing for damages) is negligent, that will not matter if the defendant (the party being sued for damages caused by his/her negligence) could have still avoided the accident by reasonable care in the final moments (no matter how slight) before the accident. The theory is that although the plaintiff may have been negligent, his/her negligence no longer was the cause of the accident because the defendant could have prevented the accident. Most commonly applied to auto accidents, a typical case of last clear chance would be when one driver drifts over the center line, and this action was noted by an oncoming driver who proceeds without taking simple evasive action, crashes into the first driver and is thus liable for the injuries to the first driver who was over the line.
I really fail to see how this is any different from a woman going on with a pregnancy, after the man informing her from the start that he didn't want any part of it; in both cases, an impending "accident" is not avoided by the person last able to do so, renedering that person responsible by willful act of omission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really fail to see how this is any different from a woman going on with a pregnancy, after the man informing her from the start that he didn't want any part of it...
This is a common mistake in law. The problem is in using the "Last Clear Chance" doctrine - which applies to tort law - to examine reproductive rights law. That technique almost always fails.
Law simply doesn't work that way. The rules for one type or category of law don't universally transfer to other types of law. So you will always come away confused when trying this tactic.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a common mistake in law. The problem is in using the "Last Clear Chance" doctrine - which applies to tort law - to examine reproductive rights law. That technique almost always fails.
Law simply doesn't work that way. The rules for one type or category of law don't universally transfer to other types of law. So you will always come away confused when trying this tactic.
Paternity law IS tort law; a woman files a tort-based claim under the cause of action that he impregnated her and failed to support the resulting child. There is no such category of law as "reproductive rights law" in the sense of tort (civil) law or criminal law; the "last clear chance" doctrine applies here just fine.
Likewise, claiming that "it just doesn't work that way," without offering supporting a supporting explanation, is a non-argument.
Logically, a woman has the final say in whether or not a pregnancy comes to term, so it's her choice, either directly (abortion) or by act of omission (childbirth), and therefore should be her responsibility, since it's illogical-- and therefore an abuse of discretion- to hold one person responsible for another person's actions (or inactions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paternity law IS tort law; a woman files a tort-based claim under the cause of action that he impregnated her and failed to support the resulting child. There is no such category of law as "reproductive rights law" in the sense of tort (civil) law or criminal law; the "last clear chance" doctrine applies here just fine.
Nonsense. When I look up paternity law I find it under family code. It isn't under the civil code, penal code, or anywhere else.
Last clear chance doctrine is a misapplication of law that fails to hold up in the supreme court.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense.
When I look up paternity law I find it under family code. It isn't under the civil code, penal code, or anywhere else.
But suit brought UNDER paternity law IS handled under tort-law; all civil suits are handled under civil (tort) law.
Last clear chance doctrine is a misapplication of law that fails to hold up in the supreme court.
Please provide relevant citation to these alleged failed cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and therefore an abuse of discretion- to hold one person responsible for another person's actions (or inactions)."
And yet, that is exactly what you are proposing be done. You are proposing that the woman (and the child) be held accountable for the consequences of the man's actions (sex) and inacations (failure to prevent conception). The woman in effect becomes responsible for her own actions and inactions, and his as well.
This is not a reasonable condition under law, that one person has ultimately ZERO responsibility for any consequences resulting from his actions and inactions. This is what C4M is requestiong, ZERO responsibiity, ZERO accountability. Absolutely none.
Unfortunately in life, you cannot (except by legal fiat) expect zero consequences as a result of your actions.
The last clear chance theory is only another way to wiggle out of ALL responsbility, including the responsibility to prevent adverse action to oneself and others. Under C4M, there is absolutely no obligation on the man's part to do anything to prevent conception since he has an airtight "out" in all circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under C4M, there is absolutely no obligation on the man's part to do anything to prevent conception since he has an airtight "out" in all circumstances.
Exactly. C4M proponents want no responsiblity and all the options. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Under C4M, there is absolutely no obligation on the man's part to do anything to prevent conception since he has an airtight "out" in all circumstances.
Exactly. C4M proponents want no responsiblity and all the options. Sorry, life doesn't work that way."
Not at all; C4M simply wants a logical application of existing laws to ensure justice; there is NO justice in making one person responsible for another person's choices.
Since women have the legal option of abortion, and men don't, then this brings a correspondent RESPONSIBILITY for women to exercise that right if they don't want a child.
THAT'S how life works; you can't have your cake and eat it too, but too man women want to have their cake AND eat it at the expense of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The woman in effect becomes responsible for her own actions and inactions, and his as well.
This is not a reasonable condition under law, that one person has ultimately ZERO responsibility for any consequences resulting from his actions and inactions. This is what C4M is requestiong, ZERO responsibiity, ZERO accountability. Absolutely none.
Unfortunately in life, you cannot (except by legal fiat) expect zero consequences as a result of your actions.
The last clear chance theory is only another way to wiggle out of ALL responsbility, including the responsibility to prevent adverse action to oneself and others. Under C4M, there is absolutely no obligation on the man's part to do anything to prevent conception since he has an airtight "out" in all circumstances.
Responsibility comes from choice.
What part of the term "last clear chance" do you NOT understand? The woman has the last clear chance to avoid childbirth, NOT the man.
As long as abortion gives women 100% of the choice, they have to accept 100% of the burden.
That's logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility comes from choice.
What part of the term "last clear chance" do you NOT understand? The woman has the last clear chance to avoid childbirth, NOT the man.
As long as abortion gives women 100% of the choice, they have to accept 100% of the burden.
That's logic.
i'm not so sure it's relevant: all that would satisfy the requirements of C4M is the ability to for either of the biological parents to decide whether to assume the rights and responsibilities of parents once the child is born. In that case, why would an advocate of C4M care what the mother decides? If the mother decides to abort, there is no child and there are no parental responsibilities. It's only when there is a child that parental responsibilities are assigned. C4M really is about how the rights and responsibilities of parenthood are assigned once a child is born; a woman's right to chose is compatible with C4M, since C4M doesn't (or need not) have anything to do with that (at least not prima facie). All that matters is the right to "terminate" the rights and resonsibilities of parenthood once a child is born. That's to say nothing of what happens to the child, but I'll leave that as a separste issue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm not so sure it's relevant: all that would satisfy the requirements of C4M is the ability to for either of the biological parents to decide whether to assume the rights and responsibilities of parents once the child is born. In that case, why would an advocate of C4M care what the mother decides? If the mother decides to abort, there is no child and there are no parental responsibilities. It's only when there is a child that parental responsibilities are assigned.
This is the whole ISSUE! Since it's the WOMAN who SOLELY chooses whether to abort or not, then she is SOLELY responsible for the child, unless the man agrees otherwise prior to the fact.
Again, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the whole ISSUE! Since it's the WOMAN who SOLELY chooses whether to abort or not, then she is SOLELY responsible for the child, unless the man agrees otherwise prior to the fact.
Again, you can't have it both ways.
What exactly is it that is being had both ways? Your analysis omits the fact that a man's sperm was used, but it seems to miss the point that C4M doesn't have ANYIHING to say about the choice of the mother; a C4M advocate could say to that mother, "go ahead, do whatever you want, exercise your reproductive perogatives"; no matter what the mother does, all that matters for C4M is that the assignment of parental responsibilities, which are an additional "social object" assigned by conventional agreement once the child is born, can be revoked by either the biological mother or the biological father. The determination of who is the biological mother or father is a fact; the determination of who is a parent with rights and responsibilities is a question of value, not fact. The values might be informed by the facts, but C4M, in its barest form, amounts to the (un)conventional agreement that either biological parent can decide whether to assume the parental role. Its position on parenthood is analogous to saying that gender is a social construct, which need not be determined by biology; C4M says that parenthood is a social construct, which is not necessitated by biology and since it's a social construct, it's "arbitrary" and we can re-assign it at will.
Here's an alternative hypothetical proposal that I call No Choice for Anyone (NC4A). Suppose that every child were immediately taken from its parents and adopted by the state. The state would be telling its citizens, "...although we record the biological mother and father of the child we now adopt (for our medical records), we deny them any of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, even to the point of acknowledging they ever existed, since the state determines them; moreover, we assume the rights and responsibilities ourselves." In that case, the state could still be pro-choice: "we don't interfere with a woman's right to choose; her body not our business. If a woman gives birth, however, it's no longer a question of violating a woman's right to her own body when we take the child from her, which we do."
Now suppose we have a slightly more moderate state, which implements a less radical proposal: "for a limited time after we (the state) become the parent and guardian of a newborn child, we allow either or both of the biological parents, who must prove that they are the biological parents by passing a DNA test, to petition us to grant them the full rights and responsibilities of parenthood." Again the state would not be interfering with the woman's right to do what she wants with her body.
Finally, we have an even more moderate state, which is the situation of C4M, for all practical purposes. The state initially assumes the role of the parent, but temporarily assigns the role of parent to the biological parents, giving the child three parents. this is not so farfetched: the state ultimately decides who can or cannot be a parent. This assignment is binding on both biological parents unless one or both of them waive their rights and responsibilities during a grace period. Whoever backs out is "off the hook"; if only one biological parent is left, he or she assumes all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; if both back out, the state is the guardian; if neither back out, they become the parents by default.
The point of these scenarios is to illustrate that the woman's reproductive freedom has nothing to do with the assignment of parental responsibilities (which don't exist in nature, even though there are parental instincts), and there is nothing in the C4M argument that requires it to be dependent on them. Consequently, the doctrine of "last clear chance" is completely irrelevant to C4M.
However, you can say that in the first case (at least) the mother assumes the risk and burden of pregnancy without getting to raise (or decide not to raise) "her" child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point of these scenarios is to illustrate that the woman's reproductive freedom has nothing to do with the assignment of parental responsibilities (which don't exist in nature, even though there are parental instincts), and there is nothing in the C4M argument that requires the assignment of parental responsibilities--which are assigned by the state--to be dependent on women's reproductive choices.
The last-chance theory applied to reproductive rights seems to posit the inevitability of the assignment of parental rights and obligations as a consequence of the woman's last act of ommision (not having an abortion), but all that follows factually from this last clear chance not taken is that a child is born to its biological parents; the assignment of parental roles and responsibilities depends on the judgement of the state, and that judgment--not the biological fact--that C4M seeks to change. Cnsequently, the doctrine of "last clear chance" is irrelevant to C4M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yours is a very clear way to think of these issues. I'd like to elaborate if I may.
If the state becomes the default parent, then all of us would in effect be responsible for all children created because we support the State. Taxes would go up to pay for taking care of all these children.
If other problems arose, such as children being pschologically harmed by being brought up in an institutional environement, then we'd all of us pay whatever price that brings on. However, if children overall did better in this environment than being adopted by their biological parents, then we'd all reap the benifits. Either way, we collectively have a stake in the outcome.
So, since children present both a unique opportunity for prosperity and betterment for us all, AND at the same time we take the risk of liabilty if children turn out not to contribute positively to society, we all have a stake in making sure we have the best possible odds in ensuring the former happens rather than the latter.
With me?
So, if we ALL have a stake in children turning out well, then we all have a stake in finding the best solutions possible for raising them.
What if one of those solutions turns out to be like China's to have fewer kids? Then like China we would institute a system wehre adults are mandated or heavily coerced to be sterilized or to have abortions after one child? Hopefully, this is NOT the directions we want to go in.
But under C4M it is a distinct possibilty that the next step is saying that either parent has the option to decline his parental obligations ... and we determine that single- parent families are not the best possible way to bring up children, and we're all being penalized for some negative outcomes of this (sound familiar?) .... then what? Will we start requiring abortions to circumvent assumed negative probabilities for children? Or will we start assinging children to dual parent households? Will we require licenses to have a child and only in a dual parent household?
Will the State (as in your example) take children away from single parents and raise them institutionally? If the institutional angle is not working well, will the State decide to "tax" people by forcing them to take a child (not theirs) into their custody and raise him? Or to simply get rid of the child?
So, we can see that no matter which way we turn we are faced with the same exact choices. Eliminate children, or find the best possible way to care for and raise them .... because how that is done will affect everyone, society as a whole.
Aren't we then back at square one? The best interests of the child are sonomous with all our best interests?
And aren't we facing some rather serious implications by thinking of children as liabilities rather than assets? For if they are liabilities, the only logical option is to prevent them or eliminate them before they cost us too much in negative outcomes.
If we go down this logical path, the implications are quite scary, particularly to women if the solution becomes to eliminate them in utero (as happens in China) for the public "good". Human rights and freedom abuses in the name of collective "good" have always impacted individual rights. (It could just as easily lead to human rights abuses for men, such as mandated sterilization). There are many scenarious that "ends justify the mean" approaches can lead us.
In the larger view, C4M (and abortion) are leading us down that path of routinely viewing children as liabilities, not assents. IMO the consequences of this way of thinking are DIRE to individual freedom overall for ALL of us. The underlying premises of both C4M and abortion cannot lead ultimately to individual freedom and liberty. They seem to only lead (in my view) in the direction of totalitarianism in the name of the "public good".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last-chance theory applied to reproductive rights seems to posit the inevitability of the assignment of parental rights and obligations as a consequence of the woman's last act of ommision (not having an abortion), but all that follows factually from this last clear chance not taken is that a child is born to its biological parents; the assignment of parental roles and responsibilities depends on the judgement of the state, and that judgment--not the biological fact--that C4M seeks to change. Cnsequently, the doctrine of "last clear chance" is irrelevant to C4M.
This is simply a very convoluted way of saying "the state can do no wrong."
However, the judgement of the state is required by law to to tender an objective, logical and just conclusion.
Again, if the woman made the FINAL choice to create the child against the wishes of the man, then, logically, the state's judgement must therefore accrue responsibility solely upon to the woman; anything else is an abuse of discretion.
Some people just don't seem to understand that responsibility can only exist in the presence of a CHOICE-- and hence it's even more ironic that the "Pro-choice" movement so hypocritically denies this responsibility after so vehemently demanding (some would say ENGINEERING) the choice itself.
Yes, men made a choice to have sex-- but this wasn't the FINAL choice; as long as women have this "choice" to abort a pregnancy, this choice remains a double-edged sword which cuts both ways, i.e. whether the want it or not, and not simply at whim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the larger view, C4M (and abortion) are leading us down that path of routinely viewing children as liabilities, not assents. IMO the consequences of this way of thinking are DIRE to individual freedom overall for ALL of us. The underlying premises of both C4M and abortion cannot lead ultimately to individual freedom and liberty. They seem to only lead (in my view) in the direction of totalitarianism in the name of the "public good".
Easy for you to say. So long as the risk and burden is borne by men and men alone, though, you're jiggy with that.
You want the freedom of control of your womb, but you don't want the responsibility TO control your womb.
How convenient.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is simply a very convoluted way of saying "the state can do no wrong."
It's not a moral judgement of what the state does; it's a statement of fact: the state assigns parental rights and responsibilities, and it does that whether you have C4M or not. Is there a single instance where the state does not assign these rights and responsibilities?
Consider a different situation: I give my money to a broker to invest. I'm well aware that once the broker has my money, I can either make a fortune, lose my investment or even lose a fortune and that I have no say in these outcomes. This is the understanding beforehand, the precondition for the transaction. You might say that I'm crazy to want to enter into such a transaction, and my answer is that in my state of mind at the time, I was determined to make the investment (it must have been "lust").
The broker consumes my entire investment in derivative securities, and waits to inform me that they've expired, and that I now owe a fortune that will take me 21 years to pay off. Now since the prior understanding was that I entered into the transaction knowing that I would have no say in the outcome, I can't say that I didn't agree to the outcome, or that because the broker might have sold off the derivatives before they expired (the last clear chance), sparing me the need to make a 21 year arrangement with my creditors (the "third party" to my initial transaction with the broker), the broker is responsible, and therefore the broker should have to pay--after all, with "choice come responsibilities."
The point is to change the prior understanding, in which case the doctrine of last clear chance is inapplicable. An argument that the broker had a chance to avoid the disasterous outcome comes up against this prior understanding.
The thing is, I agree that the state of affairs now is crazy, and that I would have to be out of my mind to engage in sexual activity and gamble away my economic future. I don't believe that the doctrine of last clear chance has a clear chance of changing the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4M says that parenthood is a social construct, which is not necessitated by biology and since it's a social construct, it's "arbitrary" and we can re-assign it at will.
It is this exact argument that Senator Kuehl was using to oppose the Paternity Justice Act (AB2240) in CA to allow a man that was a paternity fraud victim to seek justice. If we treat parenthood as little more than a social contstruct that ignores the biology of how a child is created then we can just as easily assign the state with all parental obligations just like the Soviet Union. Ignorant people forget that we already have the example of a country that has sought the elimination of the family and sought to enact C4M. We only need to look to our neighbors or our own history to see the disaster that results. C4M is not a novel or new idea that hasn’t been tried before.
None of the C4M arguments that have been presented have the aura of enlightenment. What they have is an aura of ignorance. All of the C4M pro-arguments go down a slippery slope where parents are ultimately permitted to deny responsibility for their biological acts of procreation.
For example, using the logic in favor of C4M, any man could ultimately sign a register signifying that they want to be a father. Those men that don't want to be fathers would sign a register denouncing fatherhood. Next, the state would seize all of the children as property of the state to protect the best interest of the child. After all, we cannot have one or both of the parents not enjoying and delighting in their parental responsibilities. God forbid that one of the parents by later find the child is a burden that required sacrifice.
Under C4M, the practice of the state taking custody of all children would guarantee absolute social equality of the mother and father at the point where they become parents. Since parenthood is a social construct where biology makes little difference, it shouldn’t matter if the state seizes all of the children shortly after birth. After all, the state is seeking the best interest of the child. Further, having the state seize all of the children will eliminate all paternity fraud.
Next, using C4M logic the parenting responsibilities would be ferreted out by the state to qualified parents. The public will not object because families are little more than social constructs that have nothing to do with biology. Further, there can be any non-traditional parenting combination imaginable. This would guarantee the complete absence of bigotry in same sex partnerships.
To qualify, people can take parenting classes, get certified, have state monitored home visits, periodic psychological examinations to re-qualify the parents periodically, and the state can remove the children if either of the parents regrets their choice at some future date.
NOT! C4M is nothing more than a bogus argument by people that don’t accept responsibility for their choices. Their arguments all lead down a slippery slope of state control and the elimination of family. C4M is an anti-family choice.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If other problems arose, such as children being pschologically harmed by being brought up in an institutional environement, then we'd all of us pay whatever price that brings on. However, if children overall did better in this environment than being adopted by their biological parents, then we'd all reap the benifits. Either way, we collectively have a stake in the outcome.
This experiment was tried in the U.S.S.R. and it was a complete disaster. Even now they try to continue the experiment and further eliminate families. It is interesting that all C4M arguments ultimately lead to the destruction of the family and ownership of the children by the state.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, men made a choice to have sex-- but this wasn't the FINAL choice; as long as women have this "choice" to abort a pregnancy, this choice remains a double-edged sword which cuts both ways, i.e. whether the want it or not, and not simply at whim.
But for the choice of the man to enjoy sexual activity there would be no existence of other options. PERIOD. Why is it so damn difficult for men to accept this fact?
These same men would be just as happy to argue for the "choice" of committing infanticide. We already have instances in the world where men can have this "choice." Try examining some of the tribes in Africa like the Pygmies. They have C4M. If the mother and father "accidentally" have a child that is undesired, it is first put up for adoption to the tribe. If a family cannot be found, the child is taken care of and there is real C4M. A.K.A. Infanticide.
Christ. Some men can be damn ignorant! They are actually dumb enough to believe that they are so enlightened in their C4M arguments that they ignorantly believe they are suggesting something that hasn't been tried.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a moral judgment of what the state does; it's a statement of fact: the state assigns parental rights and responsibilities...
Not exactly. In hunter-gatherer tribes where there is no state or government, it is biology that primarily determines parentage when people pair off. Yes there is marriage and the state recognizes the contract between the individuals. I agree with that fact. However, that is primarily for the purpose of managing property. It has little to do with assigning the parentage of the child, and ignores the fact that children are not property but rather humans. So, I reject your social construct theory as failing to consider the predominate role that biology plays in determining parentage.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 19, @02:44AM EST (#129)
|
|
|
|
|
Being a decendant of people who were\are "tribal"
and "hunter-gatherers" I can tell you, Warb is spot-on, On this one.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the C4M pro-arguments go down a slippery slope where parents are ultimately permitted to deny responsibility for their biological acts of procreation.
Kinda like ABORTION, huh?
Sauce for the goose, tastes JUST as good on gander too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly. In hunter-gatherer tribes where there is no state or government, it is biology that primarily determines parentage when people pair off.
I was referring to the state, not social organizations in which no state or government exists; my remarks do not apply in this case, nor should they be construed that way; a second reading shows that any such reading is an over-interpretation. I find the introduction of this non-sequiteur troubling.
...It has little to do with assigning the parentage of the child, and ignores the fact that children are not property but rather humans. So, I reject your social construct theory as failing to consider the predominate role that biology plays in determining parentage.
It does and the state often respects this; however, from your own example of the drug addict whose addicted newborn baby was taken from her, we see that in the state, not the state of nature, the state is the final arbiter of the assignment of parental rights and responsibilities.
The current thinking in the family court mirrors the feminist notion that the mother's biological role is the necessary one; the state happens to be agreeing with biological instinct, along with a heavy overlay of feminist propaganda. Countless examples of state determined non-biological fathers supports the view that in the case of fathers, parenthood is a social construct that the state involuntarily assign--this does not happen in the societies you mention, and my examples are totally out of context there, as they should be. Paternity fraud is one of the injustices that we're presumably working against: the notion that fatherhood is not a mere social construct, in contrast to motherhood, which the state agrees is biologically determined, sacrosanct and transcends social construction; only in the most egregious circumstances is the state willing to separate a mother from her child (unless the mother wishes to give her child up for adoption).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 20, @02:15PM EST (#138)
|
|
|
|
|
Zactly. If parentage is biologically detrmined the father is just as vital as the mother. If it's not, it's not. Feminuts want it both ways depending on what's convenient for them. If a father can provide a better home, he should get the child, and she should pay support.
The way the law is now there is no consequence for anything for a woman other than nine months of inconvenience while she carries the baby. Proper prenatal care makes all the trouble women used to have like dying in childbirth all but a thing of the past and statistical anomalies. And the bill for this care is footed by the state or whatever man then can stick with it. Every where you turn for a woman the cost and sacrifice of motherhood is either borne by the state or whatever man they feel like sending the bill to.
Too many women forget that one of the obligations and responsibilitys of being a mother is to provide a father for a child, or they think that the best way to do it is to trick some rich guy with a fat wallet into being their sugar daddy. The then rationalize it away because they are doing what is best for the child, whatever that means. Usually that is an excuse to get more money for themselves at a mans expense and talk about how independent and self sufficient they are.
Would any of the women on here be willing to just answer a blanket yes to any of these questions: If a woman files false abuse reports to keep a man out of his childrens lives should she lose custody? If a woman interferes with a man being a real part of his childrens lives should she lose custody? If a woman commits paternity fraud should she face legal consequences? Should she have to pay the money back after the children are grown?(That way she can't claim it makes the children suffer)? Should the courts be gender blind? If a judge awards custody to the mother most of the time doesn't that show the they aren't? If a father is working and a woman is a welfare queen living off the dole when she can work, isn't he setting a better example and shouldn't he get custody?
Bet you'll get few if any saying yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes without giving some kind of qualifications, and most will avoid the question.
Until the system is fair, arguing in support of it is still supporting something that is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @01:22PM EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really uncomfortable comparing the birth of a child to a car accident. There is not a damn thing that's good about a car accident, but even an unplanned, unwanted child can grow up to do good things in the world. We don't all grow up to be criminals and miscreants.
I would much rather use the argument that C4M is not about punishment or liability, but about a child being better off without a father who does not love him, and a man being better off not having responsibility for a child he does not love. We can do that without saying that the child being born is as bad as someone slamming into your car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @03:33PM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @05:04PM EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
'Aaaaaaaiiieeee!!' Crash!!
"grunt" 'Waaaaaah'
No, it's definatly better to have a kid than a car accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really uncomfortable comparing the birth of a child to a car accident.
Unfortunately, that's the law; if a woman decides her pregnancy is an "accident," she's free to abort it under current statutes.
In the interest of justice, the law must be applied logically, and therefore consistently; it's inconsistent, illogical and unfair to foist upon one person the resonsibility for the choices of another. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 20, @01:05PM EST (#136)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to regret the fact that I was born, just because you think that unwanted children are less than human and don't deserve to live. I give a lot more to society than my parents ever have. All they do is drink, abuse drugs, collect welfare and take up space. If anyone didn't deserve to be born, it was them, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
