|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 15, @09:09PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The courts reason, we guess, that he can simply divorce her if he doesn’t like the "choices" she makes. But this position does not cure the many situations where there are children already in the marriage. He cannot simply get rid of a spouse who has just killed his child without facing the prospect that she will take legal revenge and punish him by denying access to his kids, and demanding child support, and in many cases alimony.
Yup. As General Clark dim-wittedly emphasizes, "pro-choice" means "pro-choice for women only." Men should just have sex and pay up when told to. Oh, yea, and be drafted, against their will if necessary, to go off and kill other men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both Clark and Kerry need to answer (in the live free or die state)...why they will not require women, at age 18 to register for selective service or end the process for young men now!!!..
Any other position is prejudice regarding an equal opportunity and citizen responsibility in USA for men.
Repeatedly and theatrically interrupt to get this point and question across since you have the media in NH for a fleeting 10 day more!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 15, @09:23PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Clark comes across as having a reactionary, oppressive, neanderthal-like view of men. For an astonishing contrast, check out this piece on a "conservative" website: "Manifesto for Progress, or Why Only The Republican Party Can Help Black Men"
http://www.americasvoices.org/avarc2001/archives20 01/Anonymous/PubliusE_061601.htm
(eliminate any spaces across the broken URL)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 15, @10:39PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, no offense to you. But usually conservatives are big on "law and order" and it's these drug laws that are really cramming black men in the industrial prison complex. And unless conservatives are going to be decriminalizing drugs, they aren't going to be getting blacks out of prison. Same goes for taking out the profit motive for building private prisons which I think is an abomination.
But really I don't think the democrats or the republicans can give the help that blacks/black men need.
That's just my opinion.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But really I don't think the democrats or the republicans can give the help that blacks/black men need."
What help is that? (Consider this an honest question, no sarcasm included.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @06:24PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking laws sends people to jail!!!!
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @11:21PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"Breaking laws sends people to jail!!!!"
Especially if they're laws against things mankind has done for thousands of years. Even Rush Limbaugh breaks laws.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @11:30PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"What help is that? (Consider this an honest question, no sarcasm included.)"
I wasn't sure I should respond, I kinda wish I didn't say that as well because what I might say may be taken as offense or a guilt trip. People don't want to hear about racism if they feel they're being manipulated. But since you made it clear it was an honest question I'll just say that I believe black people need a lot of white people (me included) to have a change of heart. Just out of the sense of fairness that most people have,
I believe if white people were the minority they would be treated the same and would want to be treated fairly and for others to be aware of the racism that effects white people.
You really can't make laws to have people do that. It comes from the sense of solidarity that people learn to have while working together as group for a common goal and then expanding that to others.
though I hope this wasn't taken as a guilt trip.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing this honest debate...
I haven't run a scientific survey, but I have had conversations with friends on this topic and what I've come up with is two things:
1) People have legitimate likes and dislikes that have little to do with racism, and they ought to be allowed to have them. For example, I just don't like the flashy, trash-talking, in-your-face attitude that seems to be so prevalent in American black culture. On rare occasions, I see it coming from whites, too, and it doesn't bother me any less. It's just a behavior that happens to come mostly from the inner cities. Some people would like to characterize that as racism, but it really has little to do with skin color or ethnicity.
2) There are a lot of white folks I know who feel like they have to walk on eggs on issues of race when in the presence of black folks. This makes it difficult for whites to engage in a conversation on race or ethnicity with blacks. And I have to hold blacks predominantly responsible for this because so many of them hold this as such a sensitive issue. Everyone talks about "the conversation" that never happens, and I think this hypersensitivity is the whole reason why. It would be nice if, in casual conversation, we could treat blackness the same way we treat Italian-ness and Irish-ness and on and on.
And finally, what about this "conversation"? I have few black aquaintences, most of them people I work with, and risking alienating them is the LAST thing I want to do. If I'm willing to start it, whom should I start it with? I've already had the conversation with myself, thank you, and it's gone as far as it can.
This really isn't the place for this topic, I know, but I think some of these things also relate to the hypersensitivity between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 15, @10:56PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Are people here saying that if the man wants the child the woman should be forced in some way or by the state to have it? I'm against that. But I believe that our society should encourage men's beliefs about abortion to be considered respected and talked about with the woman before the woman makes the choice to abort the fetus. I just don't think it's right to force the pregnancy on the woman. I'm just not going to change my opinion on that one, I believe in the autonomy of the individual.
I'm also against the woman forcing the man to support her choice as well. I believe we can come up with other alternative ways of handling this problem.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still like the idea of a "paper abortion" for men, that should a women choose to drag a man into fatherhoodw without his consent, he has the option of terminating all parental rights on paper within a certain time-frame of being notified of the kid's birth. None of this "35 years later I'll sue you for back child support!" nonsense. So you aren't responsible for child support, but nor do you have visitation rights and such. But it stills targets the stereotypical "evil fathers" who sires children then disappears after a few years or something [wonder how often that's domestic violence?].
Heheh, I love how each side tries to proclaim itself the one that women support. I've heard pro-choice websites claim that "the majority of pro-choice people are women" while pro-life websites say "men make 70% of pro-choice activists." At least this one made a token effort to validate men's feelings on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @12:47AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
How about we change it so that a man can only be declared the father of a child if he is married to the mother and he is also biologically the father. I would hope this would reduce the number of paternity fraud/child support abuses that occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I don't know, I would still want protection for men who don't marry said women, but want to be part of their children's lives. If they can't be declared fathers, they don't have any rights to visitation or parental controls [like choosing where they go to school, etc]. It would suck to make to legal for a woman to have three kids with someone, and though not legally his, he's taking care of them, then she take off one day with them. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @08:26AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Its right around the corner!
I live in Hillsdale County Michigan. We have a Judge named Smith. He is forcing people here to get married or else!
Yes you read that right.
Let me give you a few examples that happened to some friends.
Sam and Jen were together for several years. She had 3 children in her custody. She moved in with Sam. Sam has 2 children without custody. Needless to say he does not have any money after CS. She was not working at the time, her ex was in prison for a long time (no CS) and would be getting out soon. She wanted to finalize the divorce with her ex. At the hearing, Smith told her she had 30 days to marry Sam or she would have to leave his residents. . .they got married so she would not be thrown out on the streets! They did not have the $ to fight the order!
Kathy and Mark separated, they have 3 children. She found a new boyfriend (Ray) and moved in with him. They seem to have a good relationship. Kathy gave up custody because she is not working and Rays check (for the most part) goes to CS. She thought it was the right thing to do for her kids. They live close and visitation was never an issue between Mark and Kathy. Till the closing of the divorce when she was told that unless she and Ray married she could not have overnight visits with her children. Ray and Kathy did not marry. . .they simply haven't been together long enough to make that sort of committment. Ray was reluctant to even date (5years) but got over that with Kathy. Marriage I would assume will be a bigger hurdle for her/him. Anyway very limited visitation imposed not by Mark but by Judge Smith. . .no marriage. . .no visiting her kids overnight.
Greg and Mary lived together, owned a business together for several years. Mary had an apartment and a child. When her divorce became final. . .Judge Smith told her that Greg had 30 days to marry her or he would have to leave. . .he left. They still have the business and moved to another county. . .I'll not tell if they are living together today.
I have heard this for years. I also know of a case where that happened and the people had $. They new this would happen so they pre-arranged a hearing within the 30 days with an out of county lawyer. As they predicted Judge Smith did what he does. Within the 30 days the pre arranged hearing to challenge the ruling went like this. They walked in. . .Judge Smith read the case number (that is all he read) and dismissed the ruling without anybody saying anything. You see the challenge would then have been a matter of record.
I changed the names of my friends for their protection.
I also recently read an article I think it was hear at MND of a Judge forcing a man to be nice to his wife. . .document the nice things etc, etc or face contempt=jail
Now I've heard of the ole shotgun wedding but geez
Is this an indication of the marriage movement to come?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @03:12PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that forcing marriage was my original idea. My idea was to simplify the qualifications for calling someone a "father". These two conditions are 1) that he be married to the mother and 2) that he is biologically the father. Anyone who does not meet these criteria will not have any legal or financial responsibility to a child by default. There could be a method of accepting responisibility despite not being married to the mother nor being the biological father, perhaps some sort of certificate or waiver (I'm not sure of the terminology).
I think there were other suggestions on mensactivism.org that are in keeping with this idea such as mandatory DNA testing at birth so that the father knows that he is the father. I just thought that my idea might kill two birds with one stone: cases where a wife conceives children with men who are not her husband and cases where women try to get pregnant for the money from child support. The second case may also involve lying (a woman picks a man who has more money, but shares no DNA with the child).
I would expect this plan to draw more criticism from others (such as feminists) as restricting female sexuality or encouraging men to be promiscuous or that they would "use and lose" women. But such an argument ignores the fact that women usually have the choice of who they have sex with, when, and how (unless raped).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @08:31AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful what you ask for. . .you may just get it!!!
I wrote the RE:question. . .forced marriage
I forgot to sign in and wanted to add the above.
Betrayed in America
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds more like a "paper adoption" than "paper abortion", with the main difference being the child still lives. It would be more equivalent to compare that to a woman's option to adopt out her child without the father's consent, except in this case the woman would still be allowed to parent the child, (unlike when a woman decided to unilatererally adopt away her child where the father has no rights).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, yes, that makes more sense, wonder where I heard the term? Anyway, I like the idea of it, because it has nothing to do with the whole pro-life/pro-choice argument, but eliminates the idea that men have no choice in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just don't think it's right to force the pregnancy on the woman.
Who's forcing pregnancy on women? That person should be stopped. Doesn't that person know that "her body, her choice." Anyway, I missed the day in school where they showed how a women got pregnet. A female friend of mine explained to me that it was a conspiracy by god, and of the patriachy. Now it IS possible to stop the wicked patriachy, since it is made of up common men. But god is gonna be tough. Any thoughts on how to defeat god?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are people here saying that if the man wants the child the woman should be forced in some way or by the state to have it?
No, what should happen is that men and women have equal rights and responsiblities under the law. Right now a woman can have an abortion, raise the child alone without the fathers knowledge, raise the child alone and get child support, or give the baby up for adoption without the father's consent or knowledge.
Either men need to be able to terminate their parental responsibilities just as women can, or women need to be forced to support them for 18 years as men are. Because right now, women have choices, while men only have responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @11:09AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Are people here saying that if the man wants the child the woman should be forced in some way or by the state to have it?
Well, frankly, and unapologetically, yes. Think about it. If you were convinced that a fetus is a real human life, what would your reaction be towards your child being killed by its mother and you being able to do absolutely nothing about it?
But I believe that our society should encourage men's beliefs about abortion to be considered respected and talked about with the woman before the woman makes the choice to abort the fetus.
And just how is the man's belief "respected" when the woman makes the choice to have that abortion? Huh? Kind of like a bank robber saying "I respect your belief that you have a right to your money. But hand it over anyway."
I just don't think it's right to force the pregnancy on the woman. I'm just not going to change my opinion on that one, I believe in the autonomy of the individual.
Well, the "autonomy of the individual" is not the overriding and absolute ethical principle you make it out to be. Because, one's actions affect others. Using the ethical principles of when, in doubt, causing the least harm, plus being accountable for the possible consequences of one's actions, there is very strong case to be made here for forcing the woman to carry the child to term.
To reiterate: the father wants the child, seeing it as a human life with human rights, while the mother doesn't. There are two, and only two, possible outcomes:
1) The mother has the child. The harm placed upon her is carrying the child for nine months.
2) The mother has an abortion. The harm placed upon him is the murder of his child.
There is no comparison between the relative harm placed upon the two parties involved. Not only this, but since both parties could have foreseen this dilemma when they had sex, but there were additional precautions the mother could have taken, and thus she had more opportunities to prevent this situation from occurring, the ethical case for me is clear-cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely agree with an anon, but I do agree with this. I am not sure if it will ever come to pass, and I would fight for the smaller rights first, such as men's right to choose, but ideally, to have things truly be aquitable, the man must have veto rights over abortion. The health issue is mute in the vast majority of cases. I have had two children, it is not the absolute horrible burden some would have you believe. Perhaps then women will keep it in their pants if they don't want children.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @06:39PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm not convinced, like I said I wouldn't be. Not everyone considers abortion murder, by that very fact it shows that it is not the same as what we commonly call murder.
"Using the ethical principles of when, in doubt, causing the least harm, plus being accountable for the possible consequences of one's actions"
You're using your morals as an argument. For someone who does not see abortion as murder it is harmless.
"Not only this, but since both parties could have foreseen this dilemma when they had sex, but there were additional precautions the mother could have taken, and thus she had more opportunities to prevent this situation from occurring, the ethical case for me is clear-cut."
For you it is clear cut. You argue that "both parties could have foreseen this dilemma when they had sex". Very true, if the man is against abortion he should have talked this out with the woman before he had sex so he would have known the consequences of impregnating a woman who is pro-abortion, or at least isn't against it or even just isn't sure.
The man had the oppurtunity from it occuring by not even having sex with a woman who he is not 99.999% sure is outright against abortion.
If in fact the man believes abortion is the same thing as murdering his child than he should be EXTREMELY careful as to who he has sex with and when. Possibly even waiting until he is married to a woman who he already trusts and has proven she is against abortion.
Or maybe even abstaining from sex altogether so as to avoid the potential murder of his child. Or maybe just see professional escorts for sex. Both are small prices to pay so as to avoid murder of your potential child.
JenK--"Perhaps then women will keep it in their pants if they don't want children."
You can just as well turn this around and say that the man should keep it in his pants if he thinks abortion is murder.
I'm against women being forced into bearing the child because it will steal her liberty.
By forcing a woman to have the child you are enslaving her as an incubator for 9 months. I truly see that as enslavement since you are taking away her liberty and I would be compelled to openly fight against this.
By the same token I do not believe the woman has the right to enslave the man to financing her choice.
Both need the state or at least physical coercion to enforce.
On top of all this, if the state makes a law that says abortion is illegal because it is murder.
(You won't be able to have a law that says it's murder if the man feels that it is. It would have to be universal). It will only be a law for lower middle and working class women. While rich women will be able to afford the doctor who will perform the illegal abortion or she'll be able to afford to send herself to Europe and have it done.
All in all I agree with Glenn Sacks-----".......if she decides she wants the child, she can demand 18 years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter. When it comes to reproduction, in America today women have rights and men merely have responsibilities.
Certainly nobody should be able to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, thus the feminist slogan "My Body, My Choice." Yet our current laws allow a woman to dictate to a man what to do with his body. The average American father works a 51-hour work week, one of the longest in the industrialized world. It is men, overwhelmingly, who do our society's hazardous and most strenuous jobs, and nearly 50 American workers--mostly men--are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week. Can anybody deny that the sacrifices required to pay 18 years of child support take a heavy toll on a man's body, too? Where's his choice?"
"30 Years After Roe v. Wade,
How About Choice for Men?"
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
I'm just pointing out how I feel about this.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote that "Perhaps then women will keep it in their pants if they don't want children." as a pointed remark to call attention to the fact that men are routinely told to keep it in their pants if they don't want kids. Men are told to be responsible for everything, women are given a myriad of choices to get out of responsibility. If women had the same culpability, they too would be warned as men are. Keep it equitable.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @11:16PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Yes I agree with what your saying. I wasn't trying to be mean or anything.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, just sounded like it was taken face value, when it was meant as sarcasm. No prob. TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 16, @11:21PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm against women being forced into bearing the child because it will steal her liberty.
By forcing a woman to have the child you are enslaving her as an incubator for 9 months"
The logic of this arguement is that you can't force men and women to look after their small children. After all, you are stealing their liberty by enslaving them as babysitters for a few years. Even if you put the children in some sort of institution you are stealing the taxpayers liberty to spend his money as he wants.
Liberty does not include licence to abandon our responsibilities to others. If we all had "liberty" to do what we want to others , then true liberty would cease to exist. We are all governed by laws which dictate how we should act towards others. These laws restrict our freedom but they do not constitute enslavement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 17, @12:58AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Then you have no problem with men being forced to support the woman's choice of parenthood. I n your logice there would be nothing wrong with this because men will be fulfilling their "responsibilities"
Nonetheless we are talking about "children" who have not even been born yet. The only women who would have to be forced to bear a child would be a woman who would have aborted it if she hadn't been forced take it to full term.
P. George
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 17, @11:56AM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I do have difficulty with forcing men to fulfill the traditional duties of fatherhood. All of the traditional privileges and authority associated with fatherhood are gone. Fathers are only fathers in name. Fathers do not decide if a woman becomes pregnant. It is the mother who decides this, and the mother alone. The father has absolutely no rights in relation to a child that is biologically his child. Since traditional paternal authority and privilege are gone, I do not believe society has the right to force a man to observe traditional paternal responsibilities and duties.
I do not believe anyone is "forcing" a woman to be an incubator. In this feminist society she has the privilege of choosing to be pregnant or not. If she does so decide, I think society has the right to make her fulfill her responsibilities to the child she chose to carry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 17, @12:37PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
P.George--->"Are people here saying that if the man wants the child the woman should be forced in some way or by the state to have it?"
Anon--"Well, frankly, and unapologetically, yes."
This is what I was talking about. I can't tell if you were the same anon. I would really hate to be the child of a mother who was forced to fulfill her 'responsibilities' she didn't want to fulfill, I would quite possibly suffer from neglect and may even be despised, which is real abuse. Even if it's not overt kids pick up on this very easily and it messes up your mind.
Interesting viewpoint nonetheless.
P. George
But interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""""While General Clark is out invading countries and taking lives, he’ll leave the other decisions in his life and the lives in his own family to the ladies. Is that about right?""""
Some males enjoy kissing their chains! Clark seems to be one of them. Sick bastard.
That notwithstanding; the article was a good one. But it would have been even better if it would have mentioned postconceptional Choice 4 Men. The same choice women have had for over 30 years now. See: http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, indeed, General Clark, life does begin with the mother's decision -- the mother's decision to begin a life. If she later decides to terminate that life, she's a killer. It's that simple.
There seems to be an eternal desire in the female mind to have her cake and eat it too -- to eat all the chocolate she wants and make it up with liposuction, to have the pleasure of sex (or what sex can buy) without being responsible for the consequences -- if she so "chooses." The use of the word "choice" in this instance is a dishonest attempt to make respectable what is fundamentally not worthy of respect -- i.e. irresponsible behavior.
Adults know that life doesn't work that way; that decisions have consequences, and that one who wishes to enjoy the privileges of adulthood must be responsible for the consequences of es actions. Very few women seem to understand this simple truth. Which is exactly why women have customarily been treated like children, i.e. persons who are not responsible, and can't be expected to be responsible, for their actions, and thus whose behavior must be controlled by someone who will be responsible on their behalf.
In our modern Brave New World Order, women demand the same privileges of adulthood that men have enjoyed -- but, as clearly documented here and myriad other places on and off the Web everyday, they steadfastly refuse to shoulder the responsibilities on which those privileges are based. They want the freedom of adults while continuing to behave like children -- and children out of control, Baby Hillary with a machine gun. This can only work by creating and continually enforcing a mass delusion, which cannot prevail forever.
As I've said before, I grew up a left-wing feminist-sympathetic "war baby," but ironically it has been the observed behavior of women themselves that has finally convinced me of the wisdom of the traditional view of the "weaker" sex -- not weaker so much in a physical sense (women are more durable in the long run, in fact), but because, like children, they simply don't understand the basic principles of morality. They can, yes; but they don't have to, and so most simply "choose" not to make the effort. They know that in the end, somebody else will cover for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 17, @01:07PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Good post. Women want authority but not responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 17, @02:33PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Which is exactly why women have customarily been treated like children, i.e. persons who are not responsible, and can't be expected to be responsible, for their actions, and thus whose behavior must be controlled by someone who will be responsible on their behalf."
Authority causes some people to be dependent on another, then blame this dependency on the dependent, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority.
It is quite possible that someone may act as a child from the fact that they are treated as one. It's not necessarily because they act as a child so therefore need to be treated as one.
I think both genders are to blame for this though.
I'm not a feminist, I consider myself a free thinker who is against authority.
"If she later decides to terminate that life, she's a killer. It's that simple."
If you are talking about abortion this would be your viewpoint on what a killer is. It isn't recognized by law that this is murder. And to many people's viewpoint it isn't what 'everyone' commonly calls murder. The best way to solve this problem is to not have sex with a woman who you are not sure has the same values as yourself. If someone believes that this is murder, I would think one would be very careful so as to avoid having anything to do with murder. That would be the responsible thing to do in my opinion.
P. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, and once men have an equal right in determining the result of that conception (abortion or birth), I'll agree that men should shoulder their part of the responsibility for the repurcussions of that life or death choice.
Until then... Women need to keep their laws off OUR bodies.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
