|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:53 PM March 9th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
They have an uphill battle to contend with that's for sure. Another feather in the cap of NY! I like what the n.o.w. spokesperson said about Men being trapped as wage slaves, again, that it can be bitter, she has no idea. More good news, gee I don't know if I can handle it! I would like to see a grandfather clause that would exonerate Men that have been deceived so that they can try and get a life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 08:07 PM March 9th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a positive development, even though they probably won't win.
What I was truly struck by was the following rather stupefyingly suicidal statement by the ever entertaining Kim Gandy:
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Seriously, is this woman schizophrenic?
"None of these are easy questions".....Seemed like this was a no-brainer when it came to women's reproductive rights -- at least according to Gandy.
"But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child." -- Maybe schizophrenia was incorrect. It requires more than two personalities for Gandy to argue for the rights of a child.
Wow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question of reproductive rights is necessarily politicized for two reasons. First, there is no agreement among fully-informed impartial rational persons whether fetuses are protected by morality. The matter must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. Second, it doesn't matter what arguments feminists give about the comparability (or lack thereof) of male and female reproductive rights, because this is such an ideology-laden subject, that the moral questions cannot be decided by the relatively weak system of common morality that people use to settle uncontroversial moral questions. So again, the matter has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. We get to (or we should get to) vote on the matter.
Men's Rights Activists have little choice: the legal and political arena is precisely the place where these debates should be played out. The effect of politicizing gender relations means that they are beyone the ability of common sense moral reasoning to resolve. Accordingly, it is neither morally right, nor morally wrong to be for or against things like reproductive rights for men. At this stage, it's a political matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Radioactive on 03:59 AM March 10th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Right on for choice!!!
I come to this site and become encouraged after going through 16 years of hell. I will not become involved with a woman again. It is not worth the risk. I wish younger men would understand this. I feel this battle has been going on for a long time and it took my divorce for me to open up my eyes. Who is going to warn the boys and how are we going to impress them with the risks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:18 AM March 10th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
By sharing your story, and educating those that will listen. As far as the risks are concerned, one that has lived as a slave has many stories to tell. But be careful, if you are on state issued medication they will try to sedate you so you don't care any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:29 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
First of all your presumption is that the government, and or religious organizations should make decisions for individuals concerning their own bodies. Sort of like allowing a bunch of bored intellectuals to sit and and theorize about what you should, or shouldn't be allowed to do. Just like suicide, if a person decides to do it, it is their life, and no one, no one here on earth has the right to stop them. Oh, you can talk to them, but to incarcerate them, drug them etc. is complete oppression. Same thing with abortion. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Whatever happened to the sanctity of ones own bodily functions? In so far as your argument about morals, it is moraly corrupt to presume one has the ability, or the place to decide for others what they do with their own bodies. The reason we have these debates is precisely due to the removal of common sense from our governing bodies. Sounds like a call for an elitist group of bored intellectuals to theorize away at the tax payers expense to me. Just my opinion.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all your presumption is that the government, and or religious organizations should make decisions for individuals concerning their own bodies.
There is disagreement among fully-informed, impartial rational persons whether fetuses are protected by morality. You'll never get agreement about this.
I used to be swayed by the position that governemnt cannot tell persons what to do with their own bodies, but I see that this is a slogan; at worst, it is a moral absolute that deprives the state of its legitimacy (for some persons no state would be the ideal state). The government can tell persons what to do with their own bodies: it sends men to the front line; it sends people to jail; It taxes its citizens; It compels citizens to serve as jurors; it redistributes income after divorce. The question , in cases where there are violations of moral rules, is whether the violation is justified. I'm somewhat with Hobbes on the power of the state to deprive its citizens of freedom. You do give up certain freedoms in return for living in the state. This goes back to the Crito of Plato. The question is which ones. The answer, at least in a democracy, is: you get to vote on which freedoms you give up.
Whatever happened to the sanctity of ones own bodily functions? In so far as your argument about morals, it is moraly corrupt to presume one has the ability, or the place to decide for others what they do with their own bodies.
I am explicit about the moral theory that I follow: Gert's descriptive account of common morality. I have provided links elsewhere. I agree that the state violates moral rules with respect to its citizens. States do that. Where we may disagree is which ones. The question is which violations of moral rules are justified. Some violations of moral rules are allowed (Gert spells out the procedure for this--there is a high standard). Sometimes you hear slogans from domestic violence advocates that all violence against women must be eradicated. But, this tends to beg the question of violence. Perhaps this means the unjustified use of force resulting in the violation of a moral rule or a law. If it means any act that may be characterized as "violent" then that would be a special exclusion for women from law enforcement actions involving the use of force that might otherwise be justified. The point is that any moral rule may be violated with sufficient justification, so it is important to avoid slogans--these can be misleading.
But the case of abortion is not morally decidable.
So i disagree that it is morally corrupt for the state to decide the issue one way or the other. This is not an issue that persons whom you disparagingly call intellectuals have invented to mitigate their anomie. The transfer of such an issue to the legal and political system means--or should mean--this: you get to vote on it.
(The reaction you see in the Red States was provoked partly because of the sense that their State prerogatives were usurped by the federal government: they didn't get to vote on it. But that's a political question.) My political position on this matter is that I am in favor of abortion. This seems to be what the majority of the people in the United States want. But I don't believe that common morality is sufficiently powerful to decide the question, and so the proper arena for debate on this issue is the legal and political arena.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:41 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
For the sake of argument, and legal issues let us assume that a fetus, which is not an independant entity until the umbilical cord is cut is a part of the Females body until said cord is cut. Physically speaking what I have stated is true. Everything else is pure speculation and assumption based on faith. Faith is based on speculation, and ones beliefs. Hence the reason for the original intent of seperation of church and state. The only true crime being committed is that some People are trying to force their faith on others, again for the basic reason of control. If the majority vote actually counted we wouldn't be having these intellectual discussions as the People would have spoken, and it would have been decided. That is what is wrong with our system, the People don't really count. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 01:49 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Not only are there some REALLY really good points being made, some are completely hilarious. I laughed myself silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 01:52 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"If my woman aborts my kid, she should pay me eighteen years' worth of child support".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 08:44 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
It appears CNN and other networks are becoming more aware, that right outside their windows, Men's Rights Activist are taking their messages to the courts, and to the streets.
Taking It To The Streets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 06:41 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Another late addition, I know (I've been chasing the Bismark!) but I'm reading thru the fark thread and have found some absolute gems:
2006-03-08 08:52:24 PM Abe_Froman
Let's say a man and a woman date. Both are using contraception since neither claims to want a child. But....ooops...the woman gets pregnant.
What happens next? There's basically three ways it could go:
1) woman wants baby, man wants baby :
Yay! Everybody is happy!
2) woman wants baby, man doesn't want baby :
Woman does what she wants, man's opinion irrelevant
3) woman doesn't want baby, man does :
Woman does what she wants, man's opinion irrelevant
Everyone says "it takes 2 to tango", yet when it comes to decision-making, it only takes 1. How to fix this? *Can* this be fixed?
The problem is, you can't force a woman to become a mother, but you can force a man to be a father.
-----
This is really what the argument is all about.
2006-03-08 11:51:10 PM J3
About 10 years ago when I finally sat down and actually read the Roe v Wade decision, I was shocked. Whoever penned it literally said that a woman should not be forced into the financial responsibilities of raising a child against her will. I thought then that one day someone would use those words to try to get the same right for men. Surprised it took so long!
---
Can anyone confirm/deny the above? I'll read it myself when I get the time.
2006-03-09 02:56:43 AM jpbreon
If they really wanted to makes some waves, make child support something the government provides to the receipient. Like a place the woman goes to get food, diapers, clothes for her children for no cost, while the man pays into the system. Of course, this wouldn never fly, because the government would find a way to corrupt it, and the woman would lose the fat check she can blow in any other myriad ways except buying things for the children.
---
Dear god this would rock. I would kill for some accountability of where my child support goes. I remember that just after my ex-wife moved out of state without court permission (yet they wouldn't force her or the children back into the state) she quickly stated that she needed more money from me... Oh, and she got a $800+ dollar dog too (American Rotwiler).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl
(tbessR3m0Ve2SendNEIN[SPAM]@R3m0ve.2.sendAt.mail.ru)
on 08:10 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The FARK thread had some interesting comments, but it missed entirely are the 'psychic' costs involved. I read one comment where the woman in the thread said "I wouldn't want a father involved if he didn't want to be a father to the child, not even for a check. If men are sure they don't want to be fathers, they should get a vasectomy..."
I read that again and thought: Maybe they don't want to be fathers under the terms that are offered. I don't think women would want to be mothers under the terms offered:
In an out of wed lock birth:
How many mothers would choose to become mothers under these circumstances where they would be stripped of the child, denied all rights to it, on the financial hook for it under pain of imprisonment under a system that no idea of fairness or justice, where they would have to spend thousands on a lawyer just to possibly obtain even supervised visitation or one a month visitation, with the father able to move away at any time, with the father able to interfere with it at any time? Where there is a better than 97% chance you will be denied custody even if he is a booze & crack addicted male prostitute whom throws bondage sex parties in front of the child. Where he can deny you, or interfere with vistiation at any time he so chooses, and tons of other malicious things I'm not going to elaborate on.
In addition to which, most of these comments are assuming an 18 year obligation. The minimum in my state is now 19 1/2 years. They stretch all of the way to 27 years in my state, and in others I've heard of it going all of the way to 31 -- and in cases where the child has some type of disability - it can be made lifetime for the non-custodial parent, with no obligations placed on the custodial parent. (This has happened.)
Then of course, is the issue of: Maybe he doesn't want to be a father to a child with you. -- That may be a lot more selfish, but a lot of these situations do arise after discovery the person is not psychologically stable and a breakup ensues. A woman bringing a child into that situation, where she knows the man does not want anything to do with her - or perhaps she thinks it will force him back to her - she is knowingly making a hostile choice. We all know this happens as well. Not to mention there is no equivlent of stealing a womans eggs to use later that they deposited with the condom....
Right now the law is so slanted that even male victims of rape have no way to avoid being victimized again if their attacker becomes pregnant.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 03:06 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
From Section VIII of the Roe vs. Wade decision:
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."
So there you have it. Abortion is all about a woman's right not to be burdened by a new child, while men have no such right to decide not to be burdened. I wish the guy persuing this court action the greatest of all luck.
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of this languague in the Roe v. Wade decision addresses whether the fetus is protected by morality; instead, a political and legal argument is given based on an interpretation of the Ninth Amendment and on the prerogative of the state to deprive the freedom of a pregnant mother to avoid, aside from possible medical harms to the mother, a "distressful life and future" due to an unwanted pregnancy.
But this is a particular political argument that resolves the legal question of abortion. It is entirely compatible with, and in no way implies that the father of the child is legally responsible for the support of a child; nor does it exclude the possibility that a father may not be responsibile for the child--if it did, then all sperm donors would be responsible for the children they father. Paternal responsibility cannot be deduced from Roe v.. wade.
So the legal and political question of the father's responsibility is a separate legal and political argument. It seems entirely compatible with the above line of reasoning. As Hume would say, there is no "necessary connection" between these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:51 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, LL, as I've mentioned in our past discussions, it would only make sense for men to support the notion of "choice for women", as nothing in Roe v. Wade imposes automatic responsibility for a woman's choice to abort or not upon the father (or "impuned" father). Men suffer no harm by doing so, and an aborted fetus is, after all, not able to demand child support from a man. Cold and calculating, but true.
If we attempt to deny "choice" to women in matters of reproduction, we would lose our moral right to claim it for ourselves in subsequent actions, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What "rights" would be violated? I see no moral rules that would be violated by conditionally supporting Roe v. Wade.
Abortion must be decided by the legal and political system. It may be politically necessary to make the credible threat, in order to pass legislation favorable to (some, many) MRAs, that if pro-choice advocates do not support a reproductive right for men, then MRAs will support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Example: I think that a ban on nontherapeautic involuntary circumcision would have a better political chance than a "male abortion." Some of us believe that males, as well as females have a right to uninterrupted sexual development. This is a mere fraction of the reproductive rights that females currently enjoy. Since there is a political possibility that Roe v. Wade will be tested (consider SD), one could attempt to strike a political bargain, on some area of legal and political reform of concern to MRAs. There is no moral problem: the issue of abortion is undecidable morally.
You could argue two ways:
1. if you support the rrepeal of Roe v. Wade, then a fortiori, the right of the child to uninterrupted sexual development "follows" from the right of the child to uninterrupted devlopment; or,
2. if you support Roe v.Wade, the right to uninterrupted sexual devlopment should be applied in a gender neutral way, in accordance with the 14th amendment. One would probably have to provide a legal theory that involuntary circumcision of males is improperly characterized, as the authors of the FGM bill have characterized it, as protected free speech(!). More sophisticaled moral arguments based on the empirical fact of the controversy surrounding involuntary cicumcisioncould be given: it is not morally neutral, in the sense that amputating a limb to save a life is uncontroversial, since: it is controversial; and, significant numbers of fully-informed, impartial rationnal persons oppose the procedure. Therefore it cannot be morally neutral (the parent's decision, without consequences); at best, involuntary circumcision is weakly justified...
Or, against Roe v. wade, one could go for modified child-support guidelines that:
1. limit the amount of child support to 50% per parent;
2. this amount is reduced based on the amount of time the child resides with one parent, in view of the need for a child to have two involved parents.
If a mother moves away, then that reduces the amount of support she can receive; if a father has custody, then moving away from the mother reduces the amount of support he can receive.
Well, I'm a rank amateur when it comes to this question...no doubt it's totally unoriginal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to child support, perhaps MRAs could make the argument that the state has not pursued the doctrine of "the bests interests of the child" far enough. The institution of marriage is intended for raising children, primarily. This primary purpose is undermined when a marriage dissoves, "so" there can be no expectation of the same level of pooled resources for raising children outside of marriage. Moreover, the state recognizes this in its support guidelines. The amount of child support is therefore reduced (insert formula and political rationale here, say based on the need for the child to have access to both parents more or less equally). This will create an economic disincentive to divorce for both parties, as opposed to an economic incentive for one party to manipulate the system...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
amperro writes "Don't expect feminist support, but it's on 