|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 20, @12:20AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully this guy's legal challenge will fail. No one should be allowed to force another person into slavery. Women are not barnyard animals having the duty to reproduce.
The issue for men who advocate "choice for men" is really the same--do you have a right to guide your own life or not? To deny a woman a right to regulate her own body here is completely consistent with denying a man the choice to decline parental responsibilities.
Consider that the moral basis of forcing a woman to sacrifice her interests and her happiness is the morality of altruism--sacrifice your values for the supposed benefit of others or for no value. Problem is, that same morality works against men going the other way around. What if a new mother *needs* child support from the biological father? Shouldn't she be able to use the law to force him to pay it--after all, she *needs* it. And what about the child? Of course the man doesn't want to pay child support anymore than the woman in this case doesn't want to be forced to become a breeding animal. When you advocate that individuals do not own their own lives, it applies to both men and women.
Hopefully the judge in this case will immediately dismiss the lawsuit on a simple motion to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted (demurrer). It would be nice if the court could assess damages against the plaintiff for harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and/or the filing of a baseless lawsuit. At least this guy should have to pay the woman's legal costs plus something to compensate her for her troubles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry, did I miss something?
If the woman had wanted to bring the pregnancy to term and the man didn't, would one be arguing quite so passionately that the man didn't deserve to be a slave either? I realize you are trying to present an appearance of fairness and balance, but with the references to women as breeding stock, I have to tell you I am not exactly convinced
Why is okay to use a man for "stud service", forcing him to take care of a baby he might have been tricked into making, but when a man actually WANTS to raise a child, as this one seems to, he is just trying to take away the woman's right to control her own body. She had plenty of chances to do that before she became pregnant.
I believe that most men would do the honorable thing, which means supporting the child, even if it meant working a job that the man hated, even if it was the woman who had wanted to carry to term and he didn't. But then I have a higher opinion of men than you seem to.
fritzc77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you did miss something, Fritz.
I believe that the Anonymous User's argument was this:
If a man succeeds in forcing a woman to forgo an abortion so that he can have a child, then this works against choice for men. To wit: if he can force her to bear a child that she doesn't want, then it follows that (another) she can force (another) him to pay for a child that he doesn't want. While this is currently the case (she can force him to pay for a child he doesn't want) the poster worries that a win in a court case like this could kill any future case arguing in favour of choice for men.
This person was arguing that this lawsuit should fail so that it does not jeopardize the future possibility of allowing men to deny financial compensation for unwanted children.
Either that or I'm reading it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 20, @11:39PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the first poster, the Original Anony Mouse.
You've got most of my post right, but the motivations are a little different.
It's not merely that I think forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to term would logically end up hurting the argumetns in favor of "choice for men". Primarily, I think forcing women (or anyone) to use their bodies for other people's purposes--slavery--is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that's why a case like this will never fly.
It's far easier to convince society that a man who never wanted a child shouldn't have to pay for the child than it is to convince society that a woman should be forced to carry a child to term.
The first of these does affect men's health and welfare, but it can be sold as merely a financial problem. The second obviously and directly affects the woman's health, so it's a much harder sell.
I might add, however, that if you believe that forcing anyone to use their bodies for other people's purposes is wrong, then you must also believe in at least relaxing the rules for paternal support of broken families. A man who works (voluntarily) in a punishing profession to support his family SHOULD have the right to stop abusing himself for money whenever he loses motivation and decides to start enjoying his life. Right now, judges regularly deny men the right to reduce their support payments in order to take less dangerous / stressful jobs. We don't force women to put their health at risk for the good of their families, so why should we continue to force men to put their health at risk for the good of their families?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
