Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Fianancial abortion/pro-choice for men. (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Fianancial abortion/pro-choice for men.
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an explanation.

What do you think of the argument?

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stupid beyond belief.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not indifferent to men's right arguments, and some of them I agree with (probably more so than most who are going to post in this thread), but that's pretty bad reasoning. Some clues you're looking at some low-res thinking are phrases like "pregnancy is inherently biased against men", stock photos of chickens and references to how the mainstream media wont cover their ideas.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10577 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is certainly the potential for significant injustice when child support is required "no matter the circumstances" (as the presenter says). However, there is also the potential for great injustice if we don't require child support, no matter the circumstances, which seems to be what's being proposed.

In some cases the father might not be morally responsible for the baby's livelihood, but I doubt that such cases comprise more than a tiny minority of actual unplanned pregnancies. So it seems like there is probably much less injustice under current law than there would be under the proposed law. That's not ideal, but I don't see a better proposal on offer.

Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
There is certainly the potential for significant injustice when child support is required "no matter the circumstances" (as the presenter says). However, there is also the potential for great injustice if we don't require child support, no matter the circumstances, which seems to be what's being proposed.

If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What are the conditions under which a man should be able to "not consent to fatherhood"?

I can imagine some horrifying worst-case scenarios for the kind of law being proposed. For example, suppose a man rapes a woman and does a good job of hiding the evidence. If she wants to have the baby, it will then be his choice, under the proposed law, whether to pay child support or not. But in this case the man, not the woman, is entirely responsible for the conception of the child.

Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.

Interesting. Suppose we had the technology to incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, like in Brave New World or something. How would you feel about a law that requires every aborted fetus to be incubated artificially?
Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

You don't want to go down that road. Your pro-life opponent will then apply the same logic to the woman, as grounds for banning abortion.
Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except its her body and not the dudes.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

How quick we are to tell women, whether in law or in morality, 'you did this thing that entailed these risks, so when they occur you're responsible'. And are comfortable with thousands upon thousands of such examples, repeating down through successive generations, not merely in the women themselves but their offspring who also apparently should have known better.

Let a man somewhere, though, be infringed upon against their will depending on what decision a woman makes with respect to pregnancy...shocking injustice.

Like Hobbes, I'm not indifferent to 'men's rights' arguments, but I quickly and with irritation lose patience and respect (though in this case, that wasn't a problem) with people who attempt to assert some sort of victimization parity.

Financial abortion indeed. I suppose it sounds better than what happens so very often today-deadbeat dads. A checkbook doesn't come with an attached time machine.

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

No, wait a minute, that's an ancient conservative argument rejected by the pro(female)-choice crowd. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
false equivalence.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

I'm spreading my legs right now, yet for some reason I'm not getting pregnant.
Posts: 1568 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
false equivalence.

Okay, no need to elaborate.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some arguments are just self evident.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

This is a situation in which men can be thoroughly deceived, yes, but that doesn't mean the whole issue rests on that possibility to be deceived but rather on the simple fair right to opt out of an unwanted burden should the man see it as such.

[ December 12, 2012, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child or even to kill it. They have a right to remove it from their body. Yes, at this time, the child cannot survive, but what the actual right is does matter. A man has the exact same right to remove a fetus from their body as a woman. They also have the same right to abandon a child. So, all fair there.
That sounds a lot like the argument that homosexuals do have the right to marry.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10577 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
false equivalence.

Okay, no need to elaborate.
He did. Want me to use crayon?
Posts: 15001 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If we don't require child support in cases where the man does not consent to fatherhood then less women will be willing to have children under those circumstances.
Because, of course, there are only two people involved in this matter, yes? The (scheming) woman and the (victimized) man, as your rhetoric goes.

This is a situation in which men can be thoroughly deceived, yes, but that doesn't mean the whole issue rests on that possibility to be deceived but rather on the simple fair right to opt out of an unwanted burden should the man see it as such.
The funny thing is, in your pursuit of clever indirect misogyny, you completely neglect a thorough discussion not just of the entire issue-but even of your own argument. Granted you want to protect put-upon men from those lying harlots, alright, and so the man has rights, blah blah blah.

Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing? There are not just two people involved. So can we perhaps skip past the stuff in the middle, when you pretend not to be attacking a women's rights issue and just get to the part where you are?

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sa'eed:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[qb] [QUOTE]

Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing?

It's the singular subject of this thread, a focus on a specific right and whether or not it should be upheld. Introducing a narrow premise and sticking to it is hardly a sign of misogyny.

(Women should have the same right to "financial abortion" as to what extent men do, or don't, though)

[ December 12, 2012, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]

Posts: 1314 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Women do not have the right to abandon a child
Really? Are you saying that women do not have the right to give a child up for adoption?

Or are you saying that a woman doesn't have the right to divorce her husband, leaving her young children with him?

It seems that women very clearly *do* have the right to abandon their children (given certain conditions: that they abandon them in a *safe* manner to an appropriate guardian).

quote:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.
For this to be a consistent position you need to ban abortions. I suggest you look very closely at your argument, and make one which actually indicates why you aren't using the same argument in support of banning abortions.

quote:
Why is his right to opt-out of an 'unwanted burden' (which he nevertheless wanted to risk creating) the only one you're discussing? There are not just two people involved.
"Financial abortion" can be seen as a man opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child he nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

But abortion of course can also be seen as a woman opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child she nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

For that matter, putting a baby up for adoption can *also* be seen as a woman opting out of an unwanted burden to the detriment of the child she nevertheless wanted to risk creating.

The supposed "good of the baby" can be used to ban "financial abortion" but not to ban normal abortion (or putting children up for adoption). But the argument only makes sense if one's priorities are as follows:

mother's choice > good of the baby > father's choice

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What are the conditions under which a man should be able to "not consent to fatherhood"?
"Not consenting to fatherhood" just means that they do not utter the words "I consent to fatherhood".

The more precise question is probably "Under which conditions should such lack-of-consent-to-fatherhood be respected by the law?".

It seems to me that the liberty-minded question should be the opposite: Under which conditions should we NOT respect lack of consent?

The answer should be: We should not respect lack of consent if the people in question have already signed such consent away.

In short, if they've signed a marital or similar contract which obliges the participants to mutual support. If the couple in question is married, then the father no longer has the right to deprive financial support from the couple's biological offspring, no matter whether he consents to fatherhood or not.

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tristan
Member
Member # 1670

 - posted      Profile for Tristan   Email Tristan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In short, if they've signed a marital or similar contract which obliges the participants to mutual support. If the couple in question is married, then the father no longer has the right to deprive financial support from the couple's biological offspring, no matter whether he consents to fatherhood or not.
Would this hold true in all circumstances? What if the couple has agreed not to have children, takes all reasonable precautions not to get pregnant, but the wife gets pregnant anyway and then, contrary to her husband's wishes, decides to keep the baby? What if the husband files for a divorce over this issue? Should he, according to your view, still be liable for child support?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Should he, according to your view, still be liable for child support?

Yes, I think so. In the absence of relevant deceit or infidelity (which would be marital contract violations by the other party), such support simply falls under the agreed-upon marital support you'd have to give for any medical condition that your partner didn't deliberately seek to have. That your partner doesn't consent to a *further* procedure (abortion) doesn't mean you are relieved out of your existing financial obligations.

Unless such clause had been inserted in the marital contract -- if the couple had agreed in *advance* that "in case of unintentional pregnancy, we'll do an abortion", then sure: the requirement for support no longer applies. But if they had just agreed to be *careful*, without any mention of what they'd do if such carefulness failed, then the spousal obligation still holds.

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tristan
Member
Member # 1670

 - posted      Profile for Tristan   Email Tristan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting.

I agree with you, by the way, that the argument "good of the baby" for not allowing "financial abortions" while allowing non-medically indicated abortions, only makes sense if your values go: mother's choice > good of the baby/foetus > father's choice. I wonder if there are any rational arguments for these preferences. Especially since, arguably, a mother's choice to have a real abortion has much worse consequences for the baby/foetus than a father's choice of "financial" abortion (although I suppose the latter risks contributing to the former).

I haven't thought much about this, but I suspect that the fact that carrying a baby to term entails significant risks to the life and health of the mother -- in a way that mere financial obligations seldom do -- has something to do with it.

Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love the line "pregnancy is inherently biased against men."

Yes. Yes, it is. Whining about it just makes you look like a stupid jerk.

Posts: 36936 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I love the line "pregnancy is inherently biased against men."

Yes. Yes, it is.

Meh. In that case, next time I'm jobbing out the morning sickness, exhaustion, weight gain, stretch marks . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would not consider adoption the same as abandonment. Also, in many states, giving up a child for adoption requires both the mother and fathers consent. If the father does not want an adoption to happen, it doesn't. A mother could easily be forced to pay child support.

The argument that a man has an equal right to control of his body is valid in a way that homosexuals have right to marry opposite gender is not due to reason behind the right. Right to an abortion extends from right to control your body. You see this right also includes things like informed consent, hipaa, anti slavery, etc. The right to marriage though is in the US from Loving which is about marrying who you choose regardless of things like race. Also, there is no counter balance on gay marriage. You are balancing equal right against "gay marriage makes me feel icky". I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the right to an abortion legally comes from any other source than control over your own body.

If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas. We must assume that the risk and costs of both procedures on a woman's health are equivalent. If abortions were less complications and risks then procedure that would save the child, we still end up with woman's control over her body. So we assume equivalent procedures for the sake or argument. We then probably will get into the is it life question. Insurance will argue over whether being a fetus is a preexisting condition they have to cover. All the arguments over right to health care come into play. If we finally get to a baby, then I think there is a legit question over what rights the mother has though with surrogacy I guess that has already legally been determined. So, then I would say we are back to where we would be after baby I born under normal circumstances. Mom wants to give up, dad wants to keep, dad gets baby, mom pays child support. Mom wat keep, dad doesnt then mom keeps, dad pays. Neither want to keep, a loving family is found and gets baby. Both wan to keep, joint custody.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas.
But, thankfully, areas where the consequences of disagreement are far lower. Even though questions of ethics and fairness become harder in that scenario, the net good is dramatically increased.
Posts: 36936 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
If you could take the baby and put in artificial womb, then we would get into much trickier areas. We must assume that the risk and costs of both procedures on a woman's health are equivalent. If abortions were less complications and risks then procedure that would save the child, we still end up with woman's control over her body. So we assume equivalent procedures for the sake or argument. We then probably will get into the is it life question. Insurance will argue over whether being a fetus is a preexisting condition they have to cover. All the arguments over right to health care come into play. If we finally get to a baby, then I think there is a legit question over what rights the mother has though with surrogacy I guess that has already legally been determined. So, then I would say we are back to where we would be after baby I born under normal circumstances. Mom wants to give up, dad wants to keep, dad gets baby, mom pays child support. Mom wat keep, dad doesnt then mom keeps, dad pays. Neither want to keep, a loving family is found and gets baby. Both wan to keep, joint custody.

Good, that sounds right to me.

Although ideally, I think justice would dictate that we not require child support from the woman in case of rape, and not require it from the man in cases where (for example) the woman lied about being on birth control. Whether either of these exceptions could be implemented well in practice is a further issue, though. Presumably it would be much easier to implement the first one.

Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her.

The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.

No, wait a minute, that's an ancient conservative argument rejected by the pro(female)-choice crowd. Nothing to see here, move along.



quote:
The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.
spoiler alert: sa'eed believes this exactly as written
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.

I am the Locke to his Demothenes.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want to wade too far into this discussion because it treads too closely to the abortion discussion I had with all of you a few weeks ago and I don't want to get into that again.

But I'll say that I can conceive of a situation where it would be fair for a man to be absolved of financial responsibility. But my general thought is that once you have sex, you lose all control, and if you can't deal with the consequences, don't have sex. Women, in our society, have different options because they have different levels of risk and burden other than the financial. Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The woman consented to carry the baby to term the moment she decided to spread her legs.
quote:
spoiler alert: sa'eed believes this exactly as written
Even if that's the case, it's not a worse belief than Blayne's "The man consented to having a child the moment he agreed to stick his porker inside her."

Both statements imply that consent to sex means consenting to being a parent, with all the obligations and burdens that this entails.

quote:
Suggesting both sides should have equal rights when nature dictates they have different burdens is a little silly.
I don't know anyone here who argued that males should have equal rights over e.g. the termination of the pregnancy -- e.g. to force a termination of the pregnancy when the woman doesn't want one, nor to force the woman *not* to have one.

The MRA side argues that same as the woman is allowed to discontinue the supposed physical/bodily "obligation" (because a woman having sex does NOT imply signing away her choice to not to be a parent), the man should likewise be allowed to discontinue the supposed financial "obligation" (because a man having sex similarly does not imply signing away his choice to not be a parent).

It's more a case of equality in the sense of analogous rights, rather than equality in the sense of identical rights.

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
... physical/bodily "obligation" (because a woman having sex does NOT imply signing away her choice to not to be a parent), the man should likewise be allowed to discontinue the supposed financial "obligation" (because a man having sex similarly does not imply signing away his choice to not be a parent).

It's more a case of equality in the sense of analogous rights, rather than equality in the sense of identical rights.

It would seem to me that both parties have the supposed financial obligation. The mother can terminate that obligation by giving up the child for adoption while the male can, well, that's under this discussion.

The mother has a additional supposed "obligation" during pregnancy that doesn't really have a parallel on the male's side ... unless we propose an obligation for the male to provide for and care for the female while she is pregnant (which is still not really nearly as burdensome).

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll say this, as a tangentially related point:

There needs to be a law passed that will rectify and possibly punish cases where a woman gives a child up for adoption without telling the father. I'm actually not sure what the rules are for child support if the mother gives up the baby and the father takes it, I would assume she has to pay up as well. But there have been a number of high profile cases lately, and the lengths some fathers are being forced to go to get their children back are ridiculous.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Interesting. Suppose we had the technology to incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, like in Brave New World or something. How would you feel about a law that requires every aborted fetus to be incubated artificially?

I could understand a law that would require that if one of the two parties wanted to proceed. I don't really see the point if neither party wanted to proceed.

Unless you're going down the whole "abortion is murder" road of course, but then that seems like a different discussion between the balance between the beliefs of a majority (a society that believes that) versus a minority (the couple) rather than the current discussion which is a balance between the rights of a potential mother and a potential father.

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyrhawn, I agree full heatedly with you but my one concern is there are women who genuinely don't know who the father is and those woman still need to be able to give their kids up for adoption. Those commercials for talk shows where the mom has done like ten paternity tests and still not found the dad indicate that does occur. Also, in cases of abuse, we need a system where the mom can safely provide that info.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I also think a rapist should not get custody of a child so I would not ever have a rapist getting child support from his victim.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
The problem is that you've not given any reason for why you so contend it, you just keep repeating "it's different, it's different" as if mere repetition will convince us.
Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Lyrhawn, I agree full heatedly with you but my one concern is there are women who genuinely don't know who the father is and those woman still need to be able to give their kids up for adoption. Those commercials for talk shows where the mom has done like ten paternity tests and still not found the dad indicate that does occur. Also, in cases of abuse, we need a system where the mom can safely provide that info.

There needs to be a process where at leas someone has oversight over the process though. What if she's lying about abuse? What if she never actually tried to find him at all? It's a situation where a father might not even know he has rights to defend. The mother has to make that good faith effort to find and inform him.
Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyrhawn- I agree but I don't know what the best way to implement such a policy would be. I would like at minimum for the mother to be require to swear on oath that she has made a good faith effort. I seem to recall that at least one state assumes no rights for father in adoption cases, but since every state makes its own rules, it is hard to keep track of. But I am far more sympathetic on people fighting for right to be a responsible, good man than asserting a right to be a jerk and potentially emotionally and financially hurt a child.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Aris I contend that the statements are not at all equal, and I agree with Lyrhawn here.
The problem is that you've not given any reason for why you so contend it, you just keep repeating "it's different, it's different" as if mere repetition will convince us.
Did you miss the reasoning Lyrhawn provided?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Lyrhawn- I agree but I don't know what the best way to implement such a policy would be. I would like at minimum for the mother to be require to swear on oath that she has made a good faith effort. I seem to recall that at least one state assumes no rights for father in adoption cases, but since every state makes its own rules, it is hard to keep track of. But I am far more sympathetic on people fighting for right to be a responsible, good man than asserting a right to be a jerk and potentially emotionally and financially hurt a child.

It's a state out west. Utah or Arizona, that does that. Lots of women specifically go there to have their babies and then leave so they can put the baby up for adoption without notifying the father. It's been the center of some of those high profile cases.

I confess I feel the same as you. It's a problem, but I don't see a fair, easy solution that doesn't place a pretty hefty burden on the mother at an emotionally trying time. But that might just be the way it goes. You can't rob a father of his parental rights because the mother doesn't feel like putting in the effort to find him. If he has no choice in being saddled with the financial responsibility, he should at least have a choice as to whether he wants to exercise his paternal rights.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Sometimes I think Blayne is the most elaborate alt account ever created.

I am the Locke to his Demothenes.
[Angst]
Posts: 15001 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2