If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2232 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 10:46:32 AM

Theaetetus: fuhfuhfuh: This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick.
qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"

While I agree with your points, I'd caution against these arguments. They lead to the other side saying "what about her responsibility of using protection" or suggesting that pregnancy is a punishment for lack of responsibility.

Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.

Additionally, say someone could legally opt-out of child support. The child's right to support is thereby diminished, without the child or a guardian getting to intercede... how is that fair to the child? Doesn't the child have a right to due process?

Fundamentally, the MRA argument that men should be able to opt out of child support is a statement that they believe that children should not have Constitutional rights.


Do you support abortion? I've just curious if you think a child has a right to be supported for 18 years by it's father, but has no right to be supported for 9 months in a womb, resulting in it's death.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:34 AM

I alone am best: If she doesnt want to have the child and the man does he has no choice.


fuhfuhfuh: In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.)

 
2011-09-21 10:46:40 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.


I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:11 AM

lennavan: This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.


Well, yes; I should have been clearer. It should read "engaged in consensual unprotected sex".

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Hey girls! Don't want to have a kid with the skank you are banging? Here's an idea... USE PROTECTION OR GET A tubal ligation!

The fact that you decided to ride bareback because you are too much of a woman to use a female condom or one of many various birth control forms at the least goes to show that you really don't give a shiat whether or not you get knocked up. This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your vagina. You chose to not give a shiat what happens.

Same goes for the guys. In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.) and from my experience that is exactly what they are used for. It is not some happy-go-lucky procedure that you get on a monthly basis, it can actually be quite invasive. Also, you don't just go get an abortion then go out and skank it up the next day, you need to heal in between. Why do you think pimps beat the shiat out of their biatches when they get pregnant and get an abortion? It's because those women are out of commission for at least a month.

Works both ways, doesn't it? Your double standard is showing.


It totally does work both ways; the sole difference is that men are simply not on the hook, biologically speaking. There are no medical complications for him, and there's no way around that. I agree with you that it's a one-way street; I just don't see any good solution beyond not conceiving the child to begin with.

I wonder if there's any precedent for the mother voluntarily granting the father sole custody after the birth.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:17 AM

I alone am best: I'm sorry, i was unaware you could make money without using some part of your body. Please let me know how this is done because i'm sick of working.


Well... You can be a hedge manager without having a brain. You make mad bank, so I hear.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:35 AM

log_jammin: devildog123: And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis push a medical reform bill through that no one actually knew the contents of in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


FTFY
 
2011-09-21 10:47:38 AM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: Child support is the right of the child. Only the child - or a guardian ad litem - can waive that right. If a father could say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all," then who could agree? The child? It isn't born yet. The mother? Nope. She doesn't have the ability. The court? They have the ability, but would be in breach of their duty to the child.
Got it? No one has the legal power to grant the unilateral waiver you want.

I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine?

You can. You have the right to control your body.
You do not have the right to unilaterally opt-out of a legal obligation to another person.

Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.

Once the child is born, the mother is also in "literal servitude"* providing for the child for the next 18 years. What's lopsided about that?

*it's not literal servitude. Shut your goddamn whining trap.


It's involuntary servitude, something that was supposed to have gone out after the 13th amendment...
 
2011-09-21 10:47:58 AM

I alone am best: I'm sorry, i was unaware you could make money without using some part of your body. Please let me know how this is done because i'm sick of working. Additionally no ones right should outweigh or interfere with another's right.



What? I don't even...ugh, forget it.
 
2011-09-21 10:48:13 AM

fuhfuhfuh: Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!?


Hey, I'm actually for abortion being safe and legal. You keep making arguments to ban all abortion entirely. Like this one here.
 
2011-09-21 10:49:11 AM

EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.


No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.
 
2011-09-21 10:49:44 AM

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!?

Hey, I'm actually for abortion being safe and legal. You keep making arguments to ban all abortion entirely. Like this one here.


Just curious... do you know how to even read? You have a terrible case of selective context.
 
2011-09-21 10:50:36 AM

fuhfuhfuh: lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls".

No, you actually didn't mean that. You had a nice long rant about how men had their opportunity to say no and lost it. You then concluded:

This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not"

At the point she gets pregnant, they no longer have a say because of their multitude of ways of contraception. If you were consistent, the exact same line of argumentation would support your conclusion "this is also why women should never be allowed to have abortions."

Your double standard, it's still showing.

Again with the victimization. Also, thanks for telling me what I REALLY mean, Kreskin. Did you also miss the part about how abortions should only be used when all else fails? When precautions are taken and fail?

Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!? Keep playing the victim though, it seems you are good at it.


Logical fallacies, how do they work? You know because when you can't argue the facts, the best course is to lay on the ad hominems...

(there you go lennavan, hell froze over, I stuck up for you)
 
2011-09-21 10:50:39 AM
I have it on pretty good authority that there will be a Senate push next year to ratify the UNCLOS (the UN Law of the Sea treaty). CEDAW will be on the backburner, as will everything else. Ratification of treaties is hilariously hard when one of the parties in the Senate is increasingly skeptical of the entire concept of multilateral treaties.
 
2011-09-21 10:50:41 AM

Theaetetus: You do not have the right to unilaterally opt-out of a legal obligation to another person.



Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.

Theaetetus: Once the child is born, the mother is also in "literal servitude"* providing for the child for the next 18 years. What's lopsided about that?



Thats her choice, I get no say in the matter.

Once again, your pro-choice but only for women.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:28 AM

Theaetetus: I'd be happy to do so. But that's not actually my argument. My argument, noted in the very next sentence which you removed, is that we do not interfere in the man's medical decision. But we do in hers, contrary to EWrecked's assertion that women get rights that men do not: women do not get equal rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy.

Pro-tip: if you have to clip out a sentence in order to pretend that the other person is making a different argument, don't.


You compared getting a vasectomy to having an abortion, which is a false analogy. One happens before you get pregnant, and the other happens after you're already pregnant. There's really no comparable medical decision for us to intrude or not upon a man. I'm not planning on intruding on any woman's decision to get a tubal ligation.

So yeah, sorry about the clipping that part out, but you're not making sense either way you slice it.

/ Why is a medical decision so much more sacred than a financial one? The kind of money it costs to support a child has as big of an impact on your
life as a temporary medical condition.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:38 AM

I alone am best: Fart_Machine: I alone am best: Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.

I'll bet you're one of those folks who believes in tort reform too right?

I'm for people using common sense including judges.


That didn't answer the question.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:40 AM

Aidan: skullkrusher: I think his point is that a woman is the final arbiter of the decision of whether they are both on the hook for raising the child. She is in effect making that decision for the father as well with her being the sole decision maker on whether to have an abortion.

I was trying to think of a way that men could sign a contract that would relieve them of the responsibility of an unwanted child, but no matter how I looked at it, I couldn't come up with someing decent.

If I allow them conception to birth+30 days, that removes the woman's ability to decide to abort based on not having a father, financial support, raising support, etc.

If I allow it to happen sooner, I could see some women deliberately not telling the man until it's too late so they're forced into the same position they are currently.

I don't think children should be given up for adoption simply because one parent doesn't wish to parent (no judgment here), and the other can't due to financial or time constraints (yeah yeah legs closed whatever). A wanted child should always be supported, but I can't see how to do that easily considering the people involved.


The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo
 
2011-09-21 10:52:07 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.


She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.
 
2011-09-21 10:52:07 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.


Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.
 
2011-09-21 10:52:15 AM

Quiefenburger: /get back to me after you've taken a look at the current make-up of the Senate


...what's that got to do with anything?
 
2011-09-21 10:52:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: fuhfuhfuh: This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick.
qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"

While I agree with your points, I'd caution against these arguments. They lead to the other side saying "what about her responsibility of using protection" or suggesting that pregnancy is a punishment for lack of responsibility.

Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.

Additionally, say someone could legally opt-out of child support. The child's right to support is thereby diminished, without the child or a guardian getting to intercede... how is that fair to the child? Doesn't the child have a right to due process?

Fundamentally, the MRA argument that men should be able to opt out of child support is a statement that they believe that children should not have Constitutional rights.

Do you support abortion?


Yes, of course.

I've just curious if you think a child has a right to be supported for 18 years by it's father, but has no right to be supported for 9 months in a womb, resulting in it's death.

1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?
And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?
 
2011-09-21 10:53:52 AM

EWreckedSean: Once the child is born, the mother is also in "literal servitude"* providing for the child for the next 18 years. What's lopsided about that?

*it's not literal servitude. Shut your goddamn whining trap.

It's involuntary servitude, something that was supposed to have gone out after the 13th amendment...



"Caring for your child" = "involuntary servitude"

This is what conservatives really think.
 
2011-09-21 10:54:20 AM

I alone am best: Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.


she gets to opt out later than you, that is all.
 
2011-09-21 10:54:50 AM

skullkrusher: Aidan: skullkrusher: I think his point is that a woman is the final arbiter of the decision of whether they are both on the hook for raising the child. She is in effect making that decision for the father as well with her being the sole decision maker on whether to have an abortion.

I was trying to think of a way that men could sign a contract that would relieve them of the responsibility of an unwanted child, but no matter how I looked at it, I couldn't come up with someing decent.

If I allow them conception to birth+30 days, that removes the woman's ability to decide to abort based on not having a father, financial support, raising support, etc.

If I allow it to happen sooner, I could see some women deliberately not telling the man until it's too late so they're forced into the same position they are currently.

I don't think children should be given up for adoption simply because one parent doesn't wish to parent (no judgment here), and the other can't due to financial or time constraints (yeah yeah legs closed whatever). A wanted child should always be supported, but I can't see how to do that easily considering the people involved.

The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo


Exactly. It would also result in a lot less problems in this country of children living in destitution, which is often caused by women having children against the fathers wishes expecting financial support, and then them being dead-beat dads. If a woman new upfront that she wouldn't be receiving financial support, it would arm her with a lot more ammunition in making her own decisions.
 
2011-09-21 10:55:03 AM

EWreckedSean: Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: WorldCitizen: EWreckedSean: Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.

Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.

I lived within shelling distance of North Korea (with a north facing apartment even) and visited the DMZ. I don't think if you took away the land mines North Korea would suddenly think, "hey, there's nothing stopping us know; let's go for it!"

Did you miss last year where the North started shelling the South again? It's hard to blame the South for wanting every little bit of deterrence between them and the North...

Cause there's no way to get around the DMZ's land mines at all. I mean if you can lob shells over the DMZ, that prolly means you can fly a plane over it. You know, with soldiers on them and stuff. I think the international community keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.

These don't fly...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x176]


Tell that to the A Team

/I love it when a plan comes together
 
2011-09-21 10:55:18 AM

EWreckedSean:

These don't fly...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x176]


Says you

englishrussia.com
 
2011-09-21 10:55:20 AM

Theaetetus: Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.


How can you argue it isn't the mothers choice?

She gets an abortion the guy pays nothing. She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?
 
2011-09-21 10:55:30 AM

skullkrusher: The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo


I agree with what you've said, although I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of contract (what? I like contracts!) for the case of a father wanting the child but the mother not. Maybe draw it up as though she was a surrogate and go from there. If she's willing to go along with that (it'd be for cash, as all surrogacy cases are IIRC), then we're cool. If not, THEN he's out of luck. Which really does suck (I think men can be just as traumatized by abortion or miscarriages as women can) but I agree that there's nothing a guy can do then.
 
2011-09-21 10:55:41 AM
Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.

Here's what I tell my kids.

*Don't have sex before adulthood or outside a serious relationship,preferably, marriage.
If you do have sex, use double-dutch birth control -two forms - for instance, a condom and oral contraceptives.
Birth control can fail. Condoms break and some antibiotics render birth control pills useless. Some doctors won't tell you if the med they've prescribed will negate your birth control. So, NEVER have sex with anyone you would not want to be the mother or father of your child. If you meet a gorgeous girl/guy who is horrible person at heart, keep going. There will be another girl/guy.*

They're a little young for it. None of mine are teens yet. But I feel I have to be proactive because my daughter, in particular, is already being exposed to questionable information especially from magazines. She gets a subscription to a magazine targeted to tween and teen dancers. The last issue featured an article on maintaining a "dancers' body" and knocked birth control pills because, supposedly, they make women gain weight. Personally, I think they make women get sloppy with their eating habits and provide a covenient excuse for the weight gain. I didn't go into all of that though. Instead, I wrote in the margin of the article "Pregnancy makes you fatter."
 
2011-09-21 10:56:52 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.


... if she has an abortion, genius, then she hasn't left a child with support from only its father.

Holy fark... Do you really not understand that?

She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

What strawman? The fact that you don't understand what "opt-out" means isn't a strawman. You simply cannot name a time at which a woman can opt-out of an obligation, leaving a child with support from only one parent, which is exactly what you suggest men should be able to do.
 
2011-09-21 10:57:18 AM

qorkfiend: lennavan: This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.

Well, yes; I should have been clearer. It should read "engaged in consensual unprotected sex".


qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in consensual unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"

Right, that's what I assumed you meant. =]

And again, it's an argument against abortion in all cases. I still disagree with it, I'm pro-choice. But I see where you're coming from. I think the difference between you and I is you consider the zygote the consequence they have to deal with. I think of it as a consensual sex results in a 4 month(ish) window where if they don't do something about they're going to get a viable fetus and have to deal with that.

I'll try my best at an analogy - if I steal $20 from you, I have a window of opportunity between the moment I steal $20 from you and it's too late (you find out and report it) to quick sneak back and put the $20 back. If I do, no harm no foul. I think of "too late" as fetus viability, you think of it as zygote. I won't try to change your mind because I respect where you're coming from.
 
2011-09-21 10:57:31 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.

she gets to opt out later than you, that is all.


AFAIK it's like 3 months, no? That's not a lot of time, especially if you're dumb and don't realize you're pregnant until 4.5 months *cough*. :)
 
2011-09-21 10:57:32 AM

EWreckedSean: She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.


That's like saying abstinane terminates child support. If a woman had am abortion there is no child to support.

You seem to be both against women having access to legal abortions and also against men being required to support children they father. Is that correct?
 
2011-09-21 10:57:50 AM

s2s2s2: Women will never be the equals of men. Ink on paper will never change that.


as long as women continue to put on makeup while driving 60mph, they never will be.

enjoy that glass ceiling biatches..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2011-09-21 10:58:32 AM

Lunaville: But I feel I have to be proactive because my daughter, in particular, is already being exposed to questionable information especially from magazines. She gets a subscription to a magazine targeted to tween and teen dancers. Instead, I wrote in the margin of the article "Pregnancy makes you fatter."


I think I love you. :)
 
2011-09-21 10:58:34 AM

liam76: Theaetetus: Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.

How can you argue it isn't the mothers choice?

She gets an abortion the guy pays nothing. She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?


Neither. The court imposes the obligation of child support on both parents, because it's the right of the child. If there's no child, there's no obligation. The end.
 
2011-09-21 10:59:03 AM

Lunaville: Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.


Best summary of the FARK Womyn's Movement TM I've ever seen.
 
2011-09-21 10:59:48 AM
Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?


Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.
 
2011-09-21 11:00:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.

Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.



So the child has a right to financial support from the father but not a right to life? You've lost the context - we're talking about abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the rights of the child. It's not a child. If it had rights, you couldn't abort it.
 
2011-09-21 11:00:26 AM

beta_plus: Lunaville: Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.

Best summary of the FARK Womyn's Movement TM I've ever seen.


That may actually be referring to the guys arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to have the fundamental Constitutional rights of medical privacy and bodily autonomy, because men have to pay child support.
 
2011-09-21 11:01:02 AM

EWreckedSean: (there you go lennavan, hell froze over, I stuck up for you)


Suddenly I feel like recanting everything I posted in this thread. :-P
 
2011-09-21 11:01:07 AM
The baby is in her body for nine months... not yours.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her.

If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.

As someone said up thread, the man's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control.
 
2011-09-21 11:01:34 AM

Aidan: skullkrusher: The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo

I agree with what you've said, although I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of contract (what? I like contracts!) for the case of a father wanting the child but the mother not. Maybe draw it up as though she was a surrogate and go from there. If she's willing to go along with that (it'd be for cash, as all surrogacy cases are IIRC), then we're cool. If not, THEN he's out of luck. Which really does suck (I think men can be just as traumatized by abortion or miscarriages as women can) but I agree that there's nothing a guy can do then.


it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)
 
2011-09-21 11:02:33 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.

... if she has an abortion, genius, then she hasn't left a child with support from only its father.

Holy fark... Do you really not understand that?

She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

What strawman? The fact that you don't understand what "opt-out" means isn't a strawman. You simply cannot name a time at which a woman can opt-out of an obligation, leaving a child with support from only one parent, which is exactly what you suggest men should be able to do.


The one where you made up this argument:

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.
 
2011-09-21 11:02:42 AM

keylock71: The baby is in her body for nine months... not yours.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her.

If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.

As someone said up thread, the man's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control.


dude, you are one of the most reasonable mofos up in this biatch. That said, ^ is a load of horseshiat, my brother.
 
2011-09-21 11:02:53 AM

EWreckedSean: Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?


Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.
 
2011-09-21 11:03:04 AM

EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?


It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.
 
2011-09-21 11:03:52 AM

skullkrusher: it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)


Troof.
 
2011-09-21 11:04:34 AM

liam76: She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?


the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...
 
2011-09-21 11:04:37 AM

Aidan: skullkrusher: it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)

Troof.


or put it in her butt. Can't get preggo in the butt
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report