Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2234 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (3 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 01:36:44 PM  

lennavan: Headso: lennavan: a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.

why should the father have say over what the woman does with her body?

Where on earth did you get that from my post?


ducking out on your responsibility after you made your choice to have the child impacts the woman's choice to have the child or not.
 
2011-09-21 01:39:27 PM  

lennavan: EWreckedSean: By that measure wouldn't the least infringing be to outlaw abortion altogether, as it costs the unborn baby it's life?

God I hate agreeing with you in this thread. I need a drink.


hah no doubt :)
 
2011-09-21 01:40:47 PM  

Headso: ducking out on your responsibility



What responsibility? There is no child. It is the potential for a child.

Headso: impacts the woman's choice to have the child or not


And?
 
2011-09-21 01:41:28 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Yes, the fundies really know how to prove our points. They oppose the Women's rights treaty, and they've, for two decades, blocked the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the only countries in the world not to ratify that one. Good company we keep.
Why are the rightists and Christofascists against the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Because it forbids executing kids or sentencing them to life. Oh, and it dares suggest that children should have religious freedom.


Have you read the treaties? They don't give anybody and rights, they take them away. They are just another of the many tools used by government to give them more control over your life, and give you less control over your life.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, states that every child has the "right" to be protected from dangerous drugs and their trade. What's your stance on prohibition? Do you think that the drug war is a good thing? Do you have no problem with the bloodbath that's been going on in Mexico for the last dozen or so years?

How much of YOUR money are willing to part with to assure that every kid in the world has enough food to eat, the best medical care, and an education? Because those rights are listed and YOU will be the one who is taxed, into poverty if need be, to pay for them. Well, I'm sure this one won't impact you, as you already give half your income to charities that provide those services.

But if that's what you want, go ahead and write your Congressmen and tell them to get to work on it.
 
2011-09-21 01:44:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

What freedom looks like to DrPainMD:

[photo of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites]


No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.
 
2011-09-21 01:53:17 PM  

EWreckedSean: Why can't a woman make the same choice? if the father wants the child, a woman could agree to have it under the condition that she be allowed to opt out of providing for it. Simple contract law would allow that. If neither want the child, she can opt out of the living child via turning it over to the state for adoption.


Because the rights of the child to support trump the rights of either parent to disavow financial obligation except in the case of putting the child up for adoption, which is already a joint decision. That's settled law.

EWreckedSean: The equivalent right, by the very nature of biology, is for a man to be able to opt out the same as a woman can opt out, even if biology might make the nature of those opt outs different.


No. The woman's opt out is to terminate the pregnancy. The equivalent right would be for the man to be able to terminate the pregnancy. This is trumped by the right to bodily autonomy of the woman.

Once the child is born, the rights of the child trump the rights of both parents to escape financial obligation. Neither can terminate obligation at that point, unless both jointly decide to give up the child. If either decides to keep the child, both are financially obligated. Note that if the father wants to keep the child at that point, the mother is then financially obligated as well. There is precedent for that in child abandonment cases where the mother walks and the father stays.

EWreckedSean: I disagree. At least in terms of parental choice.


Your disagreement is immaterial. You must demonstrate evidence that your position is more sound, and you have not. Parental choice is not unlimited, and is trumped by more important rights.

EWreckedSean: KiltedBastich: Well, bodily autonomy of the prospective mother trumps both the prospective father's desire to have a child and/or the prospective father's desire to escape financial obligation to the resultant child. Once the child is born, the child's right to support trumps both parent's desire to escape financial obligation.

We've already proven this( to be a false statement.


No, you have claimed it, and you are wrong. This is settled law. You don't want it to be true, because you don't like it. That is, again, completely immaterial. The law of the land is that you cannot tell a woman what to do with her own body, and that you cannot deprive a child of financial support unilaterally, and both of these decisions were made for very good reasons, and changing them would have ramifications far beyond the issue at hand. The consequence of those two legal rights in tandem produces the situation as it is. That you don't like it is completely beside the point.

EWreckedSean: 1) I'm not suggesting any rights to the father over the woman's body
2) You've already proven that the child already has no right to parental support


No, you have claimed that the child has no right to parental support, and every single relevant legal authority has demonstrated you are wrong. Your opinion on this matter has no weight absent some kind of logical grounds or material evidence, and so far what you have offered is "Well, I don't like it, and the Constitution doesn't say its so"

Well, your liking it is immaterial. And the right of a child to support is not spelled out in the Consitution because it is based on much older law and convention, so old that it passed unquestioned as blatantly obvious. It is covered indirectly by the 9th amendment that points out the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not remove other rights, and this particular right has been supported by the courts at virtually every turn.

You do realize, don't you, that you are advocating the right of parents to abandon their children without consequence? That is simply never going to be allowed under any circumstances. The precedent would be both monstrous and a clear invitation to abuse far worse than the financial obligations fathers currently accrue.

EWreckedSean: Being forced to bare the burden of supporting an unwanted child to the tune of often hundreds of thousands of dollars is the most fair? How do you figure? The most fair is that the parent wanting the child takes financial obligation for it. If your answer is what about the children, what about the lives of the thousands that are aborted every year? The best interest of the children would be served by outlawing abortion altogether, but we say the mother's rights to her own body for 9 months trump that, but a man's right to his own body and the 18 years of labor he must subject it to to pay for that child don't count?


Because abrogating the right to bodily autonomy is worse, both directly and in terms of the precendents, and denying a minor child the support it needs is also worse. Your right to your own body does not preclude social obligations, only direct physical interference. You are presenting a false equivalence in the first case, and a worse infringement on the rights of the child in the second case.

As to abortion, a fetus is not a legally autonomous entity. After birth, the child is a legally autonomous entity. Preventing abortion is thus again a violation of the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. If the fetus cannot survive on its own, it's not a child. If it can, it is potentially a child - which is why a 7 month pregnant woman doesn't get an abortion if a medical complication ensues, she has labor induced to deliver the fetus and the resulting premature child is cared for.

You are arguing in circles now, which should tell you that you have nothing. Simply repeating already-refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid, you know.
 
2011-09-21 01:53:17 PM  

lennavan: Headso: ducking out on your responsibility

What responsibility? There is no child. It is the potential for a child.


If she decides to agree with your choice that you already made to have a child you can't duck out on that after the fact.
 
2011-09-21 01:53:28 PM  

DrPainMD: No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.


Jim Crow laws were put in place through support of the general population. The whole States Rights movement started because that nasty Fed wanted to remove the right of Segregation from those pesky southern states.
 
2011-09-21 01:54:16 PM  

DrPainMD: Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

What freedom looks like to DrPainMD:

[photo of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites]

No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.


DrPainMD: Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

What freedom looks like to DrPainMD:

[photo of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites]

No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.


But government treaties against such laws limit our freedom?


This is pure freedom , right?

thedarkprophet.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-09-21 01:58:11 PM  

lennavan: During the period a pregnant mother can have an abortion, a father could submit a document to court to remove all rights and responsibility to any child that may result from the pregnancy.

Whose rights are being violated there? The mother does not have a right during pregnancy to child support, there is no child. The father is not losing any rights. And there is no child, there is no person. It is still the potential for a child. No rights were violated at all.


The condition of not being a child is time-limited. The request to waive financial obligation is not. Once the child is born the rights of the child to support trump the agreement you propose, because at that point it is a child, a legally autonomous person, with a right to support from the parent.

The most you could do under those circumstances would be to escape the legal responsibility to assist with medical care during the course of the pregnancy, not escape financial support for the child after birth once it is a legal person in its own right.
 
2011-09-21 02:12:35 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Why do we need skills to work with or improve a weapon we are never going to use?


Because people can still use them against us.
Also detecting and defusing IED's has a lot in common with landmines.


Philip Francis Queeg: Landmines have historically proven to pose a much more significant risk to civilians in the long term than other forms of unexploded ordinance. While unexploded shells are a surely a problem, mines due to their very nature remain a larger problem. They are explicitly designed to remain hidden in the ground and deadly.


Unexploeded yes. Than other forms of ord, no.

Philip Francis Queeg: I would absolutely support an anti-MIRV treaty if we had no intention of deploying such a weapons system. If we have no such system, we benefit from increasing the number of countries that also do not have such systems.


We have no intention of deploying it first, but we do have such a system.

We don't really benefit from "increasing" the number of countries that don't have it unless they are countries that have them pointed at us.


Philip Francis Queeg: Do you support any arms treaties at all


Yes. If they don't take something from us that we have no good reason to believe our enemy won't use.
 
2011-09-21 02:14:16 PM  

KiltedBastich: lennavan: During the period a pregnant mother can have an abortion, a father could submit a document to court to remove all rights and responsibility to any child that may result from the pregnancy.

Whose rights are being violated there? The mother does not have a right during pregnancy to child support, there is no child. The father is not losing any rights. And there is no child, there is no person. It is still the potential for a child. No rights were violated at all.

The condition of not being a child is time-limited. The request to waive financial obligation is not. Once the child is born the rights of the child to support trump the agreement you propose, because at that point it is a child, a legally autonomous person, with a right to support from the parent.

The most you could do under those circumstances would be to escape the legal responsibility to assist with medical care during the course of the pregnancy, not escape financial support for the child after birth once it is a legal person in its own right.


So the circus starts again. This is like some sort of twilight zone episode.

Them: I like the color blue.

You: The color blue is bad because of the way it refracts light.

Them: But I like it.

You: An octopus lives in the ocean, so that is why I am right.

Or, I'll take, Not his argument at all for 500 Alex.
 
2011-09-21 02:18:29 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do we need skills to work with or improve a weapon we are never going to use?

Because people can still use them against us.
Also detecting and defusing IED's has a lot in common with landmines.


Philip Francis Queeg: Landmines have historically proven to pose a much more significant risk to civilians in the long term than other forms of unexploded ordinance. While unexploded shells are a surely a problem, mines due to their very nature remain a larger problem. They are explicitly designed to remain hidden in the ground and deadly.

Unexploeded yes. Than other forms of ord, no.

Philip Francis Queeg: I would absolutely support an anti-MIRV treaty if we had no intention of deploying such a weapons system. If we have no such system, we benefit from increasing the number of countries that also do not have such systems.

We have no intention of deploying it first, but we do have such a system.

We don't really benefit from "increasing" the number of countries that don't have it unless they are countries that have them pointed at us.


Philip Francis Queeg: Do you support any arms treaties at all

Yes. If they don't take something from us that we have no good reason to believe our enemy won't use.


So you think Iran should attempt to get nuclear weapons then, right? After all their enemies might use nuclear weapons against them.
 
2011-09-21 02:20:13 PM  

I alone am best: So the circus starts again. This is like some sort of twilight zone episode.

Them: I like the color blue.

You: The color blue is bad because of the way it refracts light.

Them: But I like it.

You: An octopus lives in the ocean, so that is why I am right.

Or, I'll take, Not his argument at all for 500 Alex.


Small words for the clearly slow:

When the child is born, the child has rights.

The child has the right to support from its parents.

The child's rights trump the parent's rights to seek to avoid to support the child.

The parents cannot choose to ignore that right.

So the document signed as described would not have legal standing, as neither the mother nor the father can make that decision for the child after it is born.
 
2011-09-21 02:21:14 PM  

KiltedBastich: The most you could do under those circumstances would be to escape the legal responsibility to assist with medical care during the course of the pregnancy, not escape financial support for the child after birth once it is a legal person in its own right.


You could potentially seek contractual indemnification from the other parent... you still owe the obligation of support, but the other parent agrees to pay such obligation. In fact, this is similar to the contractual position of sperm donors or surrogate mothers.
But, unlike what the MRAs are proposing, you can't simply force someone to indemnify you, nor can you bully them into it.
 
2011-09-21 02:26:09 PM  

KiltedBastich: I alone am best: So the circus starts again. This is like some sort of twilight zone episode.

Them: I like the color blue.

You: The color blue is bad because of the way it refracts light.

Them: But I like it.

You: An octopus lives in the ocean, so that is why I am right.

Or, I'll take, Not his argument at all for 500 Alex.

Small words for the clearly slow:

When the child is born, the child has rights.

The child has the right to support from its parents.

The child's rights trump the parent's rights to seek to avoid to support the child.

The parents cannot choose to ignore that right.

So the document signed as described would not have legal standing, as neither the mother nor the father can make that decision for the child after it is born.


Where does this right of support come from.
 
2011-09-21 02:28:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you think Iran should attempt to get nuclear weapons then, right? After all their enemies might use nuclear weapons against them.


How far you going to move those goal posts?

You have been proven to be wrong on just about every one of your responses so far, but contiue to move the goal posts in an attempt to prove you are somehow rigth about soemthing (although I have no idea how Iran's status has fark all to do with yoru firs comment to me).

If Iran had nukes and I was them, I wouldn't give them up. But the reality that you and many of the other clowns who like to bring up Iran in discussions about nukes ignore is that they already signed a nuclear treaty and have benefited from the effects of that treaty. For them to refuse access to inspectors and research things that lead to weapons is to violates that treaty.
 
2011-09-21 02:33:15 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you think Iran should attempt to get nuclear weapons then, right? After all their enemies might use nuclear weapons against them.

How far you going to move those goal posts?

You have been proven to be wrong on just about every one of your responses so far, but contiue to move the goal posts in an attempt to prove you are somehow rigth about soemthing (although I have no idea how Iran's status has fark all to do with yoru firs comment to me).

If Iran had nukes and I was them, I wouldn't give them up. But the reality that you and many of the other clowns who like to bring up Iran in discussions about nukes ignore is that they already signed a nuclear treaty and have benefited from the effects of that treaty. For them to refuse access to inspectors and research things that lead to weapons is to violates that treaty.


You haven't proven anything "wrong". You have stated multiple opinions. I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinions about the benefits of landmines and the negatives of signing a treaty to abolish them.
 
2011-09-21 02:36:55 PM  

Theaetetus: KiltedBastich: The most you could do under those circumstances would be to escape the legal responsibility to assist with medical care during the course of the pregnancy, not escape financial support for the child after birth once it is a legal person in its own right.

You could potentially seek contractual indemnification from the other parent... you still owe the obligation of support, but the other parent agrees to pay such obligation. In fact, this is similar to the contractual position of sperm donors or surrogate mothers.
But, unlike what the MRAs are proposing, you can't simply force someone to indemnify you, nor can you bully them into it.


Yes, that could work. As long as someone is paying the full support, the courts would likely agree that the rights and interests of the child are being accounted for.

I alone am best: Where does this right of support come from.


From long-standing legal traditions based on basic common-sense understandings of human relations and the basic needs to rear children successfully for the continuance of the society and the species? Are you really going to tell me you don't understand why the courts have routinely and unequivocally stated that children have a right to support from their parents?

The only alternative explanation has been to consider children the property of their parents until the age of majority. Is that what you are advocating, or are you simply advocating for the wholesale right of parents to abandon their children without consequence?
 
2011-09-21 02:38:47 PM  

KiltedBastich: Because the rights of the child to support trump the rights of either parent to disavow financial obligation except in the case of putting the child up for adoption, which is already a joint decision. That's settled law.

We aren't discussing settled law. We are discussing the problems with settled law...

No. The woman's opt out is to terminate the pregnancy. The equivalent right would be for the man to be able to terminate the pregnancy. This is trumped by the right to bodily autonomy of the woman.

Outside of giving you other options just in the last post for women's opt out, the issue here is equivalency in choice, not biology. You are suggesting the difference in biology preclude any attempt to resolve the double standard. It doesn't.

EWreckedSean: I disagree. At least in terms of parental choice.

Your disagreement is immaterial. You must demonstrate evidence that your position is more sound, and you have not. Parental choice is not unlimited, and is trumped by more important rights.


Come on, nuh uh isn't an answer. In fact I think I've laid out a fairly strong case as to why my position is more sound, simply saying it is not is nothing but personal opinion.

No, you have claimed it, and you are wrong. This is settled law. You don't want it to be true, because you don't like it. That is, again, completely immaterial. The law of the land is that you cannot tell a woman what to do with her own body, and that you cannot deprive a child of financial support unilaterally, and both of these decisions were made for very good reasons, and changing them would have ramifications far beyond the issue at hand. The consequence of those two legal rights in tandem produces the situation as it is. That you don't like it is completely beside the point.

You have said repeatedly that adoption allows one or both parents to terminate their parental responsibilities. if the child's rights trump theirs, it wouldn't be an option. Adding unilaterally doesn't change that facts. YOU made the case of adoption, not me. I'm just using your example.

No, you have claimed that the child has no right to parental support, and every single relevant legal authority has demonstrated you are wrong. Your opinion on this matter has no weight absent some kind of logical grounds or material evidence, and so far what you have offered is "Well, I don't like it, and the Constitution doesn't say its so"

When parents give their child up for adoption and terminate their parental rights, they do exactly that. The child loses all rights to parental support. How can you have a right to something if the parents can voluntarily terminate it?

Well, your liking it is immaterial. And the right of a child to support is not spelled out in the Consitution because it is based on much older law and convention, so old that it passed unquestioned as blatantly obvious. It is covered indirectly by the 9th amendment that points out the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not remove other rights, and this particular right has been supported by the courts at virtually every turn.

Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.

You do realize, don't you, that you are advocating the right of parents to abandon their children without consequence? That is simply never going to be allowed under any circumstances. The precedent would be both monstrous and a clear invitation to abuse far worse than the financial obligations fathers currently accrue.

No, I am advocating for both parents to have a choice in whether or not to have a child. I am advocating only at this point, when a pregnancy can be terminated, a parent should be able to opt out. Quite the opposite of what you are suggesting, I think the results would be hugely beneficial to society. How many children today live in squalor in one parent homes, unwanted by the other parent who dodges payments at every turn. This wold force people to require much more forethought before bringing a child into this world.

Because abrogating the right to bodily autonomy is worse, both directly and in terms of the precendents, and denying a minor child the support it needs is also worse. Your right to your own body does not preclude social obligations, only direct physical interference. You are presenting a false equivalence in the first case, and a worse infringement on the rights of the child in the second case.

What rights? The state has granted them a privilege that frankly is a violation of several amendments, 5th, 13th and 14th come to mind as the most obvious, and one that can be taken away merely with both parents consent. It's certainly not a false equivalency, but that aside, your right to your own body does not preclude social obligations is a hell of a case for pro-life.

As to abortion, a fetus is not a legally autonomous entity. After birth, the child is a legally autonomous entity. Preventing abortion is thus again a violation of the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. If the fetus cannot survive on its own, it's not a child. If it can, it is potentially a child - which is why a 7 month pregnant woman doesn't get an abortion if a medical complication ensues, she has labor induced to deliver the fetus and the resulting premature child is cared for.

And therefore it has no right to life?

You are arguing in circles now, which should tell you that you have nothing. Simply repeating already-refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid, you know.

I expect a little bit better from you to be honest. You've basically answered an argument about the faults with the current law with "Well that's the way it is."

 
2011-09-21 02:40:25 PM  

I alone am best: KiltedBastich: I alone am best: So the circus starts again. This is like some sort of twilight zone episode.

Them: I like the color blue.

You: The color blue is bad because of the way it refracts light.

Them: But I like it.

You: An octopus lives in the ocean, so that is why I am right.

Or, I'll take, Not his argument at all for 500 Alex.

Small words for the clearly slow:

When the child is born, the child has rights.

The child has the right to support from its parents.

The child's rights trump the parent's rights to seek to avoid to support the child.

The parents cannot choose to ignore that right.

So the document signed as described would not have legal standing, as neither the mother nor the father can make that decision for the child after it is born.

Where does this right of support come from.


I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.
 
2011-09-21 02:43:19 PM  

KiltedBastich: The only alternative explanation has been to consider children the property of their parents until the age of majority. Is that what you are advocating, or are you simply advocating for the wholesale right of parents to abandon their children without consequence?


So a mother can abort a fetus, because it doesn't have rights. But a father can't abandon it without consequence?
 
2011-09-21 02:48:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You haven't proven anything "wrong". You have stated multiple opinions. I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinions about the benefits of landmines and the negatives of signing a treaty to abolish them


Yep you were right about me saying we urgently needed landmines, that we only have them sitting in warehouse and they are used for nothing else, that there can't possibly be a use for them, there is no value in learning how to work with them, etc...

So you moved the goal posts to your idiotic Iran question.
 
2011-09-21 02:50:05 PM  

KiltedBastich: From long-standing legal traditions based on basic common-sense understandings of human relations and the basic needs to rear children successfully for the continuance of the society and the species? Are you really going to tell me you don't understand why the courts have routinely and unequivocally stated that children have a right to support from their parents?


So then, we've got past this point. They have no right to support. You cant prove it, you cant cite it. There may be power granted to states to use common law to dictate support terms through the 10th amendment. You should not consider a provision in a law as a right because that law can be changed at any time, rights are individual and indefinite. Your "rights" cannot be used to infringe on the rights of others.

KiltedBastich: The only alternative explanation has been to consider children the property of their parents until the age of majority. Is that what you are advocating, or are you simply advocating for the wholesale right of parents to abandon their children without consequence?


That is basically what it is. The non bolded part my argument is as follows. I am not advocating the abandonment of children. I am just saying that responsibility should be placed on the mother if the father is unwilling to care for the child in the abortion time frame because she has an option to terminate the relationship in whole.
 
2011-09-21 02:50:45 PM  

EWreckedSean: KiltedBastich: The only alternative explanation has been to consider children the property of their parents until the age of majority. Is that what you are advocating, or are you simply advocating for the wholesale right of parents to abandon their children without consequence?

So a mother can abort a fetus, because it doesn't have rights. But a father can't abandon it without consequence?


Oh, a father can abandon a fetus all he wants. Fetuses have no rights.

That doesn't really make a difference, however, if the fetus is born and becomes a child. The child does have rights, and the father's prior attempt at abandonment is void.
 
2011-09-21 02:51:29 PM  

EWreckedSean: So a mother can abort a fetus, because it doesn't have rights. But a father can't abandon it without consequence?



There aren't any consequences until the baby is born and you start owing child support.
 
2011-09-21 02:53:49 PM  

EWreckedSean: Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.


Next sentence: But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

Additionally: One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808... The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

400 year legal history of support, including decisions in this country less than 25 years after the Constitution was drafted.
 
2011-09-21 02:55:03 PM  

EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.


The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.
 
2011-09-21 02:55:20 PM  
Hey, MRAs, want to know a crazy one? If a woman has a botched late-term abortion, and the resulting child lives, she's on the hook for child support, even though she tried to opt-out! OMG, consistency in the law!
 
2011-09-21 02:55:20 PM  

I alone am best: I am just saying that responsibility should be placed on the mother if the father is unwilling to care for the child in the abortion time frame because she has an option to terminate the relationship in whole.


The dude already made his choice to be willing to care for a child.
 
2011-09-21 02:56:04 PM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.

Next sentence: But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

Additionally: One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808... The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

400 year legal history of support, including decisions in this country less than 25 years after the Constitution was drafted.


That still doesnt make it a right.
 
2011-09-21 02:57:47 PM  

Headso: I alone am best: I am just saying that responsibility should be placed on the mother if the father is unwilling to care for the child in the abortion time frame because she has an option to terminate the relationship in whole.

The dude already made his choice to be willing to care for a child.


We disagree. I get your point bro, its silly to go back and forth.
 
2011-09-21 02:57:55 PM  

I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.


From here:
"Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history."
 
2011-09-21 03:00:39 PM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.

Next sentence: But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

Additionally: One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808... The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

400 year legal history of support, including decisions in this country less than 25 years after the Constitution was drafted.


So you are saying that churches being able to collect reimbursement from government for caring for the poor is legal history for the right of child support from parents. Explain that logic please.
 
2011-09-21 03:01:39 PM  

I alone am best: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.

Next sentence: But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

Additionally: One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808... The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

400 year legal history of support, including decisions in this country less than 25 years after the Constitution was drafted.

That still doesnt make it a right.


"In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental."" Griswold v. Connecticut, citing to Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 .

A 400 year tradition, including laws in all 13 of the original colonies and now all 50 states, as well as international treaties and law in every other industrialized country in the world, suggests that the right to parental support not only exists, but is fundamental.
 
2011-09-21 03:02:16 PM  

Theaetetus: I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.

From here:
"Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history."


Once again. That is not a right. Its law based on precident.
 
2011-09-21 03:04:37 PM  

I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.


Yeah that's where I was going in trying to explain that a right isn't something that can be terminated by somebody else voluntarily, which is exactly what happens when parents give up their child for adoption and terminate their parental rights.
 
2011-09-21 03:06:05 PM  

Theaetetus: A 400 year tradition, including laws in all 13 of the original colonies and now all 50 states, as well as international treaties and law in every other industrialized country in the world, suggests that the right to parental support not only exists, but is fundamental.


No, its not a right. We also have a long history of enumerated rights which is actually outlined in the constitution which happens to trump common law or state rights. Your rights cannot use your rights to deprive others of theirs.
 
2011-09-21 03:06:07 PM  

I alone am best: Theaetetus: I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.

From here:
"Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history."

Once again. That is not a right. Its law based on precident.


What is a "right", then? Must it be enumerated in the Bill of Rights, despite the clear declaration by the Bill that it is not an exhaustive list?
 
2011-09-21 03:08:58 PM  

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Which older laws exactly? This article on the history of child support suggest quite differently that such laws didn't exist.

Excerpt: America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.

Next sentence: But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

Additionally: One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808... The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

400 year legal history of support, including decisions in this country less than 25 years after the Constitution was drafted.

That still doesnt make it a right.

"In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental."" Griswold v. Connecticut, citing to Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 .

A 400 year tradition, including laws in all 13 of the original colonies and now all 50 states, as well as international treaties and law in every other industrialized country in the world, suggests that the right to parental support not only exists, but is fundamental.


The Poor Laws didn't remotely provide for parental financial support. And can you source some of these colonial laws? Other than the one liner on one page that you took verbatim, and the source for is a broken link, everything I have found suggest laws weren't in place until the mid-1800s.
 
2011-09-21 03:09:26 PM  

EWreckedSean: So you are saying that churches being able to collect reimbursement from government for caring for the poor is legal history for the right of child support from parents. Explain that logic please.


Actually, it was from the absent parent (new window).

And yes, the government being able to enforce an obligation of a parent to pay for their child is legal history for the right of the child for support from the parent.
 
2011-09-21 03:11:24 PM  

qorkfiend: I alone am best: Theaetetus: I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.

From here:
"Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history."

Once again. That is not a right. Its law based on precident.

What is a "right", then? Must it be enumerated in the Bill of Rights, despite the clear declaration by the Bill that it is not an exhaustive list?


Rights are individual. For example, and I don't want to argue about this because I don't have the time but ill try to explain it a bit. Lets look at the term commonly thrown around "Right to marriage" that term is non existent. Your rights are individual, if I had a right to marry then I could force the government to provide me with a wife. However if that person did not want to be my wife it would be violating not only her inalienable rights but her right to property and equal protection.
 
2011-09-21 03:12:30 PM  

I alone am best: Theaetetus: A 400 year tradition, including laws in all 13 of the original colonies and now all 50 states, as well as international treaties and law in every other industrialized country in the world, suggests that the right to parental support not only exists, but is fundamental.

No, its not a right. We also have a long history of enumerated rights which is actually outlined in the constitution which happens to trump common law or state rights. Your rights cannot use your rights to deprive others of theirs.


/facepalm

This is almost exactly, 100% wrong.
 
2011-09-21 03:13:07 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You haven't proven anything "wrong". You have stated multiple opinions. I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinions about the benefits of landmines and the negatives of signing a treaty to abolish them

Yep you were right about me saying we urgently needed landmines, that we only have them sitting in warehouse and they are used for nothing else, that there can't possibly be a use for them, there is no value in learning how to work with them, etc...

So you moved the goal posts to your idiotic Iran question.


Heh, it's so funny when you lie like that. Almost as funny as this:

www.mineaction.org
 
2011-09-21 03:14:38 PM  

I alone am best: Lets look at the term commonly thrown around "Right to marriage" that term is non existent.


www.drgrotte.com
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
 
2011-09-21 03:15:09 PM  

KiltedBastich: I alone am best: Where does this right of support come from.

From long-standing legal traditions based on basic common-sense understandings of human relations and the basic needs to rear children successfully for the continuance of the society and the species? Are you really going to tell me you don't understand why the courts have routinely and unequivocally stated that children have a right to support from their parents?


Saying that the baby has a right to be supported and saying that the baby has a right to be supported by two specific people are two different things. If we were going to give fathers the right to opt out, I'd say it would be reasonable for 50% of the child's costs to be covered by the taxpayers (so of course the father has to pay his share of the taxes).

This makes me wonder about safe-haven laws, an area that I don't know a whole lot about. It's my understanding that a woman can dump her baby at a police station or whatever and waive her rights and responsibilities towards it, child support among them.

That's a pretty clean process if it's a single mother, but what happens when there's a dad in the picture? Suppose he tracks down the baby and claims custody... can he make a child support claim against the mother who abandoned the child? Or is she still covered under the safe haven law? If the latter, then we're back to needing an opt-out for the unwilling dads.

Even if neither parent is interested, doesn't a safe-haven law still contradict your earlier statement that a child has the right to be supported by both of its parents?
 
2011-09-21 03:15:59 PM  

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Theaetetus: I alone am best: EWreckedSean: I'll be honest, I've yet to find an answer to that. He suggested long standing English Law, but my research has found very specifically that such law did not exist.

The states do reserve the power to dictate support terms which is done through the 10th amendment. I think they are just misspeaking themselves and going with the word "right" with a completely different connotation.

From here:
"Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history."

Once again. That is not a right. Its law based on precident.

What is a "right", then? Must it be enumerated in the Bill of Rights, despite the clear declaration by the Bill that it is not an exhaustive list?

Rights are individual. For example, and I don't want to argue about this because I don't have the time but ill try to explain it a bit. Lets look at the term commonly thrown around "Right to marriage" that term is non existent. Your rights are individual, if I had a right to marry then I could force the government to provide me with a wife. However if that person did not want to be my wife it would be violating not only her inalienable rights but her right to property and equal protection.


Uh, no? Your right to bear arms doesn't mean you can force the government to provide you with a firearm.
 
2011-09-21 03:21:19 PM  

Headso: If she decides to agree with your choice that you already made to have a child


What choice? What child? If the woman can choose to not have a child (abortion) and it is still legal (it's not a child) the man should be able to as well. Biologically he may have a child but legally he should be able to sever ties.

I'm okay with the woman being the sole decider on whether the biological ties get severed or not because the alternative would be an infringement on her rights and in return would gain the equivalent of nothing (because again, it's not a child, it has no rights, the father has no child, no rights and so on).
 
2011-09-21 03:23:52 PM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: So you are saying that churches being able to collect reimbursement from government for caring for the poor is legal history for the right of child support from parents. Explain that logic please.

Actually, it was from the absent parent (new window).

And yes, the government being able to enforce an obligation of a parent to pay for their child is legal history for the right of the child for support from the parent.


Um, where does it say that?

The act levied a poor rate on each parish which Overseers of the Poor were able to collect. Those who had to pay this rate were property owners, or rather, in most cases, occupiers including tenants.
 
2011-09-21 03:25:58 PM  

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: A 400 year tradition, including laws in all 13 of the original colonies and now all 50 states, as well as international treaties and law in every other industrialized country in the world, suggests that the right to parental support not only exists, but is fundamental.

No, its not a right. We also have a long history of enumerated rights which is actually outlined in the constitution which happens to trump common law or state rights. Your rights cannot use your rights to deprive others of theirs.

/facepalm

This is almost exactly, 100% wrong.


Dude, please read your 14th amendment and look up the incorporation doctrine...
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report