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  
•       •       •

2233 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 03:27:23 PM  

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

What choice? What child?


You made a choice to have a child when you had unprotected sex. She chooses to have an abortion or not because that all happens within her body but by then you've already checked the "I want a child" box.
 
2011-09-21 03:27:26 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."


Wow you utterly missed his point.
 
2011-09-21 03:28:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


Point out the lie.

You accused me of thinking they were needed "urgently" -

So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines :

You said they only sit in warehouses-
sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?
You said there is no value in learning how to work with them (even though they can be used against us)-
a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6579584/71860558#c71860558">Why do we need skills to work with or improve a weapon we are never going to use?
:


Once again the liar here is you.

Philip Francis Queeg: Almost as funny as this:


Another brillian piece of Queeg logic. The US hasn't used landmines in 20+years but because I see the value in having them, even though I don't want them used I must think a picture of a kid blown up by a landmine is funny.
 
2011-09-21 03:28:39 PM  

serial_crusher: 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).



Heh, I wonder if EWreckedSean would agree with this...
 
2011-09-21 03:30:58 PM  

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


You are discussing your perceived problems with settled law. The problem that you are not facing is that all these arguments were made during the legal cases that led to the settled law. You haven't presented anything new. You have only rehashed the reasons why things are as they are now. These arguments weren't sufficient then, and they aren't now, for the reasons enumerated.

EWreckedSean: 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.


Yes it does. It precludes a legally egalitarian solution because you can never have physically egalitarian circumstances as things stand. All you can do is replace the current "double standard" with something that infringes on someone else's right worse than it infringes on father's rights currently.

That you prefer that particular side to the others is immaterial for the purposes of the decision making process.

EWreckedSean: 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 haven't, actually. You have reiterated a flawed perception of the situation that conflates two separate legal rights and ignores that it creates worse infringements of rights than the situation you seek to redress. That is not an answer, it is simply hurting others more in order to benefit your chosen preferred group.

I repeat, your arguments are not new, and they weren't sufficient grounds the first time they came up in the actual legal cases.

EWreckedSean: 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.


Adoption is always a joint decision except in cases of outright legal incapacity of one or both parents, and in that case the state takes over the obligation to either directly provide for the support of the childm, or seek an alternative guardian that accepts that responsibility. The child's rights are not abrogated in that situation. There is not and never has been any provision for either parent to unilaterally withdraw support, and the courts have been explicit on denying that on many occasions for both sexes. You are presenting either a false equivalence here, or a straw man, or possibly both.

EWreckedSean: 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?


Jointly. Neither parent can make the decision on their own, and for exactlly that reason the parents cannot walk away from their individual obligations. To do otherwise opens the doors to all kinds of possible abuses that have been forseen by the courts and expressly denied as legal possibilities.

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.


Then I invite you to research the history of legal precedent on the subject in the USA, and recognize just exactly how wrong you are. This point is not in contention, and has not been ever since the idea that children are not chattel of their parents became the dominant legal interpretation. Inasmuch as the child is a person in its own rights, and not the property of its parents, it is entitled to support.

EWreckedSean: 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.


Bullshiat. It would not force people to have more forethought. That is not how human reasoning works, as any criminologist could very easily tell you. All it does is allow a parent to escape responsibility for the child after the fact, and it would set a monstrous precedent, because there is no substantive difference between abandoning a child at that point without consequence and abandoning it at any other time without consequence.

In fact, your whole phrasing is itself subtly misogynistic, because in your last sentence you say:

EWreckedSean: This wold force people to require much more forethought before bringing a child into this world.


But here you quite obviously mean "women" when you say "people", because only men can attempt to evade responsibility for a child before the fact. You are basically saying that you want to let men walk from the responsibility to support their child in order to make women "have more forethought". How dare those women!

The child's right to support trumps the desires of the parent to escape financial obligation. It is precisely this sort of thing that the courts were seeking to prevent with that decision. And I would suggest to you that being on the hook for support is a much more powerful incentive for men to take control of their own fertility than knowing they can fark who they want with no consequences.

EWreckedSean: 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.


Rights are not absolutes. When pursuit of your rights infringes on someone else's, then it is up to the courts to decide whose claim has precedence. They have done so, and reasoned well. That you don't like it doesn't change that calculation.

And it is farcical to say that this position can be used to support pro-life. Abortion is never a "social obligation". It is a medical procedure that has physical consequences for the woman. Someone else's incurring a social obligation does not trump your right to make decisions about what happens to your physical body, all other things being equal. Working does not require you to undertake invasive medical procedures without consent on someone else's decision, nor does it force you to abstain from a medical procedure you deem necessary.

Tell you what, you show me a job that requires a medical procedure that you can't quit and leave instead of having the procedure and prove to me why that situation is ethically acceptable, then we will talk about whether you can force a woman to have an abortion because you don't want to support the child.

EWreckedSean: And therefore it has no right to life?


Not until after it is born, it doesn't, or barring that until it is viable without direct support from the mother's body.

EWreckedSean: 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."

No, I am saying that it is the way it is because there is a biological asymmetry that underlies the legal asymmetry. You can't fix the legal asymmetry without fixing the biological asymmetry first, all you can do is choose who is infringed upon, and the least bad option is to infringe on the father.

There is a solution, which would be to trivialize male control over their own fertility, such that it would be functionally impossible for a woman to get pregnant without the man's consent. The thing is, that would not change the current legal situation, only reinforce it, because then any man who gets a woman pregnant and then tries to duck out would not have any justification at all, not even the threadbare one you are currently attempting to use.

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.


No, I said:

KiltedBastich: the right of a child to support is not spelled out in the Consitution because it is based on much older law and convention


The link you cited demonstrates how it goes back in part to English poor law in the 1600's, but that most of the case laws specifically in the USA date back to 1808 at the earliest, but became more and more widespread and accepted.

So that isn't enough for you, then? Why not?

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


Exactly, because if the mother doesn't abort it, it eventually stops being a fetus, and at that point has rights that the father can not simply ignore. Legal rights do change with time you know, that's not exactly a controversial position. I would suggest that whatever else we may argue about, that particular argument is entirely baseless.

Can a father prevent his child from ever having a drink, or ever driving a car, or ever voting, just because the child cannot do those things before the age of majority? Once the child becomes an adult, the father loses the right to make those legal decisions. Similarly, while a fetus does not have legal rights, the child it later becomes does, and the father does not have the right to ignore the child's rights just because it was once a fetus.
 
2011-09-21 03:33:38 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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...


Dude, please return to a high school civics class. Enumerated rights in the constitution do not "trump" other rights, particularly since they expressly "do not deny or disparage" non-enumerated rights. Furthermore, while the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states, the federal constitutional rights do not "trump" rights enumerated in state constitutions, which may confer greater rights. This is the concept behind our federal system - each state retains sovereignty and can grant greater protections than the federal government provides.
 
2011-09-21 03:34:48 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.


No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.
 
2011-09-21 03:35:03 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?


Once it leaves the womb it has instantaneous rights that allow it to retroactively be entitled to health care money fromt he father when it was a fetus.
 
2011-09-21 03:37:11 PM  

KiltedBastich: Exactly, because if the mother doesn't abort it, it eventually stops being a fetus, and at that point has rights that the father can not simply ignore. Legal rights do change with time you know, that's not exactly a controversial position. I would suggest that whatever else we may argue about, that particular argument is entirely baseless.


I can't think of a single other case where you retrocatively become entitled to something when you reach X age, as it does when a fetus becomes a child.
 
2011-09-21 03:39:23 PM  

liam76: retrocatively become entitled

liam76: retroactively be entitled


You're the only person who brought up "retroactive". That you can successfully tear down your strawman isn't very persuasive.
 
2011-09-21 03:43:10 PM  

guestguy: serial_crusher: 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).

Heh, I wonder if EWreckedSean would agree with this...


Why would I agree with that. If a woman is pregnant, and a father wants nothing to do with it, she should look at her finances and make the proper responsible course. What happens now is that they expect the father to be an ATM machine. Then many of them spend years dodging child support for children they never wanted while the mother ends up relying on the state instead through food stamps, low cost housing, welfare, medicaid, etc.
 
2011-09-21 03:43:55 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Point out the lie.

You accused me of thinking they were needed "urgently" -
So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines :

You said they only sit in warehouses-
sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?
You said there is no value in learning how to work with them (even though they can be used against us)-
a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6579584/71860558#c71860558">Why do we need skills to work with or improve a weapon we are never going to use? :

Once again the liar here is you.

Philip Francis Queeg: Almost as funny as this:

Another brillian piece of Queeg logic. The US hasn't used landmines in 20+years but because I see the value in having them, even though I don't want them used I must think a picture of a kid blown up by a landmine is funny.


Once again proving that you are the most dishonest person on Fark.

Simply having landmines does what to civilian populations after the conflict ends?

So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?


At least try to make you outright lies a little less obvious than starting a quote mid sentence.

Oh, and for your most recently added lie:

Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War (new window)

U.S. Landmine Policy (new window)
 
2011-09-21 03:45:29 PM  

Theaetetus: You're the only person who brought up "retroactive". That you can successfully tear down your strawman isn't very persuasive


How is it a strawman when men have to pay child support they have to pay back money that was used for prenatal care.


How was it "torn down"?
 
2011-09-21 03:45:41 PM  

I alone am best: 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.


Then you are a monstrous person that I now find to be ethically repugnant, and I am actually finding it a bit difficult now to not recoil from my screen as I read what you wrote.

Children are not property. They are not chattel. You have no ownership of them. You are their legal guardian, with an obligation to support them.

Do you not understand why claiming children are property is repugnant? It is a subtle and pernicious form of slavery that exploits the most vulnerable.

As to the rest of your argument, it is specious. All rights are legal constructs. We have rights because we all collectively say we have rights. They are not an objective aspect of the universe. It is commonplace for various rights to conflict, and for the courts to decide on their priority. It is in fact one of the major jobs of the courts in general.

serial_crusher: 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?


Now, here you have an interesting argument - but the precedents have been that in cases where the mother needs support from the state, the state can recoup costs from the father, because he cannot waive his primary responsibility to the child. The father has more responsibility to the child than does an uninvolved member of the general public (which is not to say the public has no responsibility) and I am unconvinced you can effectively waive that, because it is a function of biology as much as of law.

The problem of course is that it would enable a massive cost to society as men (and women, for that matter) chose to abandon their own responsibility and dump it on the state. I suspect a tragedy of the commons effect would ensue.

And it remains different from adoption, when the state can seek a set of alternative parents who assume the financial responsibilities in toto.

As to the safe haven laws, that is also a good question, I do not know enough about them, although I suspect that a father could seek to claim the child if paternity could be proven (not too hard) and in that case what I know of legal precedent could mean that the woman would be on the hook despite the safe haven laws because she was not legally able to make the decision to abandon the child unilaterally. I think the courts would have to fight that one out to see what the decision would be, it looks murky to me.
 
2011-09-21 03:45:43 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.

No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.


Which is why I said you missed his point.
 
2011-09-21 03:48:52 PM  

liam76: I can't think of a single other case where you retrocatively become entitled to something when you reach X age, as it does when a fetus becomes a child.


And there is no retroactive rights for the fetus, either. The father is legally entitled to abandon the fetus. Once it is born and becomes a child, he is then obligated to support it beginning with the moment of birth. There is no retroactive obligation. Anything up to the moment of birth I fully agree as things stand he is entitled to abandon the mother and fetus. It's still a douchebag thing to do, but it's not illegal, or even in contravention of legal ethics.
 
2011-09-21 03:50:25 PM  

liam76: Theaetetus: You're the only person who brought up "retroactive". That you can successfully tear down your strawman isn't very persuasive

How is it a strawman when men have to pay child support they have to pay back money that was used for prenatal care.

How was it "torn down"?


Who do they pay back that money to? Is it the child? No. Then it's not child support. Instead, it's actually owed to the mother as a quasi-contractual obligation.
You may think this is an unimportant distinction, but since your strawman hinged on the child having the right to retroactive support from before it existed, it's crucial to your point.
 
2011-09-21 03:52:15 PM  

KiltedBastich: The condition of not being a child is time-limited.


Agreed.

KiltedBastich: The request to waive financial obligation is not.


Of course you realize, I'm not arguing the way things currently are. I'm arguing for the way they should be. And let's be clear, I'm not talking just about financial obligation. You don't get to waive that and keep the rest. I'm talking about waiving all rights and responsibilities entirely. So yes, the ability to request a waiver to all rights and responsibilities should be the father equivalent to a woman being able to choose an abortion or not.

With abortion a woman can waive her legal and "biological" rights to the fetus.
With what I propose, a man can waive his legal rights to the fetus. But it's her body, so she gets final say on the biology/birthing part.

KiltedBastich: The most you could do


Again, you have lost what I am saying. I agree what the status quo is. I'm arguing the status quo should be changed. It should be changed because it causes an unintended and significant harm - specifically it infringes on a man's right to choose.
 
2011-09-21 03:52:29 PM  

KiltedBastich: Anything up to the moment of birth I fully agree as things stand he is entitled to abandon the mother and fetus.


Several states allow the mother to recover in equity for prenatal care. But that's the mother, not a retroactive right of the fetus.
 
2011-09-21 03:53:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: At least try to make you outright lies a little less obvious than starting a quote mid sentence.


Please point out which one was a lie?

You pretended I said they were urgently needed, I never did.

You said they only sit in warehouses, they don't.

You denied there could be any possible benefit from learning to work from them.

I provided links to all of those claims by you.

Where is the lie?


Philip Francis Queeg: Oh, and for your most recently added lie:

Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War (new window)

U.S. Landmine Policy


Two random links, one to a huge PDF's and no mention of which "lie" it was in reference to.
 
2011-09-21 03:53:59 PM  

EWreckedSean: guestguy: serial_crusher: 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).

Heh, I wonder if EWreckedSean would agree with this...

Why would I agree with that. If a woman is pregnant, and a father wants nothing to do with it, she should look at her finances and make the proper responsible course. What happens now is that they expect the father to be an ATM machine. Then many of them spend years dodging child support for children they never wanted while the mother ends up relying on the state instead through food stamps, low cost housing, welfare, medicaid, etc.


How would it be any different if the father opted out exactly? People aren't suddenly going to become more responsible. Mothers will still end up needing aid from the state...in fact there is a strong possibility that more aid will be required overall since the money coming from child support payments will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.
 
2011-09-21 03:54:36 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.

No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.

Which is why I said you missed his point.


... so you're saying you've missed his point and mine? Well, I'd agree, but I'm not sure why you want to go advertising your ignorance.
 
2011-09-21 03:56:39 PM  

Headso: You made a choice to have a child when you had unprotected sex.


So you're pro life in all cases except rape? I couldn't disagree more but I respect your opinion. I'll admit, I wonder what you would think about a case where protection failed. Or even better, what if a woman pokes holes in his condom, so he made the choice to not and she was the sole decider yes?

Headso: She chooses to have an abortion or not because that all happens within her body


Oh, you're pro-choice. Awkward given your stance that people made a choice to have a child when they had unprotected sex. I guess only men made that choice when they had unprotected sex. Punish the manslut and all?

Headso: but by then you've already checked the "I want a child" box.


That was actually the "I want box" box.
 
2011-09-21 04:02:10 PM  

lennavan: Of course you realize, I'm not arguing the way things currently are. I'm arguing for the way they should be. And let's be clear, I'm not talking just about financial obligation. You don't get to waive that and keep the rest. I'm talking about waiving all rights and responsibilities entirely. So yes, the ability to request a waiver to all rights and responsibilities should be the father equivalent to a woman being able to choose an abortion or not.

With abortion a woman can waive her legal and "biological" rights to the fetus.
With what I propose, a man can waive his legal rights to the fetus. But it's her body, so she gets final say on the biology/birthing part.


He can waive his legal rights to the fetus. He can't waive his legal rights to the child, because it is not his rights that are at issue, but the rights of the child to have support. It doesn't matter whether he wants to waive his rights or not at that point. The child has a legal right to support, and the father is the one who is responsible for that. He doesn't get a say on that, and should not, because the harm to the child for him withholding support is greater than the harm to him for providing the support.

lennavan: Again, you have lost what I am saying. I agree what the status quo is. I'm arguing the status quo should be changed. It should be changed because it causes an unintended and significant harm - specifically it infringes on a man's right to choose.


Of course it does. I addressed that already several times. The biological asymmetry of pregnancy and birth mean that no matter what you do, someone is on the hook - either the mother, the child, or the father, all of whom have equal rights in the eyes of the law. Of the possible outcomes, leaving the father on the hook is the one that causes the least infringement and the least harm. It sucks for the father, but the alternatives suck worse for the other parties.

Theaetetus: Several states allow the mother to recover in equity for prenatal care. But that's the mother, not a retroactive right of the fetus.


Agreed. And I do not have any specific ethical commitment to that particular law, personally. I can see the argument for it, but I can also see the argument that it is a technical violation of the rights of the man, if he can prove deception or misrepresentation, etc. All of which becomes moot once the child is actually born, because then its rights to support trump the rest of it for both parents, unless they can agree to jointly give the child up for adoption so that some other people can act as parents instead.
 
2011-09-21 04:04:28 PM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: At least try to make you outright lies a little less obvious than starting a quote mid sentence.

Please point out which one was a lie?

You pretended I said they were urgently needed, I never did.

You said they only sit in warehouses, they don't.

You denied there could be any possible benefit from learning to work from them.

I provided links to all of those claims by you.

Where is the lie?


Philip Francis Queeg: Oh, and for your most recently added lie:

Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War (new window)

U.S. Landmine Policy

Two random links, one to a huge PDF's and no mention of which "lie" it was in reference to.



I never said they only sat in warehouses. Read it again. I responded to your suggestion that "simply having landmines" wasn't a danger to the population. I asked you if there was a need to have sitting in warehouses, because "simply having landmines" means not deploying and using them.

The US hasn't used landmines in 20+years- lie. We've never stopped using landmines, let alone 20+ years ago, as shown by the "random" (random now meaning official US statements of policy) links you were too dim to comprehend, or too dishonest to admit proved your pathetic claim wrong.
 
2011-09-21 04:06:43 PM  

KiltedBastich: liam76: I can't think of a single other case where you retrocatively become entitled to something when you reach X age, as it does when a fetus becomes a child.

And there is no retroactive rights for the fetus, either. The father is legally entitled to abandon the fetus. Once it is born and becomes a child, he is then obligated to support it beginning with the moment of birth. There is no retroactive obligation. Anything up to the moment of birth I fully agree as things stand he is entitled to abandon the mother and fetus. It's still a douchebag thing to do, but it's not illegal, or even in contravention of legal ethics.


If he has to pay back the mother for prenatal care it doesn;t begin witht he moment of birth.

Theaetetus: Who do they pay back that money to? Is it the child? No. Then it's not child support. Instead, it's actually owed to the mother as a quasi-contractual obligation.


Child support doesn't go the child either. It is odd that you would make the distinction now.

It goes as a "quasi-contractual obligation" for what and to cover what? Is the father on the hook for it if the baby doesn't come to term?

Theaetetus: You may think this is an unimportant distinction, but since your strawman hinged on the child having the right to retroactive support from before it existed, it's crucial to your point


No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.
 
2011-09-21 04:07:15 PM  
KiltedBastich: You are discussing your perceived problems with settled law. The problem that you are not facing is that all these arguments were made during the legal cases that led to the settled law. You haven't presented anything new. You have only rehashed the reasons why things are as they are now. These arguments weren't sufficient then, and they aren't now, for the reasons enumerated.

You know Florida just had a complete overhaul of our child custody/support system just recently. I love how you think that because something s a law now, it is immutable and past discussing. Better still that you think it means the problems are only perceived problems by me, and the father's rights movement doesn't exist.

Yes it does. It precludes a legally egalitarian solution because you can never have physically egalitarian circumstances as things stand. All you can do is replace the current "double standard" with something that infringes on someone else's right worse than it infringes on father's rights currently.

Worse is a measurement solely of your opinion. The matter is hardly settled.

No, you haven't, actually. You have reiterated a flawed perception of the situation that conflates two separate legal rights and ignores that it creates worse infringements of rights than the situation you seek to redress. That is not an answer, it is simply hurting others more in order to benefit your chosen preferred group.

I repeat, your arguments are not new, and they weren't sufficient grounds the first time they came up in the actual legal cases.


There is that word worse again. And it is still opinion, and your opinion frankly doesn't define the discussion. You have made no case of why it is worse, just repeated this invented right to support argument that you then proved was not a right a line later.

Adoption is always a joint decision except in cases of outright legal incapacity of one or both parents, and in that case the state takes over the obligation to either directly provide for the support of the childm, or seek an alternative guardian that accepts that responsibility. The child's rights are not abrogated in that situation. There is not and never has been any provision for either parent to unilaterally withdraw support, and the courts have been explicit on denying that on many occasions for both sexes. You are presenting either a false equivalence here, or a straw man, or possibly both

That is a fine strawman you've come up with there. You utterly failed to address the issue a made, which is that the ability of parents to voluntarily terminate their parental rights and responsibilities shows why parental support isn't a right at all. Tossing in a red herring about joint decision is meaningless. It's not a joint decision with the child, who would be the only one who could terminate parental support if it was a right.

Jointly. Neither parent can make the decision on their own, and for exactlly that reason the parents cannot walk away from their individual obligations. To do otherwise opens the doors to all kinds of possible abuses that have been forseen by the courts and expressly denied as legal possibilities

Again with the jointly. the fact that they have to get together and decide to terminate their parental rights doesn't change the fact that they can do it. If their rights were superseded by the child's right to support, even jointly they could not do it.

Then I invite you to research the history of legal precedent on the subject in the USA, and recognize just exactly how wrong you are. This point is not in contention, and has not been ever since the idea that children are not chattel of their parents became the dominant legal interpretation. Inasmuc ...

I did research it, even sourced why you are wrong. I welcome you to actually defend your point if you'd like.

Rights are not absolutes. When pursuit of your rights infringes on someone else's, then it is up to the courts to decide whose claim has precedence. They have done so, and reasoned well. That you don't like it doesn't change that calculation.

Rights are indefinite. This is a privilege granted by the state that can easily be taken away.

And it is farcical to say that this position can be used to support pro-life. Abortion is never a "social obligation".


I didn't say abortion was, I said child birth is. Carrying a child to term can easily be considered a social obligation. As I said, since social obligation trumps person liberty in your view, you are basically making a pro-life argument.

The link you cited demonstrates how it goes back in part to English poor law in the 1600's, but that most of the case laws specifically in the USA date back to 1808 at the earliest, but became more and more widespread and accepted.

So that isn't enough for you, then? Why not?


The Poor Laws makes no provision for parental child support what so ever. And the link clearly states that English law had no such legal provision. So no, not remotely enough.
 
2011-09-21 04:07:58 PM  

lennavan: Oh, you're pro-choice. Awkward given your stance that people made a choice to have a child when they had unprotected sex.


The dude made a choice to have a child when he had unprotected sex... His chance to choose to have a child or not occurs there, the woman's chance to choose extends for a longer time.
 
2011-09-21 04:09:32 PM  

guestguy: EWreckedSean: guestguy: serial_crusher: 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).

Heh, I wonder if EWreckedSean would agree with this...

Why would I agree with that. If a woman is pregnant, and a father wants nothing to do with it, she should look at her finances and make the proper responsible course. What happens now is that they expect the father to be an ATM machine. Then many of them spend years dodging child support for children they never wanted while the mother ends up relying on the state instead through food stamps, low cost housing, welfare, medicaid, etc.

How would it be any different if the father opted out exactly? People aren't suddenly going to become more responsible. Mothers will still end up needing aid from the state...in fact there is a strong possibility that more aid will be required overall since the money coming from child support payments will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.


Because it is a lot different of a choice to have a child if you know up front that you will be responsible yourself for supporting it.
 
2011-09-21 04:10:03 PM  

lennavan: what if a woman pokes holes in his condom, so he made the choice to not and she was the sole decider yes?


yeah, as I said to someone else in the thread who had the same point I think we can all agree that people should not victimize each other.
 
2011-09-21 04:11:16 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.

No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.

Which is why I said you missed his point.

... so you're saying you've missed his point and mine? Well, I'd agree, but I'm not sure why you want to go advertising your ignorance.


I got his point completely. Your the one in the dark still bucko.
 
2011-09-21 04:15:32 PM  

KiltedBastich: The biological asymmetry of pregnancy and birth mean that no matter what you do, someone is on the hook - either the mother, the child, or the father, all of whom have equal rights in the eyes of the law. Of the possible outcomes, leaving the father on the hook is the one that causes the least infringement and the least harm. It sucks for the father, but the alternatives suck worse for the other parties.


Here, you discuss the asymmetry of biology as the argument. I get it and I agree. That's why I agree, the woman gets final say on severing the biology to the fetus. A fetus is the potential for life. Because of the asymmetry of biology, a woman should get the final say to sever that potential for life.

KiltedBastich: He can waive his legal rights to the fetus...


Here you discuss legal rights and move from fetus to child. A fetus has no rights and a father has no rights to the fetus to waive or not waive. Biologically, there is asymmetry for the reasons you outlined that I agree with. But with respect to legal responsibilities, there should be no asymmetry. There is no need for asymmetry. A woman can sever the potential for life and with it the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. A man should be able to sever the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. But because of the asymmetry he gets no say on the potential for life part.

KiltedBastich: It sucks for the father, but the alternatives suck worse for the other parties.


There are only two parties, the mother and the father. The father is severing the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. He is causing no person harm. At best, you could argue he is causing the potential child harm. To which I would reply an abortion is causing a potential child harm.

You are arguing he is causing a potential child harm. Yet would you simultaneously argue pro-choice?

You do see how these two things are in direct logical conflict, right?
 
2011-09-21 04:16:17 PM  

liam76: No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.


No, she doesn't. That's like saying a bald person has sole power in determining what color to dye his hair. There is no hair.
The mother has absolutely no power to tell the father that they don't have to pay a child support obligation that they owe. She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument.
 
2011-09-21 04:17:07 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.

No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.

Which is why I said you missed his point.

... so you're saying you've missed his point and mine? Well, I'd agree, but I'm not sure why you want to go advertising your ignorance.

I got his point completely. Your the one in the dark still bucko.


Hush, adults are speaking.
 
2011-09-21 04:18:40 PM  

EWreckedSean: The Poor Laws makes no provision for parental child support what so ever


And be it further enacted, That the Father and grandfather, and the Mother and Grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and impotent person, or other poor person, not able to work, being of a sufficient ability, shall at their own charges relieve and maintain every such poor person in that manner, and according to that rate, as by the Justices of peace of that County where such sufficient persons dwell, or the greater number of them, at their general quarter Sessions shall be assessed, upon pain that every one them shall forfeit twenty shillings for every month which they shall fail therein.
 
2011-09-21 04:19:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I never said they only sat in warehouses. Read it again. I responded to your suggestion that "simply having landmines" wasn't a danger to the population. I asked you if there was a need to have sitting in warehouses, because "simply having landmines" means not deploying and using them.


So where did urgent come from?

Why did you claim we gain nothing from working with them? Even when I pointed out how having them could be useful you never retracted the "warehouse" claim, and said you disagree with everything I said. Which leads me to believe you still supported it.



Philip Francis Queeg: The US hasn't used landmines in 20+years- lie. We've never stopped using landmines, let alone 20+ years ago, as shown by the "random" (random now meaning official US statements of policy) links you were too dim to comprehend, or too dishonest to admit proved your pathetic claim wrong


The PDF was about the first gulf war (and quite long, too long for you to read after a quick GIS).

You link on US landmine policy says nothing about the last time they were used.

US has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, nor produced them since 1997 (new window)

So who is being dishonest here?
 
2011-09-21 04:20:05 PM  

Headso: lennavan: what if a woman pokes holes in his condom, so he made the choice to not and she was the sole decider yes?

yeah, as I said to someone else in the thread who had the same point I think we can all agree that people should not victimize each other.


And so what, she would be on the hook all by herself, or what? You hinge your argument on unprotected sex. I'm asking you what do you do in the case where the father did everything he possibly could to have safe sex and it fails. What do you do then? Is he on the hook?
 
2011-09-21 04:22:30 PM  

EWreckedSean: Because it is a lot different of a choice to have a child if you know up front that you will be responsible yourself for supporting it.



But you're not responsible yourself...either way, the mother will have help in supporting the child. By allowing the father to opt out, that financial burden is merely shifted to the state.
 
2011-09-21 04:22:42 PM  

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

[www.drgrotte.com image 482x340]
The Supreme Court frowns upon your shenanigans.

/"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wow you utterly missed his point.

No - he said that there was no right to marriage. The Supreme Court believes otherwise.

Which is why I said you missed his point.

... so you're saying you've missed his point and mine? Well, I'd agree, but I'm not sure why you want to go advertising your ignorance.

I got his point completely. Your the one in the dark still bucko.

Hush, adults are speaking.


Why are you here then?
 
2011-09-21 04:23:50 PM  

guestguy: EWreckedSean: Because it is a lot different of a choice to have a child if you know up front that you will be responsible yourself for supporting it.

But you're not responsible yourself...either way, the mother will have help in supporting the child. By allowing the father to opt out, that financial burden is merely shifted to the state.


How am I not responsible myself? That aside, that's a hell of a condemnation on woman right there that they can't financially support a child on their own.
 
2011-09-21 04:24:46 PM  

lennavan: Headso: lennavan: what if a woman pokes holes in his condom, so he made the choice to not and she was the sole decider yes?

yeah, as I said to someone else in the thread who had the same point I think we can all agree that people should not victimize each other.

And so what, she would be on the hook all by herself, or what? You hinge your argument on unprotected sex. I'm asking you what do you do in the case where the father did everything he possibly could to have safe sex and it fails. What do you do then? Is he on the hook?


If she gets away with victimizing him I guess so, just like how a mugger gets to spend your money after he victimizes you.
 
2011-09-21 04:24:53 PM  

Theaetetus: She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument


How does that shred my argument?

Jesus man you are dense. If there is a child guy has to pay. Women gets to decide if there is a child, hence she has more power in if ther are child support payments.


/still waiitng for how "quasi-contractual obligation" to the mother after she has a kid is different than child support
 
2011-09-21 04:26:35 PM  

Theaetetus: liam76: No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.

No, she doesn't. That's like saying a bald person has sole power in determining what color to dye his hair. There is no hair.
The mother has absolutely no power to tell the father that they don't have to pay a child support obligation that they owe. She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument.


He's talking about abortion genius.
 
2011-09-21 04:27:48 PM  

liam76: Women gets to decide if there is a child, hence she has more power in if ther are child support payments.


There are several steps a man can take to prevent the possibility of a child.
 
2011-09-21 04:27:57 PM  

guestguy: EWreckedSean: Because it is a lot different of a choice to have a child if you know up front that you will be responsible yourself for supporting it.

But you're not responsible yourself...either way, the mother will have help in supporting the child. By allowing the father to opt out, that financial burden is merely shifted to the state.


So if a woman, 10 weeks pregnant, knows the father will not financially support it and knows she cannot financially support it herself, gives birth anyways, its the fathers fault?

I wonder why that is.
 
2011-09-21 04:28:35 PM  

liam76: Theaetetus: She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument

How does that shred my argument?

Jesus man you are dense. If there is a child guy has to pay. Women gets to decide if there is a child, hence she has more power in if ther are child support payments.


If there's a child, both the mother and the father have to pay.
If there is no child, neither the mother nor the father have to pay.
Thus, before the child is born, neither the mother nor the father have any child support obligations. Accordingly, before the child is born, neither the mother nor the father can decide whether they have to fulfill some hypothetical obligation. It'd be the same as deciding what color to dye the hair you don't have.

/still waiitng for how "quasi-contractual obligation" to the mother after she has a kid is different than child support

If he defaults on his obligation to the mother, the mother can sue him.
If he defaults on his obligation to the child, the child can sue him.
The different plaintiffs are due to the different rights and different standing.
 
2011-09-21 04:29:11 PM  

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: liam76: No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.

No, she doesn't. That's like saying a bald person has sole power in determining what color to dye his hair. There is no hair.
The mother has absolutely no power to tell the father that they don't have to pay a child support obligation that they owe. She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument.

He's talking about abortion genius.


[pat pat] Yes, kiddo. Now, go play with your dolls.
 
2011-09-21 04:30:54 PM  

EWreckedSean: How am I not responsible myself? That aside, that's a hell of a condemnation on woman right there that they can't financially support a child on their own.



Huh? You're the one who framed it as such:

"What happens now is that they expect the father to be an ATM machine. Then many of them spend years dodging child support for children they never wanted while the mother ends up relying on the state instead through food stamps, low cost housing, welfare, medicaid, etc."
 
2011-09-21 04:31:40 PM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: liam76: No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.

No, she doesn't. That's like saying a bald person has sole power in determining what color to dye his hair. There is no hair.
The mother has absolutely no power to tell the father that they don't have to pay a child support obligation that they owe. She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument.

He's talking about abortion genius.

[pat pat] Yes, kiddo. Now, go play with your dolls.


Well you were headed to the too stupid to be worth talking to list sooner or later. I guess you can go there now.
 
2011-09-21 04:34:19 PM  

Headso: If she gets away with victimizing him I guess so, just like how a mugger gets to spend your money after he victimizes you.


It isn't all victimization, I love that you try to minimize it like that. The victimization is no doubt a negligible fraction compared to the perfect use conception rate. All contraception has a fail rate. A 21 year old male, who wants to have sex with his girlfriend but not have a child, what should he do? What if he wants to have kids in the future? Vasectomy is out. Looks like condoms are his only choice.

Again you hinged your argument on unprotected sex. The perfect use conception rate of a condom, if he uses it perfectly with his girlfriend for one year, he will have a 2% chance of impregnating her. What would you say to him? The same thing?

Because if so, your argument is not about unprotected sex but instead that if a man has protected or unprotected sex he consents to having a child. Do you believe in abstinence only sex education?
 
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 »
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